Sam perhaps a little "one eyed" ?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Ridcully May 16, 2014 7:21 PM EDT |
May I recommend anyone with an interest on Mozilla-Firefox and DRM, go and read the Mozilla blog on the topic: http://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/05/14/drm-and-the-challeng... It gives the Mozilla viewpoint and I think you should see both sides. I personally detest DRM and what it does and believe that it is a huge waste of time and money.......The point that has been made again and again, is that it is totally ineffective - but it gives employment to lawyers and software engineer "hopefuls". Them's as want to copy, WILL copy, and DRM is not going to stop it, purely because any lock has a key and humans are awfully clever in finding out how to make keys.....or circumventing the locks. |
| cr May 16, 2014 10:57 PM EDT |
Is there perhaps an option to delete or otherwise render inert that Adobe-provided blob? To not download it, or to overwrite it to NULLs so it can't run and thus can't be a security hole, without ruining the ability of the rest of Firefox to run? Something like the inoculation mononono.deb gives a Debian-based system against being accidentally infected with Mono? Adobe is a known prolific source of security risks. Putting that Adobe-closed-sourced binary_large_object into a FLOSS browser is unconscionable not only because it potentially opens up the whole of the system to view by NSA and other wannabe-Stasi, but because it offers the same open-barn-door to script-kiddies and the mob. Looks like maybe Iceweasel just expanded beyond its Debian-shaped borders as the only secure Mozilla browser around. |
| Ridcully May 17, 2014 1:41 AM EDT |
Hi cr.........indeed there is. My earlier impressions from that article are that the "blob" is totally sandboxed and it can be activated or not at the user's wishes. Here is exactly what Mozilla says:Quoting:We have designed mechanisms to protect the user as much as possible. We do not view this work as fixing the core problems with DRM. We do however view this design as a step forward from DRM implementations that are unchecked in their scope. For example: This does not however precisely say that the user may turn it on or off as desired.....the above could read: "Once activated it is on permanently, but the user has the option to activate if desired." I could be misreading this. Andreas Gal at Mozilla has more on the technical side: http://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-missio... Minor update: The more I read on this matter, the less comfortable I feel. The Adobe binary "blob" seems to be wholly separate from FFox, that's fine. And it seems to be running as a plug-in which should mean it can be enabled/disabled at any time if required....However, my impressions are that the "blob" also has to be "activated" by Adobe.....and that's summat I am not entirely happy about - but it occurs within a Mozilla sandbox which is open source. I can understand Mozilla's frustration, completely, but I am not sure that this is the best way around the matter. It just doesn't "taste" right. The comments on the Mozilla site are almost universally angry and against the move....Forking is already being mooted, however I'd suggest that from cr's comment, there's no need.....Iceweasel is already with us. Minor, minor update: It's not that I have not used "binary blobs" in Linux before.....nVidia drivers immediately come to mind....it's just that DRM in any shape or form offends me completely. |
| jdixon May 17, 2014 9:18 AM EDT |
> I can understand Mozilla's frustration, completely, but I am not sure that this is the best way around the matter. It just doesn't "taste" right. There is no "right" way to enable DRM. By it's very nature it subverts your control of whatever software it works with. The best solution is simply to say "not thanks" and walk away. This is yet another example that Mozilla has lost sight of what's actually important. If I hadn't already switched to another browser after the ad screen and Eich decisions, I would be now. |
| Ridcully May 17, 2014 9:38 AM EDT |
Icecat anyone ? http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/ Oh........and I agree totally jdixon.....DRM has no place in FOSS......or anywhere else for that matter. I think FireFox is now self-destructing. |
| linux4567 May 17, 2014 11:05 AM EDT |
It looks like Brendan Eich was really ousted as he was opposing DRM in Firefox:
http://voxday.blogspot.ch/2014/05/why-brendan-eich-had-to-go... The gay issue was just a convenient excuse. I wouldn't be surprised if Google, Adobe and the content-mafia were ultimately behind the hate campaign against Brendan. |
| gus3 May 17, 2014 11:41 AM EDT |
Digital Restrictions Management. Also, remember to point out how much electricity DRM costs. That extra computation isn't free, as attested by the thermal sensors. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!