Quark used to be the benchmark for page layout. Not many people really liked it, but everybody used it. Competitors came and went. Adobe's InDesign was the first to make a significant splash.
Then Quark sat around on its ass while users were moving to OSX. It took far too long for them to properly support it. In the meantime, InDesign made significant in-roads in the market. It helped a lot that InDesign worked very well with Photoshop and Illustrator (natch). Quark has never been super-responsive to their customers, because there wasn't really a need. They owned the market so thoroughly for so many years.
Quark survives today because there are a number of companies who went full in on a Quark workflow. They have custom and/or expensive XTensions that are used extensively as part of their core operations. Newspapers, for example: to do ad placement, dumping classifieds from whatever gimcrack system they use, etc. Quark has improved quite a bit recently, but they lost a lot of ground. They completely lost the battle at the education level. Graphic design classes teach Adobe products for the most part. Adobe has historically been a lot easier to work with with educational pricing than Quark.
Not for ever - they are working on a method of doing bridge-based WebRTC which is nevertheless end-to-end secure - see https://datatracker.ietf.org/w... . AIUI, the way it works is that it established point-to-point encrypted tunnels between the endpoints for key distribution so the bridge isn't able to decrypt the data even if it wanted to, and yet, you don't need N->N transmission of streams.
WebRTC-based services, in the form of e.g. https://meet.jit.si/, are end-to-end secure and decentralised. Not sure if Windows Phone has any browser which supports WebRTC, though.
web.skype.com lets me log in using Firefox, no problem, so presumably it works there as well.
It a load of rubbish from the original author. There's no reason whatsoever that loss of this data would cause problems in IE or Edge. Removing roots from MS's program doesn't happen without human input.
"What I don't understand (and maybe because I haven't looked too hard) is what "Old POS terminals" have to do with Mozilla."
The certificates they are using chain up to publicly-trusted roots, and so are covered by Mozilla's policies. In 20-year hindsight, that was a bad idea, but it was a decision taken a long time ago.
On the other hand, the local auto mechanic probably has a dozen wrenches and a parts truck that comes around every other day that can bring a new one in for nearly zero overhead. So she might be willing to accept a higher failure rate.
Using male gendered pronouns for overwhelmingly male-dominated professions isn't sexism. If you threw a rock into a crowd, you'd hit more male teachers than female mechanics. It's okay to assume a mechanic is a "he" and a teacher is a "she".
Or, alternately, go whole hog. Instead of someone working in aerospace or other sensitive area, say a woman working in aerospace or other sensitive area.
Your last paragraph suggests that your pronoun gendering may have been intentional and part of a larger issue you wished to promote. If so, bravo! I award you one Internet point for being aggressively subtle.
This is one of those things that SXSW doesn't want to burn a lot of calories on trying to wrangle. SXSW is still mostly focussed on music and movies. Nerds fighting over video game politics are not in the wheelhouse.
Put another way, you go to SXSW to have a great time. You do not go there because you want to fight over ideology. Nobody from the alt-rock music scene is making angry Tweets because the alt-country guys have a venue, nor vice versa. As far as SXSW is concerned, both factions are music fans who might find common ground, but otherwise are not interested in open warfare.
Activists on games, they're not so chill. (They'll become chill, after gaming has passed through the "Fonzie Barrier," where rebellion and fear mellow and become folksy humor.)
TL;DR: SXSW isn't interested in burning resources on your gay slapfight over who's right on the Internet.
Er, it's a wiki. Add it.
The code for the DRM module Firefox uses is not part of the Firefox build system, but is downloaded at runtime. This can be done whether it's a Firefox built by Mozilla or not. So the DRM question has no bearing on whether you can call your version Firefox or not.
This series of blog posts: http://blog.gerv.net/2010/01/p... explains why Mozilla doesn't let just anyone call their modified version "Firefox".
The bug is unfixed for philosophical reasons, not because it's hard to fix. The Bugzilla developers feel history should be immutable.
And there has been no rewrite into another language since that bug was filed; Bugzilla as released by Mozilla has always been in Perl.
There was no issue with the Bugzilla software here; the problem was that a user reused their password on another site, which suffered a breach.
I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.