Something to take seriously.

Discuss various technical topics not related to Mozilla.

User avatar
Posts: 1177
Joined: February 14th, 2011, 2:34 am

Post Posted August 6th, 2016, 12:08 pm

Gusar wrote:
therube wrote:only it should be ineffectual in EME-free.

It's actually fully functional. It's just that no CDMs (content decryption modules) will be downloaded, and of course websites will be told that EME isn't there. Unless you go to about:config and flip on media.eme.enabled, then even the "EME-free" build should actually do EME.

Well, if that's the bottom line, it's a joke - and once again shows how patronizing and disrespectful Mozilla can be at times (regardless of the official line) : based on that description above, those EME-free builds are just coming with a preference toggled (which I'd do on my own anyways, because I've learned not to trust Mozilla default settings and always take a look in about:config to see what is going on) and If I got this right, all that it takes to actually have a *non EME-free* version -with all the implications- is to revert that preference.

Again, it's a joke: since these versions aren't intended for average users and are intentionally out of the way, would have killed them to actually compile those with the --disable-eme flag?

The bug referred to by barbaz makes for quite an interesting reading IMHO, because people are arguing about how making Eme-free versions available may be not such a good idea, in that they may somehow give the impression that this EME stuff may be bad (hint : it is ... putting proprietary third-party blobs, binaries, decryption modules, whatever they want to call it into an open-source browser *is* in fact a bad idea) , then they end up with this ridicolus "solution" - effectively treating us as idiots.

I'm under the impression that, strange as may sound, some of them feel trapped or at least uneasy inside the open source paradigm and would rather enjoy to have free rein and put whatever they want in the browser without ever having to tell anyone about it or justify it.

This move really makes no sense: since these Eme-free versions aren't easily discoverable at all, those "average" users which they care for so much (and that allegedly need to be protected from themselves) will likely never find them, much less understand what the deal is with these versions - so why didn't they make the right thing for once and give us proper Eme-free versions?


User avatar
Posts: 18481
Joined: March 10th, 2004, 9:59 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Post Posted August 7th, 2016, 5:28 am

Only your hairdresser knows for sure!

First two, are before.
Second two, are after.
No reboot or anything else needed, just flip the one Pref, & wham bam thank you ma'am. ... _right.png
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball CopyURL+ FetchTextURL FlashGot NoScript


User avatar
Posts: 11836
Joined: October 19th, 2007, 4:23 am
Location: ... Da' Swamp

Post Posted August 9th, 2016, 5:40 am

Looks like EFF is trying to get the FCC to let customers know when something is compromised by the DRM.
You have a right to know what you're buying


User avatar
Posts: 2123
Joined: May 5th, 2004, 10:40 am
Location: Belgium

Post Posted August 9th, 2016, 11:44 am

That's a great initiative. The full letters have some interesting examples.
Intelligent alien life does exist, otherwise they would have contacted us.

Return to MozillaZine Tech

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests