Re: Firefox doesn't (really) load pages on Debian Bookworm

On 2025-06-17 4:36 PM, Nikolay Tychina wrote: Hello everyone! Please help me to fix Firefox - it just stopped working a while ago. And by that I mean that it sometimes - most of the times - won't load web pages, or it takes a really long time before it finally loads pages. Open FF&

Re: Firefox doesn't (really) load pages on Debian Bookworm

On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 11:36:15PM +0300, Nikolay Tychina wrote: > $ cat /etc/debian_version > 12.11 > $ dpkg -l | grep firefox > ii  firefox-esr 128.11.0esr-1~deb12u1 That is what I have - I do not have any problems with FF taking a long time to load pages. Network timeouts are s

Firefox doesn't (really) load pages on Debian Bookworm

Hello everyone! Please help me to fix Firefox - it just stopped working a while ago. And by that I mean that it sometimes - most of the times - won't load web pages, or it takes a really long time before it finally loads pages. Chromium works just fine, loading pages without any notic

Re: Weird keyboard issues with Firefox in KDE6 Plasma Wayland

ssues and came up empty > > - it happens in both Debian-provided Firefox ESR (128.10.0esr-1) and the > Firefox upstream binaries (138.0.1 right now, but has been for a while) > - it happens with a fresh firefox profile > - it does NOT happen if firefox is started with MOZ_ENABLE_WAY

Weird keyboard issues with Firefox in KDE6 Plasma Wayland

onths ago and it has been a very smooth experience. I have had a few issues with Firefox that could have started back then, but I can't really tell because they are so minor I immediately shrugged them off. Issue #1 I cannot login to Paypal because I can only enter five digits of the 6-digit

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

On 2025-03-17 at 12:18, James H. H. Lampert wrote: > . . . And it looks like all the dire predictions of Firefox breaking > if not updated right away, before the root cert expires, have been > greatly exaggerated. I read an article in the past few days which finally mentioned exactly w

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

I am free for a couple of hours now as well. On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 12:18:49 -0400, James H. H. Lampert wrote: > > . . . And it looks like all the dire predictions of Firefox breaking > if not updated right away, before the root cert expires, have been > greatly exaggerated. > > -- > JHHL >

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

. . . And it looks like all the dire predictions of Firefox breaking if not updated right away, before the root cert expires, have been greatly exaggerated. -- JHHL

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

It's Mozilla's. Quoting [1], Mozilla grants you a personal, non-exclusive license to install and use the “Executable Code" version of the Firefox web browser, which is the ready-to-run version of Firefox from an authorized source that you can open and use right away. and These Ter

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

you a personal, non-exclusive license to install and use the “Executable Code" version of the Firefox web browser, which is the ready-to-run version of Firefox from an authorized source that you can open and use right away. and These Terms only apply to the Executable Code version

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

Jonathan Dowland wrote: > Simple answer: these (awful) terms apply to *binaries* supplied by Mozilla, > not source. So, Debian is unaffected. Is this Debian's official position? (Asking because it's being cited as such on social media.) -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

w. I hope not. But >>> irrespectively, users of Debian's Firefox packages are not bound by >>> Mozilla's EULA. >> >> Have you confirmed this with a lawyer? > > No, I haven't. I think he means a barrister (or maybe a solicitor?).

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

On Sat Mar 8, 2025 at 4:37 PM GMT, Joey Hess wrote: Jonathan Dowland wrote: Whether or not the data-gathering is enabled in the Debian builds (and whether it's on by default in the sources), I don't know. I hope not. But irrespectively, users of Debian's Firefox packages a

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

Hi, On Sat, Mar 08, 2025 at 05:43:32PM -, Greg wrote: > Why wouldn't Debian's Firefox sell or share user data whereas a > non-Debian package or binary might or would, according to the vague > legalese of the new EULA? If Debian users are not bound, by what > method

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

Richmond writes: > I see also in the build config for debian firefox esr it says: > --enable-official-branding That does not affect end users of Debian's Firefox in any way. It just means that Debian has permission from Mozilla to use the Firefox trademark. -- John Hasler j...@s

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

On 2025-03-08, Joey Hess wrote: > > > Jonathan Dowland wrote: >> Whether or not the data-gathering is enabled in the Debian builds (and >> whether it's on by default in the sources), I don't know. I hope not. But >> irrespectively, users of Debian's Fire

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

On 9/3/25 02:22, Richmond wrote: Where is Iceweasel? Over there... .. Bret Busby Armadale West Australia (UTC+0800) ..

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

ources), I don't know. I >>>> hope not. But irrespectively, users of Debian's Firefox packages are >>>> not bound by Mozilla's EULA. >>> >>> Have you confirmed this with a lawyer? >> >> What? Why wouldn't Debian's Firefox se

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

Greg writes: > On 2025-03-08, Joey Hess wrote: >> >> >> Jonathan Dowland wrote: >>> Whether or not the data-gathering is enabled in the Debian builds >>> (and whether it's on by default in the sources), I don't know. I >>> hope not.

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

Jonathan Dowland wrote: > Whether or not the data-gathering is enabled in the Debian builds (and > whether it's on by default in the sources), I don't know. I hope not. But > irrespectively, users of Debian's Firefox packages are not bound by > Mozilla's EULA.

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

On 3/5/25 03:46, Jonathan Dowland wrote: On Tue Mar 4, 2025 at 10:10 PM GMT, Richmond wrote: I looked at about:buildconfig for Firefox ESR on Debian, and it says it is built from a Mozilla source: Source Built from https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-esr128/rev

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

"Jonathan Dowland" writes: > Whether or not the data-gathering is enabled in the Debian builds (and > whether it's on by default in the sources), I don't know. I hope not. > But irrespectively, users of Debian's Firefox packages are not bound by > Mozill

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

On Tue Mar 4, 2025 at 10:10 PM GMT, Richmond wrote: I looked at about:buildconfig for Firefox ESR on Debian, and it says it is built from a Mozilla source: Source Built from https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-esr128/rev/f3783ad20bf40a11fb4b7ed088236c1a9f7be362 So won't it be doin

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

"Jonathan Dowland" writes: > On Sat Mar 1, 2025 at 11:50 AM GMT, Frank Guthausen wrote: >> If this questions affects the DFSG, Debian must take a position. The >> obvious elephant in the room is the question whether Firefox can be >> part of the official distribut

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

On Tuesday, 04-03-2025 at 21:05 Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Sat Mar 1, 2025 at 11:50 AM GMT, Frank Guthausen wrote: > > If this questions affects the DFSG, Debian must take a position. The > > obvious elephant in the room is the question whether Firefox can be > >

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

On Sat Mar 1, 2025 at 11:50 AM GMT, Frank Guthausen wrote: If this questions affects the DFSG, Debian must take a position. The obvious elephant in the room is the question whether Firefox can be part of the official distribution. The compatibility question between Mozilla ToS and DFSG needs to

Re: WAS Firefox adds a controversial ToS

works if I use the ipv4 address of that 3d printer.  Noticeably a hell of a lot faster than firefox-esr which is why I liked it in the first place.  Is there something else I should turn on? This is a known problem of the chromium engine. It's called 'Async DNS resolver'. <ht

Re: WAS Firefox adds a controversial ToS

; my /etc/hosts file for my local network. [Turn off DNS over HTTP.] > it still disabled after turning that off, Greg.  Only works if I use the > ipv4 address of that 3d printer.  Noticeably a hell of a lot faster than > firefox-esr which is why I liked it in the first place.  Is there some

Re: WAS Firefox adds a controversial ToS

it still disabled after turning that off, Greg.  Only works if I use the ipv4 address of that 3d printer.  Noticeably a hell of a lot faster than firefox-esr which is why I liked it in the first place.  Is there something else I should turn on? chromium also try's to open kwallet at lau

Re: WAS Firefox adds a controversial ToS

On Sat, Mar 01, 2025 at 16:49:05 -0500, gene heskett wrote: > On 3/1/25 16:11, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 01, 2025 at 15:43:39 -0500, gene heskett wrote: > > > Chromium has hijacked port 80 for google's exclusive use, bypassing > > > totally > > > my /etc/hosts file for my local network.

Re: WAS Firefox adds a controversial ToS

On 3/1/25 16:11, Greg Wooledge wrote: On Sat, Mar 01, 2025 at 15:43:39 -0500, gene heskett wrote: Chromium has hijacked port 80 for google's exclusive use, bypassing totally my /etc/hosts file for my local network. You keep saying this, but nobody else is having this issue. The closest approxi

Re: WAS Firefox adds a controversial ToS

On Sat, Mar 01, 2025 at 15:43:39 -0500, gene heskett wrote: > Chromium has hijacked port 80 for google's exclusive use, bypassing totally > my /etc/hosts file for my local network. You keep saying this, but nobody else is having this issue. The closest approximation to your experience that anyone

Re: WAS Firefox adds a controversial ToS

On 3/1/25 09:33, Greg wrote: On 2025-03-01, gene heskett wrote: On 3/1/25 07:20, Richmond wrote: It's worth reading this too. https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/ Which, while rewriting it to use more palatable language, does not change it to where it

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

* On 2025 01 Mar 08:33 -0600, Greg wrote: > On 2025-03-01, gene heskett wrote: > > On 3/1/25 07:20, Richmond wrote: > >> It's worth reading this too. > >> > >> https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/ > > > > Whi

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

On 3/1/25 09:20, Richmond wrote: gene heskett writes: On 3/1/25 07:20, Richmond wrote: It's worth reading this too. https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/ Which, while rewriting it to use more palatable language, does not change it to where it only

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

{ "emoji": "🌷", "version": 1 }

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

Op za 1 mrt 2025 om 15:33 schreef Greg : > What about Chromium? Or let's write one ourselves!!! > I guess that would be easier said than done. Who else wants to take packages.debian.org/qutebrowser and morph it into a qutebrowser.hs or better following the lead of packages.debian.org/xmonad?

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

On 2025-03-01, gene heskett wrote: > On 3/1/25 07:20, Richmond wrote: >> It's worth reading this too. >> >> https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/ > > Which, while rewriting it to use more palatable language, does not > change it

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

eye agree wid u AJ dat dis is a secrecy nitemare and relinquishes all proprietary ownership of information but eye welcum it as utterly funny since information wants to be free praise be to stallman.org and allA Excerpt from ToS: > > You give Mozilla all rights necessary to operate F

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

gene heskett writes: > On 3/1/25 07:20, Richmond wrote: >> It's worth reading this too. >> >> https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/ > > Which, while rewriting it to use more palatable language, does not > change it to where it onl

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

On 3/1/25 7:53 AM, gene heskett wrote: On 3/1/25 07:20, Richmond wrote: It's worth reading this too. https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/ Which, while rewriting it to use more palatable language, does not change it to where it only needs lots of salt.

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

On 3/1/25 07:20, Richmond wrote: It's worth reading this too. https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/ Which, while rewriting it to use more palatable language, does not change it to where it only needs lots of salt. The thing that irks me is that they

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

It's worth reading this too. https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

cts the DFSG, Debian must take a position. The obvious elephant in the room is the question whether Firefox can be part of the official distribution. The compatibility question between Mozilla ToS and DFSG needs to be enlightened by someone with more legal expertise than me. [1] https://

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

On 2/28/25 5:58 PM, ajz3...@gmail.com wrote: Is this real? Firefox just introduced the "Terms of Use" document, that includes some really disturbing entries. The Worst Firefox Update Ever https://youtu.be/E4JOnQY_qbo Info from Mozilla: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/fi

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 11:05:01PM -0600, John Hasler wrote: > I don't believe that this applies to copies of Firefox installed from > the Debian archive. I'm convinced that they'll try to weasel themselves through. Given the hyperventilation many states show these days wi

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

I don't believe that this applies to copies of Firefox installed from the Debian archive. I think that it is only for binaries installed from the Mozilla site. To make it apply to the Debian package the installer would have to pop of an "I agree" clicky. Not likely. Some restri

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

On Saturday, 01-03-2025 at 09:58 ajz3...@gmail.com wrote: > Is this real? Firefox just introduced the "Terms of Use" document, that > includes some really disturbing entries. I agree, that is disturbing. My first initial thoughts is that this will relate to A.I. and the n

Firefox adds a controversial ToS

Is this real? Firefox just introduced the "Terms of Use" document, that includes some really disturbing entries. The Worst Firefox Update Ever https://youtu.be/E4JOnQY_qbo Info from Mozilla: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-news/firefox-terms-of-use/ The &qu

Re: Firefox

On 12/02/2025 17:24, Yassine Chaouche wrote: Le 2/11/25 à 23:39, e...@gmx.us a écrit : Is there a way to manually suspend or crash a tab? I don't know if you can do this natively in firefox, about:processes right column. The button appears on hover. I have no idea what "c

Re: Firefox

Le 2/11/25 à 23:39, e...@gmx.us a écrit : On 2/10/25 05:04, Yassine Chaouche wrote: Le 2/10/25 à 04:18, William Torrez Corea a écrit : Firefox is using much memory and using swap memory: Hello William. I recommend installing the Great Suspender / Tab Suspender extension. It will save you a

Re: Firefox

ications as well, unless it is > > > > the last resort measure. It increases chance to lost data stored in > > > > browser profile (list of opened tabs, passwords, etc.). > > > > > > If Firefox is killed or crashes I believe you get the 'Restore Sessio

Re: Firefox

On 2/10/25 05:04, Yassine Chaouche wrote: > Le 2/10/25 à 04:18, William Torrez Corea a écrit : >> Firefox is using much memory and using swap memory: > > Hello William. > I recommend installing the Great Suspender / Tab Suspender extension. > It will save you a few gigs of

Re: Firefox

y running on an i5 > system with 16GB RAM, and the system monitor shows System Load Average > 9.18 and RAM 83% in use. > > I would not access the wunderground web site with Firefox. Too destructive. > > .. > Bret Busby > Armadale > West Australia > (UTC+0800) We us

Re: Firefox

On 2025-02-11, Max Nikulin wrote: >>> >>> If Firefox is killed or crashes I believe you get the 'Restore Session' >>> page instead of the home page when you restart it (i.e. exactly the >>> option to retrieve your open tabs at the moment of the kill

Re: Firefox

opened tabs, passwords, etc.). If Firefox is killed or crashes I believe you get the 'Restore Session' page instead of the home page when you restart it (i.e. exactly the option to retrieve your open tabs at the moment of the kill or crash). Are you killing Firefox just to avoid a coupl

Re: Firefox

would not access the wunderground web site with Firefox. Too destructive. .. Bret Busby Armadale West Australia (UTC+0800) ..

Re: Firefox

opened tabs, passwords, etc.). > > If Firefox is killed or crashes I believe you get the 'Restore Session' > page instead of the home page when you restart it (i.e. exactly the > option to retrieve your open tabs at the moment of the kill or crash). Yes, that is my daily e

Re: Firefox

e a higher limit than 4GB, but the idea is to make sure that a single runaway process can't eat up all the memory and make the whole machine unusable. [ Firefox is still perfectly usable on my i386 machine, so 4GB per process *should* not affect normal use. ] Stefan

Re: Firefox

On 2025-02-10, Max Nikulin wrote: > > I am against suggestions to *kill* applications as well, unless it is > the last resort measure. It increases chance to lost data stored in > browser profile (list of opened tabs, passwords, etc.). > > > If Firefox is killed or cras

Re: Firefox

developers in respect to browser resource consumption? The topic becomes a candidate for FAQ, so it may be reasonable to add some links to <https://wiki.debian.org/WebBrowsers> and <https://wiki.debian.org/Firefox#Troubleshooting>

Re: Firefox

On 10/02/2025 13:12, Eyal Lebedinsky wrote: On 10/2/25 16:06, David Wright wrote: On Sun 09 Feb 2025 at 21:18:31 (-0600), William Torrez Corea wrote: Firefox is using much memory and using swap memory:[...] Kill it and restart it occasionally. Rather than kill it, what I do is: Ctrl

Re: Firefox

Some people are just used to operating on their own disorganization lol! > On Feb 10, 2025, at 9:03 AM, Greg wrote: > > On 2025-02-10, Cindy Sue Causey wrote: >> >> Ditto on the "open fewer tabs" with news being the offenders in my usage >> case. One's a fairly trustworthy local Atlanta stati

Re: Firefox

On 2025-02-10, Cindy Sue Causey wrote: > > Ditto on the "open fewer tabs" with news being the offenders in my usage > case. One's a fairly trustworthy local Atlanta station, and the other > mixes decent leads with flat out click bait. I've never understood people who say: I've got 580 open tabs.

Re: Firefox

Le 2/10/25 à 04:18, William Torrez Corea a écrit : Firefox is using much memory and using swap memory: Hello William. I recommend installing the Great Suspender / Tab Suspender extension. It will save you a few gigs of RAM by putting unused tabs on sleep. Best, -- yassine -- sysadm http

Re: Firefox

>> On Sun 09 Feb 2025 at 23:06:47 (-0600), David Wright wrote: > On Sun 09 Feb 2025 at 21:18:31 (-0600), William Torrez Corea wrote: > > Firefox is using much memory and using swap memory. > > I have 8GB memory DDR3L 1600MHz > > > > Memory: 93% 7.2GiB > >

Re: Firefox

On 10/2/25 11:18, William Torrez Corea wrote: Firefox is using much memory and using swap memory: I have 8GB memory DDR3L 1600MHz Memory: 93% 7.2GiB Swap: 31% 2.7GiB So, how many windows and tabs do you have open? And, "conspicuous by its absence", in your message, is the versi

Re: Firefox

On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 1:27 AM William Torrez Corea wrote: > > Firefox is using much memory and using swap memory: > > I have 8GB memory DDR3L 1600MHz > > Memory: 93% 7.2GiB > Swap: 31% 2.7GiB > > Firefox > > Software Requirements > > Please note that Linu

Re: Firefox

On 10/2/25 16:06, David Wright wrote: On Sun 09 Feb 2025 at 21:18:31 (-0600), William Torrez Corea wrote: Firefox is using much memory and using swap memory: I have 8GB memory DDR3L 1600MHz Memory: 93% 7.2GiB Swap: 31% 2.7GiB Kill it and restart it occasionally. Rather than kill it, what

Re: Firefox

On Sun 09 Feb 2025 at 21:18:31 (-0600), William Torrez Corea wrote: > Firefox is using much memory and using swap memory: > > I have 8GB memory DDR3L 1600MHz > > Memory: 93% 7.2GiB > Swap: 31% 2.7GiB Kill it and restart it occasionally. If you keep a lot of tabs open,

Re: Firefox

On Sun, 2025-02-09 at 22:33 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Sun, Feb 09, 2025 at 21:18:31 -0600, William Torrez Corea wrote: > > Firefox is using much memory and using swap memory: > > > > I have 8GB memory DDR3L 1600MHz > > What do you expect us to tell you? &g

Re: Firefox

On Sun, Feb 09, 2025 at 21:18:31 -0600, William Torrez Corea wrote: > Firefox is using much memory and using swap memory: > > I have 8GB memory DDR3L 1600MHz What do you expect us to tell you? Web browsers are bloated monsters. If you aren't using any extensions that might be

Firefox

Firefox is using much memory and using swap memory: I have 8GB memory DDR3L 1600MHz Memory: 93% 7.2GiB Swap: 31% 2.7GiB *Firefox * Software Requirements Please note that Linux distributors may provide packages for your distribution which have different requirements. - Firefox will not run

Re: Firefox and Video DRM

On Fri 31 Jan 2025 at 14:06:57 (+0200), Henrik Ahlgren wrote: > On Fri, 2025-01-31 at 21:53 +1100, George at Clug wrote: > > The same (now that I am using backports): > > $ yt-dlp --version > > 2025.01.15 > > Due to the nature of this program (Google plays the cat and mouse > game), new versions a

Re: Don't set APT::Default-Release to backports (was: Re: Firefox and Video DRM)

On Sat, 1 Feb 2025, Max Nikulin wrote: > On 01/02/2025 02:34, Eddie wrote: > > In Synaptic go to "Settings" - 'Preferences" - "Distributions" > > then select "Prefer Versions From" - backports > > Do not do it. It is not a supposed way to use backports. > > > It is

Re: Don't set APT::Default-Release to backports (was: Re: Firefox and Video DRM)

On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 2:17 AM Max Nikulin wrote: > > On 01/02/2025 02:34, Eddie wrote: > > In Synaptic go to "Settings" - 'Preferences" - "Distributions" > > then select "Prefer Versions From" - backports > > Do not do it. It is not a supposed way to use backports. >

Don't set APT::Default-Release to backports (was: Re: Firefox and Video DRM)

On 01/02/2025 02:34, Eddie wrote: In Synaptic go to "Settings" - 'Preferences" - "Distributions" then select "Prefer Versions From" - backports Do not do it. It is not a supposed way to use backports. It is therefore recommended to only select single backported

Re: Firefox and Video DRM

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 22:52:18 +0100 (CET) Roger Price wrote: > deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ bookworm-backports main contrib > non-free > > Note the http and not https. Is this critical ? Normally, not. It may if you use an apt cache such as apt-cacher-ng. Those cannot inspect an HTTPS str

Re: Firefox and Video DRM

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 22:41:29 +0100 (CET) Roger Price wrote: > Should I add allow-insecure=yes or allow-downgrade-to-insecure=yes to > sources.list, or is there some better way? Neither. Your line was incorrect. Also, best practice is to create a new file: root@hawk:~# cat /etc/apt/sources.list

Re: Firefox and Video DRM

On Saturday, 01-02-2025 at 09:01 Roger Price wrote: > On Fri, 31 Jan 2025, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > It is bookworm-backports, not debian-backports. See > > . > > My error, I corrected my sources.list. Command apt update then ran > correctly, > and comman

Re: Firefox and Video DRM

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > It is bookworm-backports, not debian-backports. See > . My error, I corrected my sources.list. Command apt update then ran correctly, and command root@maria ~ apt -t bookworm-backports install yt-dlp youtubedl-gu

Re: Firefox and Video DRM

On Saturday, 01-02-2025 at 08:41 Roger Price wrote: > On Fri, 31 Jan 2025, Eddie wrote: > > On 1/31/25 12:40, Henrik Ahlgren wrote: > > > Packages from backports are pinned with low priority (100) and never > > > installed by default. So in order to install a backported package, you > > > need t

Re: Firefox and Video DRM

On Sat, 1 Feb 2025, George at Clug wrote: > # apt remove yt-dlp youtubedl-gui I successfully removed yt-dlp and youtubedl-gui with this command. My sources.list contains the line deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ bookworm-backports main contrib non-free Note the http and not https. Is this cr

Re: Firefox and Video DRM

On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 4:41 PM Roger Price wrote: > > On Fri, 31 Jan 2025, Eddie wrote: > > On 1/31/25 12:40, Henrik Ahlgren wrote: > > > Packages from backports are pinned with low priority (100) and never > > > installed by default. So in order to install a backported package, you > > > need to

Re: Firefox and Video DRM

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025, Eddie wrote: > On 1/31/25 12:40, Henrik Ahlgren wrote: > > Packages from backports are pinned with low priority (100) and never > > installed by default. So in order to install a backported package, you > > need to do it like: > > > > apt install yt-dlp/bookworm-backports > >

Re: Firefox and Video DRM

On Saturday, 01-02-2025 at 03:57 Roger Price wrote: > On Fri, 31 Jan 2025, Henrik Ahlgren wrote: > > > On Fri, 2025-01-31 at 21:53 +1100, George at Clug wrote: > > > The same (now that I am using backports): > > > $ yt-dlp --version > > > 2025.01.15 > > > > In fact, 2025.01.26 just landed in b

Re: Firefox and Video DRM

On 1/31/25 12:40, Henrik Ahlgren wrote: On Fri, 2025-01-31 at 17:57 +0100, Roger Price wrote: I followed the instructions for synaptic at https://wiki.debian.org and added the repository deb http://deb.debian.org/debian bookworm-backports main contrib non-free I clicked on ¨Reload" to rel

Re: Firefox and Video DRM

On Fri, 2025-01-31 at 17:57 +0100, Roger Price wrote: > I followed the instructions for synaptic at https://wiki.debian.org and added > the repository > > deb http://deb.debian.org/debian bookworm-backports main contrib non-free > > I clicked on ¨Reload" to reload the package listings and searc

Re: Firefox and Video DRM

On Friday 31 January 2025 01:50:52 am George at Clug wrote: > Does anyone use Firefox to watch DRM protected Video content? > > Is it normal for DRM to display lots of ads whenever Firefox is > loaded? > > I did enable DRM once, a long time ago, and I started getting annoy

Re: Firefox and Video DRM

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025, Henrik Ahlgren wrote: > On Fri, 2025-01-31 at 21:53 +1100, George at Clug wrote: > > The same (now that I am using backports): > > $ yt-dlp --version > > 2025.01.15 > > In fact, 2025.01.26 just landed in bookworm-backports today. I followed the instructions for synaptic at h

Re: Firefox and Video DRM

On Fri, 2025-01-31 at 21:53 +1100, George at Clug wrote: > > > The same (now that I am using backports): > $ yt-dlp --version > 2025.01.15 Due to the nature of this program (Google plays the cat and mouse game), new versions are released fairly frequently. In fact, 2025.01.26 just landed in book

Re: Firefox and Video DRM

On Friday, 31-01-2025 at 21:42 Bret Busby wrote: > On 31/1/25 18:19, George at Clug wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, 31-01-2025 at 20:41 Henrik Ahlgren wrote: > >> On Fri, 2025-01-31 at 19:24 +1100, George at Clug wrote: > >>> I have two answers (which might not be good answers, if so someone may

Re: Firefox and Video DRM

On Friday, 31-01-2025 at 21:30 Bret Busby wrote: > On 31/1/25 16:24, George at Clug wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, 31-01-2025 at 18:57 Bret Busby wrote: > >> On 31/1/25 14:50, George at Clug wrote: > >>> Does anyone use Firefox to watch DRM protected V

Re: Firefox and Video DRM

On 31/1/25 18:19, George at Clug wrote: On Friday, 31-01-2025 at 20:41 Henrik Ahlgren wrote: On Fri, 2025-01-31 at 19:24 +1100, George at Clug wrote: I have two answers (which might not be good answers, if so someone may be able to correct me) 1) For some time now yt-dlp has been unable to

Re: Firefox and Video DRM

> > > > Does anyone use Firefox to watch DRM protected Video content? > > > > Is it normal for DRM to display lots of ads whenever Firefox is > > loaded? > > > Hi! What type(s) of ads are you seeing? In other words, are they for > random consumer product

Re: Firefox and Video DRM

On 31/1/25 16:24, George at Clug wrote: On Friday, 31-01-2025 at 18:57 Bret Busby wrote: On 31/1/25 14:50, George at Clug wrote: Does anyone use Firefox to watch DRM protected Video content? Is it normal for DRM to display lots of ads whenever Firefox is loaded? I did enable DRM once, a

Re: Firefox and Video DRM

On Friday, 31-01-2025 at 20:41 Henrik Ahlgren wrote: > On Fri, 2025-01-31 at 19:24 +1100, George at Clug wrote: > > I have two answers (which might not be good answers, if so someone may be > > able to correct me) > > > > 1) For some time now yt-dlp has been unable to download videos which I

Re: Firefox and Video DRM

On Fri, 2025-01-31 at 19:24 +1100, George at Clug wrote: > I have two answers (which might not be good answers, if so someone may be > able to correct me) > > 1) For some time now yt-dlp has been unable to download videos which I wanted > to download. If you're on Debian Stable, please be aware

Re: Firefox and Video DRM

On Fri, 2025-01-31 at 17:50 +1100, George at Clug wrote: > > Does anyone use Firefox to watch DRM protected Video content? > > Is it normal for DRM to display lots of ads whenever Firefox is > loaded? Hi! What type(s) of ads are you seeing? In other words, are they for

Re: Firefox and Video DRM

On Friday, 31-01-2025 at 18:57 Bret Busby wrote: > On 31/1/25 14:50, George at Clug wrote: > > Does anyone use Firefox to watch DRM protected Video content? > > > > Is it normal for DRM to display lots of ads whenever Firefox is loaded? > > > > I did enable

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >