On Sun, Jan 08, 2023 at 07:53:11AM -0800, peter@easthope.ca wrote: > David & all, > > Earlier from peter, > > > Bulk of the software and frequent updates are evident but what changes > > > in functionality? The Web site of my credit union works as it did > > > five years ago. > > From: David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> > Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2023 21:46:39 -0600 > > What's that got to do with Firefox? OK, it's good that the CU hasn't > > run with every fad that some web developers seem to want, so that > > they get what I call a high "coo-rating". (Coo, look at that.) > > Yes, good that the CU Web site is relatively stable. That was a > secondary point. > > My primary interest: if many Web sites appear and perform as five > years ago, what is the need for the frequent updates? A bug needs > repair a.s.a.p. A bug compromising security needs repair sooner. > Are most Firefox updates security critical? Don't forget that HTML5 is a "living standard" -- the WHATWG euphemism for "we change the standard from under your bottom whenever one of our more powerful members feels like it". If Firefox wants to call itself standards compliant, it has to follow suit. If it isn't standadts compliant, we are left with one choice: Chrome (I don't count Apple, that's even worse). I do disagree with much of what the Mozilla foundation does, and at the end, they see the world through ad-industry coloured goggles, but they are the last credible ditch we have. Google has succeeded in cornering the Internet -- and the worst: many people seem to enjoy it. You thought the situation with Microsoft and computing in the 1980s and 1990s was grotesque? It's much, much worse these days. The difference is that the monopoly watchdogs are fast asleep at the wheel these days. Cheers -- t
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature