Not coincidentally, Chrome isn't unrecognizable, it's dependable. Supporting the management status quo is the opposite of supporting the product status quo Firefox now is an absolutely unrecognizable product compared to Firefox 5 years ago. ![]() ![]() People who hate the thing you hate are not "haters," and people who like the thing you hate are not "sheep." Very few people are choosing their opinions in order to annoy you, or in order to annoy Mozilla. One can end up in contradictory situations like that when you judge people based purely on how much they agree with you, or with institutions you support. It's also a really bizarre view of the Firefox complainers, who are the ones demanding that the status quo be kept. This is a bad view of users and people in general. I just don't understand why HN is making this out to be some Firefox killer. Literally all this info does is to tell Mozzilla that you installed a Firefox or if you are some kind of weirdo who moves some 10kb web installer from friend to friend to install Firefox they might know that all these people at some level know each other, but again this only applies to Windows users. Most plausible is that some IT department would have same installer on all the machines and then Mozzilla would know that all these machines belong to same organization, but if your IT department is running network installer for every instance for Firefox they install then please fire your IT department. Secondly who is downloading Firefox binaries off of Mozzilla website for a "secure" machine? That only happens if you are running Windows and at that point your pants are already soiled. Why would you be downloading a network installer only to move it with USB to another supposedly "secure" machine just so THAT machine can then do the downloading part instead of just downloading the binary on that machine in the first place? Hoping to do a proper write-up soon to make it more approachable for others, once things cool down a bit at work.Įxcept that scenario is not plausible at all. More activity there, and self-hosting related discussion/issues/PRs in the fxa github repo, might push them to put in more effort to make it easier to self-host the stack and bring/keep docs up to date. If you take it on, there are helpful people in the #fxa: Matrix room. Happy I did it but unless you like doing this kind of stuff as a challenge, I'd probably recommend using some alternative extension, until it becomes more approachable. Once up and running it has been hands off, not much maintenance at all. The pieces are all there and it's all done in the open but it's clearly built with the mindset of a cloud-based startup. ![]() I managed to but it took a couple of days to dig through the sources and figure out exactly what is necessary and disable all the third-party integrations. It involves several interconnected microservices and a handful of separate mysql databases. To get the last meter and be fully self-reliant you need to go down quite the rabbit hole and set up the fxa stack. This means some metadata (not the synced data itself, mind you, but still) will be shared with Mozilla and a surprising number of third-parties. Most people just piggyback on Mozilla's servers for this. However, you still need a way to authenticate. ![]() Easy-peasy, you can set it up trivially in minutes if you're used to spin up docker containers and have a database server. For the syncserver itself, where all the data is synced and stored, you just need tokenserver+syncstorage, plus a database backend of choice.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |