Wayland is critically important, which is why (unlike Pulseaudio) it hasn't already been rolled out yet. Qt has integrated it, Gnome has, KDE is porting KWin to implement it. There have been fairly few technical criticisms, the only one I've seen made with any muster has been network transparency - but even that could be solved rather easily given the way Wayland works with framebuffers.

On the flip side, Xorg has you dragging around unused cruft and the way it interfaces with the kernel forces some possible security holes be left open, holes that Wayland will fix.

They deferred on that to the platform. And stuff being routed to the CDM won't be handled by the browser anyway.

These licenses, by allowing in the "little bit of evil" that is represented by allowing their use in commercial proprietary contexts

Fixed that. Now this sentence is true.

The more compromising stance of organizations of MIT, Berkeley, Apache, and Mozilla -- and the myriad software projects that followed their lead -- is what changed the landscape.

Unfortunately you can't really assert that any of what you said is true. There are GPL projects that are equally, if not more, successful than equivalent projects under those licenses.

That's why they are only permitting the DRM module the bare minimum it requires to do it's job. Thus protecting your system from unauthorised access by the DRM module.

And I don't believe for a moment this is possible. Not by fault of Mozilla, but by what is necessary for the CDM to function and enforce the DRM protections.

The moment a browser (or OS) tries to put in technological measures to defend against the owner, your computer is not yours.

It's not really the job of browser vendors to make sure you can be a freeloading shithead is it?

It's not really the browser's job to defend other processes from your assault, now is it? We'd call that malware in any other context.

Anything other than that is freeloading off those of us who pay.

No offense, but the industries in question are making money hand over fist. No real loss is occurring.

Either you allow the CDM direct access to the OS so it can perform the check on its own, or you can provide an interface that can be trivially spoofed.

This is where I doubt that they can actually sandbox it. The CDM needs OS access so it can try and leverage nonsense like Windows' Protected Media Path. I'm not sure what they intend to do with the sandbox, realistically.

I still doubt that Firefox will, or can, do anything to protect the CDM.

Mozilla did not "oust" him. He stepped down after the wider community spoke up. This is being forced by a bunch of DRM happy corps (MS, Apple, Google) and their media industry buddies (Netflix, MPAA, et. al.)

It's important that a browser protect me and my rights on my system, not the business model of other DRM-happy corporations.

Does Firefox's architecture actually get in the way of users eventually pirating the content?

I doubt it, but it's likely that the CDM will attempt to check the Firefox binary and assert that the one loading it is signed by Mozilla and refuse to operate otherwise.

It's the CDM's job to fight off attack attempts against itself, not Firefox's. All Firefox will do is attempt to isolate the (undoubtedly security hole riddled) CDM and protect the end user from it - but given the closed source nature of the CDM this may not be possible.

It's already trivial to do that. What would "clearly marking them as security vulnerabilities" gain?

Intel last released a PowerVR based IGP with the CloverTrail+ chips, Baytrail and onward will be using their internal GPU designs. Apple does use them, but I suspect that, being such a huge customer, they probably get complete documentation and wrote their own driver that doesn't suck. Everyone else gets Android-only userspace blobs of bad to shit quality.

Where's the 'don't touch my old fucking settings because i'm a hating curmudgeon' button, because I think its time for it.

Don't worry, they kept the important parts. That being the fact that addons in Firefox are all powerful and can give you back everything you liked and hide all the new stuff, something that's never been diminished.

for not having the "correct" beliefs*

More importantly, for contributing $1000 to a political campaign in favor of an amendment that explicitly attacked a segment of the populace, on top of repeatedly (and publicly) supporting congressmen who regularly express bigoted attitudes towards homosexuals. So yeah, he was given the lead position on Mozilla and people flipped their shit because he backed politicians that spew bullshit to demonize them.

when someone objects or defends his right to an opinion, he, too, is "intolerant"

No, this is the old "you must be tolerant of my intolerance" nonsense. No one has to sit back and accept being walked over, particularly when the basis for it is entirely hollow.

Scratch a liberal or "advocacy group" and you see the same rotten core you saw in 1933.

Wait, what? Is this an indirect Godwin?

And the terrible crime here is that the man contributed to a *successful* change to the CA constitution

What does it having been successful have to do with anything?

after a previous *successful* propostion to the same effect was defeated by the same pack of "tolerance" bullies?

What are you referring to?

They're "intolerant bigots" because CEO stepped down over public furor regarding him being... an intolerant bigot? No, your logic is broken.

I once worked three jobs to be able to afford 1/2 a bedroom in a two bedroom apartment with three other guys.

What is this supposed to be, a badge of honor? Or is this stockholm syndrome? "Well I subjected myself to systemic abuse and overwork to just barely keep myself from becoming homless! There's nothing wrong with that!"

At what point did it become necessary that the government mandate a wage level so that people can live the way they want without incentive to live better?

At the moment it was obvious that corporations were more powerful than most people, and would would abuse them to the extent they could get away with.

you think I'm a mean-spirited jerk with no empathy because I want people to have an incentive to get a better life and improve their skills?

You're a mean spirited jerk because you assume that people who live in poverty have the time and resources to improve their skills.

Get a roommate or two and pool your resources.

Which works well for a small subset of people.

In the richest country that *ever* existed, in an era of post-scarcity (at least here in the US) with productivity through the roof and increasing rapidly, how can we allow the removal of incentives for people to work hard and get ahead and make something of themselves.

Indeed, in the richest country that ever existed why are people paid such poor wages and so often do without basic necessities (that they can't afford due to said same low wages)? Don't worry, the corporations you exalt are doing a great job at removing incentives for people to work hard by ensuring that hard work doesn't necessarily pay off.

Your argument strikes me as wanting to tell people the "man" is keeping you down and you'll never succeed so don't work hard and we'll make sure you can live a life of relative luxury.

No, it's about pointing out how the system is rigged and they are being taken advantage of for the sake of quarterly profits.