It's stuff like this that has an indirect effect that is much more serious than the change itself.
Not all that long ago there was a thread here about 'why those bloody end users don't keep their systems up-to-date'. Well, there you have it: because they never just get the fixes, they also get all kinds of other junk rammed down their throats, if such an upgrade does not break their systems entirely. And so the end-users get wise and stop updating their systems, resulting in systems that are then wide open to malicious parties.
I feel that I'm pretty tech savvy and in spite of that I've got a hard time clicking the 'upgrade' button next to my browser for that exact reason, it's a toss-up if it will actually do something useful for me or if it will cause me no end of misery to try to restore the situation back to working after a failed update.
I'd need a couple of extra hands to count the number of times where an update to an otherwise perfectly functioning system caused it to break and in some cases that in turn led to a complete re-install.
In tech we even have a meme for that: "If it isn't obviously broken, don't fix it!".
You raise an extremely good point that describes my feelings lately perfectly.
How do HN folks manage the inevitable change in and monetization of popular and useful products?
I'm having serious heartburn consuming updated products (e.g. Win 10 and FireFox). It seems that the forced dichotomy is Control, Ease of use, Features within 3 years: Pick two. I had been really happy with my customized FireFox and locked down Windows 7 from the control and usefulness standpoint but FF has been taking liberties that parent notes and Windows has a "new direction" than the standalone value they provided with Win 7. Now it feels like they're yanking the rug out, and constantly evaluating the large amount of technology I rely on is tiring.
Hah. I actually am very happy with my music solution (for now). I buy CDs and rip them with iTunes to MP3 on my media PC to a network drive, and then manually sync my phone. I can play it on anything by opening a folder.
The UI is essentially put in CD, wait, have music, and sync phones occasionally.
What is your current setup that you're happy with?
My entire outlay is now a single laptop running CentOS 7, a desktop as a backup machine if I kill the laptop, some earphones, a dumbphone and a USB stick and USB mp3 player in the car. I rsync the USB stick for the car periodically and that is it.
As for everything else, browser is Firefox still (ick) and the only services I use are an IMAP box and domain.
I gave up music on my phone, contact sync, email on my phone, navigation, everything. A simpler life seems to be better for me.
Your browser updates anyway, the "click to restart to get the new version" just initiates a restart. You'll get the new version next time you close and re-open anyway.
If any search engine should be the default, at least pick the best or the most privacy friendly. Yahoo is neither. On top of that it is just a relay to Microsoft Bing.
How hard is it to just ask the user which search engine they would like to use on install?
That's the wrong question. The right question is how much Yahoo paid mozilla to do this. At a guess, a lot less than the $145M that mozilla got in the past from Google.
We had multiple offers on the table, all of which had improved finances compared to the previous contract. Yahoo's offer was focused on the US, which allowed us to partner with Yandex and Baidu in other regions of the world.
All else being the same, I don't see how supporting a global search monoculture controlled by a direct competitor would have been in the best interests of the Web or of Mozilla.
What you could have done is this: change nothing for those users that had already downloaded mozilla and were happy with their results. Slamming around your users like that is for me expressly against the reasons why I'm using firefox and not one of the other browser offerings.
And I'm not exactly a google fanboy, to put it mildly.
That's fair; the intent was to only change the search setting for users who had not changed their default. I don't know the specifics around that decision, but it seems like a reasonable position; I'm not sure anything further would have been viable. Still, I get how that can seem intrusive, and I apologize for it.
At the time we landed this change, we also tweaked the search box to increase the visibility of alternative engines and make it easier to switch your default. Hopefully that mitigated some of the pain for you.
We're in a weird place. We have to make enough money to fund the engineering that keeps Firefox competitive, but we also have to stay true to our non-profit mission and ownership. Balancing those two interests is difficult, and we're not always going to get it right. For when we don't, I'm sorry.
> We're in a weird place. We have to make enough money to fund the engineering that keeps Firefox competitive, but we also have to stay true to our non-profit mission and ownership. Balancing those two interests is difficult, and we're not always going to get it right. For when we don't, I'm sorry.
That I completely acknowledge and there is absolutely no need for you to apologise, where work is being done mistakes are automatically being made. The people I'm most scared of are those that claim they never make mistakes.
Is there an easy way for users like me to simply pay Mozilla for the product?
I'd much prefer that than being made the subject of a tug-of-war between internet giants.
Not all that long ago there was a thread here about 'why those bloody end users don't keep their systems up-to-date'. Well, there you have it: because they never just get the fixes, they also get all kinds of other junk rammed down their throats, if such an upgrade does not break their systems entirely. And so the end-users get wise and stop updating their systems, resulting in systems that are then wide open to malicious parties.
I feel that I'm pretty tech savvy and in spite of that I've got a hard time clicking the 'upgrade' button next to my browser for that exact reason, it's a toss-up if it will actually do something useful for me or if it will cause me no end of misery to try to restore the situation back to working after a failed update.
I'd need a couple of extra hands to count the number of times where an update to an otherwise perfectly functioning system caused it to break and in some cases that in turn led to a complete re-install.
In tech we even have a meme for that: "If it isn't obviously broken, don't fix it!".