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 what it is t

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

On 12/03/2025 09:31, Jonathan Dowland wrote: On Tue Mar 11, 2025 at 9:06 PM GMT, Joey Hess wrote: 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? No, It's Mozilla'

Re: Firefox adds a controversial ToS

On Tue Mar 11, 2025 at 9:06 PM GMT, Joey Hess wrote: 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? No, It's Mozilla's. Quoting [1], Mozilla grants you a personal,

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

On 2025-03-09, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > 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

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 are not bound by Mozilla

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 or procedure are they exempt

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...@sugarbit.com Elm

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 Firefox packages are not bound by >> Mozilla's E

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

Richmond writes: > 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. But irrespectively, users of Debia

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. But irrespectively, users of Debian's Firefox packages are >>>

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. Have you confirmed this with a lawyer

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/f3783ad20bf40a11fb4b7ed08

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 > Mozilla's EULA. When upgrading the Firefox bi

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 doing the s

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 distribution. The compatibility question b

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 > > part of the official distribut

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 b

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/ > > > > Which, while rewriting it to use more palatable language, doe

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 needs lots

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 to where it only needs lots of salt.

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 Firefox, inclu

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 only needs lots of salt. > > The thing

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. The th

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 have repla

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

On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 00:27:44 -0500 "Paul M. Foster" wrote: > > [...] I'm hoping > for a fork (Zen?), but Brave is looking more promising. Could GNU IceCat[1] be an option to have as .deb package? > As for Debian, I hope they take no position on this. It really isn't > something for Debian to c

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/firefox-news/f

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 with "AI" (they seem to hav

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 restrictions apply if y

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 need for data to train

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 "crash a tab" should

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 fe

Re: Firefox

On Tue 11 Feb 2025 at 23:04:42 (+0700), Max Nikulin wrote: > On 11/02/2025 08:08, David Wright wrote: > > On Mon 10 Feb 2025 at 17:18:34 (-), Greg wrote: > > > On 2025-02-10, Max Nikulin wrote: > > > > > > > > I am against suggestions to *kill* applications as well, unless it is > > > > the la

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 RAM by putting unused tab

Re: Firefox

On Tuesday 11 February 2025 04:05:25 am Bret Busby wrote: > On 11/2/25 09:08, David Wright wrote: > > > > Yes, that is my daily experience, though I almost always start FF > > with a script that opens the local wunderground 10-day forecast. > > I close that before pressing Restore. > > Whilst I

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 or crash). > > Are you killing Firefox just to a

Re: Firefox

On 11/02/2025 08:08, David Wright wrote: On Mon 10 Feb 2025 at 17:18:34 (-), Greg wrote: 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 open

Re: Firefox

On 11/2/25 09:08, David Wright wrote: Yes, that is my daily experience, though I almost always start FF with a script that opens the local wunderground 10-day forecast. I close that before pressing Restore. Whilst I use the wunderground 10 day forecast and PWS dashboard, both for a local we

Re: Firefox

On Mon 10 Feb 2025 at 17:18:34 (-), Greg wrote: > 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.)

Re: Firefox

> PS 32GB RAM, and it still locks up to the point that a hardware button > reboot is necessary. That's up there in the inexcusable abuse range. You can mostly fix this problem by imposing a maximum to the amount of RAM used by a process. E.g. you can add a file `/etc/security/limits.d/10-mylimits

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 crashes I believe you get the

Re: Firefox

On 10/02/2025 10:33, Greg Wooledge wrote: Web browsers are bloated monsters. (side note: just as desktop environments or even operating systems.) Does anybody have a bookmark for an article with a balanced view on degree of responsibility of - web site developers, - users, - browser develope

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 Shi

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://abo

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 > > Swap: 31% 2.7GiB I minimize the swap le

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 version number of

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 Linux distributors may provide packages for y

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 I

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, then either avoid visiting

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? > > Web browsers are bloated monste

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 leaking memory, th

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 annoying > ads whenever Fire

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 Video content? > >>> > >>> Is it normal for

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

Thanks for your reply. The DRM that was install, I believe to be Google's as per Firefox's default settings when enabling DRM content. It has been some time since I gave up watching DRM content and was only using it for a few news sites. My current stance is 1) DRM is insecure, 2) Any content

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 lon

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 random consumer products

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 DRM once, a long time ago, and I sta

Re: Firefox and Video DRM

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 long time ago, and I started getting annoying ads whenever Firefox was loaded. It took a while

Re: Firefox lockups with kernel 6.12.6

George writes: > I installed the "New Tab Suspender v2" Add-on but how do you 1) configure > the timer and the Tab count, 2) know if it is actually working or not? It doesn't seem to be configureable. You can tell it's working when long-unused tabs reload when you click them. There are several o

Re: Firefox lockups with kernel 6.12.6

On Saturday, 28-12-2024 at 12:34 John Hasler wrote: > As an interim solution consider installing the "New Tab Suspender v2" > extension: John, I installed the "New Tab Suspender v2" Add-on but how do you 1) configure the timer and the Tab count, 2) know if it is actually working or not? Geor

Re: Firefox lockups with kernel 6.12.6

On 12/27/24 11:10 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 6:42 PM Frank McCormick wrote: I am running Trixie full updated. I have been having lockups quite often running Firefox under the latest kernel. The lockups are complete, even REISUB doesn't work - the computer is complet

Re: Firefox lockups with kernel 6.12.6

On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 6:42 PM Frank McCormick wrote: > > > I am running Trixie full updated. > I have been having lockups quite often running Firefox under the latest > kernel. > The lockups are complete, even REISUB doesn't work - the computer is > completely unresponsive. > I have gone back t

Re: Firefox lockups with kernel 6.12.6

On 12/27/24 8:34 PM, John Hasler wrote: As an interim solution consider installing the "New Tab Suspender v2" extension: A very lightweight tab suspender to suspend inactive tabs that reduces an overall memory usage of firefox, uses a firefox native discard api I don't think that

Re: Firefox lockups with kernel 6.12.6

On 12/27/24 7:41 PM, George at Clug wrote: On Saturday, 28-12-2024 at 08:08 Frank McCormick wrote: I am running Trixie full updated. I have been having lockups quite often running Firefox under the latest kernel. My wife has been experiencing Firefox lockups on Debian Bookworm (KDE Plasm

Re: Firefox lockups with kernel 6.12.6

On Saturday, 28-12-2024 at 12:34 John Hasler wrote: > As an interim solution consider installing the "New Tab Suspender v2" > extension: Thanks John, I will give that a try. Sounds worthwhile even if the lockups were not happening. George. > > A very lightweight tab suspender to suspend

Re: Firefox lockups with kernel 6.12.6

As an interim solution consider installing the "New Tab Suspender v2" extension: A very lightweight tab suspender to suspend inactive tabs that reduces an overall memory usage of firefox, uses a firefox native discard api -- John Hasler j...@sugarbit.com Elmwood, WI USA

Re: Firefox lockups with kernel 6.12.6

On Saturday, 28-12-2024 at 08:08 Frank McCormick wrote: > > I am running Trixie full updated. > I have been having lockups quite often running Firefox under the latest > kernel. My wife has been experiencing Firefox lockups on Debian Bookworm (KDE Plasma when using either Wayland or X11, we

Re: Firefox lockups with kernel 6.12.6

On 27 Dec 2024 16:08 -0500, from debianl...@videotron.ca (Frank McCormick): > I am running Trixie full updated. > I have been having lockups quite often running Firefox under the latest > kernel. > The lockups are complete, even REISUB doesn't work - the computer is > completely unresponsive. > I

Re: Firefox and XFCE

On 26/12/2024 16:42, Eike Lantzsch ZP5CGE / KY4PZ wrote: On Thursday, 26 December 2024 00:10:47 -03 Max Nikulin wrote: You may try to search for mozilla, window manager (fvwm?), gtk bugs or discussions related to client-side decoration and rising on click. Are there other applications that use C

Re: Firefox and XFCE

On 2024-12-26, wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 25, 2024 at 10:17:02PM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > [...] > >> The idea that your application should do its own window management >> because the user's chosen WM may differ from what you, the developer, >> wanted is utter hubris. Especially when you can't

Re: Firefox and XFCE

On Thursday, 26 December 2024 00:10:47 -03 Max Nikulin wrote: > On 25/12/2024 14:11, keller.st...@gmx.de wrote: > > Max Nikulin writes: > >> does switching between regular window title and > >> client-side decorations changes anything? (right click menu for > >> toolbar, "customize toolbar") > > >

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >