Gregory's Server@jwz disagree. I know many ppl that would or could not use Firefox if they hadn’t and like this it’s a viable alternative. What do the gazilion Mozilla/netscape/firefox or chromium forks/alternatives do for the open web because they disable drm or replaced / removed other functionality? Not much.
|
14 comments
 @jwz not ‘some people’ but basically no one would have used it. I don’t disagree that it (engaging with market realities) is also a problem, but that does not mean that the opposite would have been better @fl0_id @jwz there were and are a multiple people that would have used Firefox if they took a stance against DRM. Those that care about the open web. You know their _mission_. If you can't see how supporting drm means abandonding their mission then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. This isnt even a one step back two forward strategy. Its not like they implemented DRM as part of a larger plan to provide a non DRMed alternative @PuercoPop @jwz I'm not saying there weren't, just overall not many. I don't like drm either, I just think that often you have to balance principles against usability, market forces and all kinds of other things. open web proponents and similar are very bad at this, and always think their priorities are most important.      |
@jwz I’m sure ffx ppl could do more and it can lead to bad things, but many other roads just lead to irrelevance. In that sense, shipping things is importantly, because of you f e have the most morally correct product, but many cannot use it or it cannot do what they need, what impact do you really have?