Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions - <AUTHOR> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Addons/Extension_Signing <comment><USER3> It's the "no override" part that concerns me.

I created and maintain an extension that is used by visually-impaired people around the world (it has been translated by volunteers into Dutch and Chinese, for example).

Occasionally a Firefox update breaks this extension. OK, fine, that's the cost of doing business. Of course, the automated compatibility report that Firefox creates is utterly useless; it almost never catches the breakage. But that's a side rant....

There can be a decent turnaround lag (sometimes on the order of a few days) to get a new version of an extension reviewed by addons.mozilla.org. In the meantime, I have made a habit of building a new version of the extension and giving it to anyone who asks. Some people rely on it to use the web and can't wait for Mozilla to do their thing (another side rant: I once stupidly forgot to check in a key resource. I've since changed my development process to keep this from happening again. But the non-functional extension that I pushed passed Mozilla's review just fine. Makes me wonder how much value the review process is really adding.)

If I want to be able to continue this process, I will need to sign the extension myself (and who knows what histrionics Firefox will throw if a user tries to replace an extension with one that has the same UUID but a different signature!)

<comment><USER4> Hi, Mozilla developer here, speaking for only myself. I'm not sure why we don't make this clearer on the wiki page, but I think the reason there's no override is that any malware installation routine would simply activate it and continue on its merry way. (Disclaimer: I didn't work on this feature and am going by recollection and my own logic.)

We see many copies of Firefox infested with rogue add-ons the user didn't ask for or isn't even aware of. Sometimes these add-ons even ship with big-name software, with no opt out or with the opt out squirreled away in some dark corner. Typically, they do one or more of the following: (1) spy on the user, (2) add affiliate codes for money, (3) cause performance problems and crashes.

The network is a pretty hostile place these days. It's no longer 14-year-olds playing around for fun; there are moneyed interests in the game. And the sorts of people who don't frequent HN are pretty much helpless and clueless in the perpetual tug of war between various companies and mafias. As a "user agent", we have the opportunity defend users who lack the sophistication to root around and remove invasive software they didn't ask for.

Of course, if you're reading this, you're in a different category. You have a better idea which software to trust, and you know how to scour your machine if something gets past you. That's why nightlies and the Developer Edition let you do whatever you want: you aren't the ones who need hard-coded protections to shield you from pref-twiddling installers.

I hope that provides some needed context. Safe surfing, all!

<comment><USER5> > We see many copies of Firefox infested with rogue add-ons the user didn't > ask for or isn't even aware of.

Like Pocket or Hello?

<comment><USER6> Why is this downvoted? These inbuilt add-ons might not be 'rogue', but are definitely the ones which many users didn't ask for, or aren't even aware of.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is deeply disappointing.

Two details: the extensions need to be signed _by Mozilla_ , and only US English speakers will be allowed to disable this requirement.

The point of free software is that users, individually and collectively, are free to modify it as they wish, without requiring approval from third parties. (And of course to use, copy, and redistribute.) This is a sharp turn away from the free-software ethos that made Firefox possible in the first place.

I understand the issue of users being tricked into downloading and installing malicious extensions. If you let someone program, they will be able to paste malicious code. I just don't think that taking away users' ability to modify their own browsers is an acceptable solution to that.

If this disturbing move sticks, Mozilla will become an increasingly tempting target for whatever group wants to control what software you can install on your own computer — whether that's Sony Pictures, the NSA, or Amazon.

The old free software movement has died. We need a new free software movement.

<comment><USER8> > only US English speakers will be allowed to disable this requirement

Do they assume that non-English speakers are just drooling baboons who cannot decide this for themselves unlike English speakers?...

<comment><USER7> Perhaps they assume that to program enough to write an extension, you need to learn English. I've met people here in Argentina who say that. My view is that, even if that _is_ the status quo ante (and I'm not sure it really is) it's a status quo we must disrupt, not ossify.

<comment><USER9> Wise words, kragen. With the excuse "you need english because" a new form of imperialism is on the making. And what is worse, is that this attitude is often self-imposed.

<comment><USER10> I think your are mixing "English, the lingua franca", with "English, the language spoken in the US".

Why would using the lingua franca that everyone agrees on be imperialism?

<comment><USER9> Because there is no such a thing like "English, the lingua franca"; changing the name do not change the content.

We should stop self-deluding ourselves in believing that English exits in a geopolitical void. English is the language of the anglosphere, and speaking English is a huge favor to those economies, and that comes with a sense of cultural inferiority as well, in many peoples.

<comment><USER11> There _is_ a such thing as "English, the lingua franca" no matter how much one tries to will it away.

Aviation is a curious industry. English is commonly spoke between flight crews and ground stations world wide (with few but notable exceptions). Circumstances where the English meaning of a word wasn't well understood by the flight crew or the _wrong words_ were spoken have, on occasion, lead to disaster--Avianca Flight 52 [1] comes to mind, among others.

I simply cannot agree that mutual intelligibility is _bad_ simply on the merit that it somehow creates a "sense of cultural inferiority."

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_52](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_52)

<comment><USER7> It sounds like you're saying that using English as the _lingua franca_ of aviation puts at risk the lives of flight crews for whom English is not a native language, as well as their passengers. This seems like a good example of how English-as-lingua-franca gives special worldwide advantages to native English speakers.

<comment><USER11> Not at all.

What I'm suggesting is that having a _standard_ for communication is less likely to put lives at risk. I can't help but wonder if you're invoking Poe's Law by advocating from what is arguably an extremely fringe standpoint.

Otherwise, the alternative would be to require air traffic controllers to learn a dozen languages, and then you wind up with an even _worse_ problem than having everyone settle on a _single_ language with codified standards.

Didn't the Browser Wars teach you anything? :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Mozilla's hypocrisy is astounding:

[https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2013/01/29/putting- users-i...](https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2013/01/29/putting-users-in- control-of-plugins/)

"Users should have the choice of what software and plugins run on their machine."

[https://blog.mozilla.org/theden/2014/12/15/introducing-a- sma...](https://blog.mozilla.org/theden/2014/12/15/introducing-a-smarter-way- to-search-with-firefox/)

"Firefox is dedicated to putting users in control of their online experience"

More recently:

[https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/06/02/firefox-puts-you- in...](https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/06/02/firefox-puts-you-in-control- of-your-online-life/)

"Firefox Puts You in Control of Your Online Life".

The slogan, as found on [https://www.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/new/](https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/) , is now "Firefox is created by a global non-profit dedicated to _putting individuals in control online._ " I believe it used to be "users" \- see above - but was silently changed. I suppose these "individuals" are the people at Mozilla...?

<comment><USER13> Firefox users see through this feel-good marketing nonsense from Mozilla.

They've seen Firefox's UI change for the worse in so many ways, even in the face of wide opposition.

They've seen unwanted bloat, like Hello and Pocket, forced upon them, again in the face of wide opposition.

They've seen their requests for bug fixes and performance improvements go unheeded, sometimes for years.

The easy use of extensions has been the only thing keeping many of these people using Firefox. They've been using many extensions to undo, as much as is possible, the unwanted changes that Mozilla has made.

I use Firefox Nightly, and was recently surprised when, after an update, some custom extensions I had written myself were not loading, and could not be easily enabled. When I found out it was due to this, and I had to start adjusting about:config settings, it was nearly the last straw for me.

I don't want to use another browser, but it's like Mozilla is doing everything in its power to make using Firefox a bad experience for me. I know I'm not alone. We've already seen Firefox' share of the browser market drop from well over 30% to a level of around 10% today, if it isn't actually lower than that.

It's truly sad to see what's happening to what was once such a great browser.

<comment><USER14> You're being pretty grim. Hello is fucking awesome, and while I don't use Pocket it isn't the end of the world. Firefox isn't Lynx, but even as a Unix guy I enjoy and appreciate it. I also appreciate that they're trying to be more attractive to the masses, which is societally beneficial.

<comment><USER15> As you do, I have a lot of programs and extensions installed on my machine. How about you install them all on yours? Come on! Don't be grim! They are fucking awesome and if you don't use them it's not like it is the end of the world :^)

<comment><USER14> It's funny, one of the other top comments here is about how many features Firefox is removing. Vital, core stuff, like setting being able to set custom user agents for specific domains...

I think the real reason many people are angry is that their demographic isn't catered to. I'm part of that demographic, and it does annoy me sometimes. However, unlike Debian/systemd, I find the tradeoff definitely worthwhile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Ah, feels like they're following Chrome's example, which decreed that it should be exceedingly difficult for Windows Chrome users to install extensions from somewhere other than [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/) . This basically killed an internal app we had at work (a fork of a "REST client", with some added request-signing features specific to our internal APIs.) There was no strong reason to keep it secret, but there had previously been no need to put it in the store either, and there was a $5 charge to publish in the Web Store, which I didn't feel like dealing with.

Anyway, they are both measures taken to stop malware, by taking an option away from the user, that most users won't even notice, but many "power users" will be inconvenienced to varying degrees. I'm guessing Firefox's won't be as bad, since the "developer version" that will let you keep doing the old way probably won't differ from the normal version as much as Chrome's does.

<comment><USER17> You can still install custom extensions in Chrome for Windows using - <USER2> others - group policy: [https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/188453](https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/188453)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Folks,

There are FOUR VERSIONS OF FIREFOX WITH A SWITCH TO DISABLE THIS if you're so inclined. You can use: Nightly, Dev Edition, Unbranded Stable and Unbranded Beta. All of which have a switch that you can set to disable addons signing requirement.

In contrast there are only two versions where this is a requirement, Stable and Beta. If you doubt the usefulness of this you haven't seen a browser being hijacked by malware overriding search results, inserting all types of toolbars and more. This will prevent malware from sideloading extensions. And this is good.

The signing process is not the same as the AMO review process. The process takes only seconds and the signed addon is returned to the developer. They can distribute as they see fit.

Now, lets face the fact: Simple signing process that takes only seconds and will help prevent lots of malware, not the most nasty ones but a huge lot of sideloaded crap. Four versions of the browser for those power users who want to disable this.

Now, can someone explain to me without hate why this is a bad thing?

<comment><USER19> > There are FOUR VERSIONS OF FIREFOX WITH A SWITCH TO DISABLE THIS

While that may be true, requiring that you run a non-standard version of Firefox to be able to use "random" extensions will probably have a chilling effect on the Firefox extension ecosystem.

That, and it reeks of Chromeism.

<comment><USER18> you will be able to run "random" extension if the developer care enough about it and about the new security procedures to sign it. After all, it takes only couple seconds for the signing to work.

The versions I quoted are not non-standard. They are all versions of Firefox being worked on and with all the relevant teams. All those versions eventually become Firefox Stable and after that becomes outdated and a new release is now current. Versions goes from Nightly -> DevEdition -> Beta -> Stable. Each version has some tweaks, for example DevEdition is where they seed and test new devtools. Which means that for the developers, thats the best edition to develop with (still test on the other versions).

<comment><USER19> They are non-standard in the sense that 99% of Firefox users are not using them.

<comment><USER18> Do you understand that the Unbranded Stable version and Firefox Stable version have the same codebase? You can use that version for testing or if your users don't want signing they can move to that version. They lose the cute icon and branding but the code is the same.

<comment><USER19> I think you missed my very clear point: now it's not enough to just run Firefox. You need to ask for users to run the "right" version if Firefox.

Telling people what browser to use is user hostile behaviour. Users will not bother. Non-official extensions will get less interest. Authors will see a smaller user base and have less interest in writing new extensions.

This will have a chilling effect all over.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> How does this policy interact with greasemonkey, an extension that allows running random JavaScript on sites with access to the extension API. You could write your malware as a greasemonkey extension, convince a user to install a signed greasemonkey release, and then convince them to install your malicious extension.

<comment><USER21> Great point. Does anyone know what--if any--limits Grease Monkey puts in place to prevent users from bring exploited?

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> It's important to note that the Developers Editions (and the Nightlys) will have a setting for disabling the requirement.

The assumption being that developers need to test as they develop. And are a more informed user.

<comment><USER23> Did they say why beta wouldn't have this setting? If anything beta is closer to release and developer would target that. Developer edition is still nightly if I'm not correct?

<comment><USER24> Generally, beta is supposed to be almost completely identical to the release version, to ensure that what gets shipped to release users is tested. This particular pref seems harmless, but you never know.

Developer edition is what used to be known as "Aurora", which is in between Beta and Nightly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I recently made an update my own Firefox extension, called Tab Grenade. It took them 4 months to review. 4 months. And that's for a (very) minor update.

Because of that, I was definitely considering to start releasing it on my own, instead of through Mozilla's add-on website. It looks like I will be able to do that, but I'll have to use the signed extension process.

I'll believe this system works when I see it. After my experience with add-on reviewing, I am very skeptical.

<comment><USER18> The review is mostly done by volunteers. Sorry for the delay, I feel your pain. Will check here if we can try to get more people onboard to help review stuff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> And slowly, freedom everywhere was destroyed in the name of security.

<comment><USER27> Firefox is open source. Disabling the signature check will probably be a one- line change. Yes, it's a much larger barrier to entry (building Firefox is not trivial), but it's not like IE or Chrome where you have no choice in the matter at all.

<comment><USER28> _building Firefox is not trivial_

./mach bootstrap

./mach build

<comment><USER29> Yeah? You at the very least forgot to obtain the source code first somehow. What about build-dependencies, because ./mach bootstrap does not fully handle that?

Now please tell me how to do a Windows release-build with all release features enabled (except for official branding), aka. a ton of configure switches, and also please do it for my language using the official de locale, because neither the source tar.bz2 nor the hg you'd normally clone contains that. I'm starting from scratch of course. And suddenly it is less easy and trivial..

<comment><USER30> As the link mentions, you don't need to build from source. Binary builds are provided that do not have this restriction, for those that want that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> It's been one month and the new version of an extension I wrote is still waiting to be reviewed. I've since stopped waiting and started using the new version myself rather than download from AMO. I was already very disappointed by the review process and now this.

Tweeted to Chris Beard: "Dear @cbeard, please give your users the choice and control they deserve in @firefox. Allow extension signing to be disabled in FF42."

You want to protect the user, then start making extensions more secure and require permissions to do things. E.g. If an extension can access contents of webpages, pop up a dialog and ask the first time. There are other ways to protect users without going authoritarian on us.

</comment><comment><USER32> An important point is that the review process before signing takes seconds, according to the article. Considering the frequency of FF updates, it's an important point.

Now, let's just hope that the other side of the coin is a concern for API backward compatibility, so that people don't need nightly versions of addons and a developer edition to keep their addons in a usable state...

</comment><comment><USER33> I use several small add-ons I wrote myself. Why should I have to get Mozilla's approval before I can install my own damn add-ons? One of them executes processes and I'm 99% sure it'll fail the automated review.

EDIT: It passed the automated review, but my point stands. If I wrote the code, then you can be damn sure I trust it.

<comment><USER34> > I use several small add-ons I wrote myself. Why should I have to get > Mozilla's approval before I can install my own damn add-ons?

Mozilla has to balance the needs of several hundred million users, who are being attacked by malware every day, with the needs of people who write their own add-ons. Is it really that difficult to see it from that perspective? And it's not like you have no options now. You can either use the developer edition or the special release version where this feature is disabled.

<comment><USER33> They've always catered to the hacker perspective, too. Why take out the about:config flag? How about letting me trust my own certificate, instead of just AMO's? What about running AMO alternatives?

<comment><USER34> Did you not read the blog post? You can use the dev edition or the special release and beta version that don't have this limitation. Nobody is forcing _you_ to live with this limitation. If this was done as an about:config flag it could easily be changed by an add-on too.

<comment><USER33> I did read the blog post. It says I have to use a less stable (beta) or less customizable (dev edition) version of Firefox to avoid this burden.

<comment><USER34> From [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Addons/Extension_Signing](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Addons/Extension_Signing)

"What are my options if I want to install unsigned extensions in Firefox?

The Developer Edition and Nightly versions of Firefox will have a setting to disable signature checks. There will also be special unbranded versions of Release and Beta that will have this setting, so that add-on developers can work on their add-ons without having to sign every build."

<comment><USER33> Ah, nice. Even so, I still have issues with this:

\- Special version of the software

\- Can't run my own version of AMO

<comment><USER35> > \- Can't run my own version of AMO

You can, AMO is open source: [https://github.com/mozilla/olympia](https://github.com/mozilla/olympia)

Run your own instance and make your own builds of Firefox that point to it and you're good.

<comment><USER33> >make your own builds of Firefox

Yeah, let me just get all of the potential users of my AMO alternative to _compile a custom version of Firefox for it_

<comment><USER35> If you want to run a custom AMO I'm assuming you're in a corporate environment or something like that where you can control what browser gets installed on people's machines.

[https://addons.mozilla.org](https://addons.mozilla.org) is an integral part of Firefox, if you set it up with an alternative you're effectively making your own fork.

<comment><USER33> It's not an integral part of Firefox, though. You can install add-ons without it by just clicking a link on any page that leads to an XPI, same as how AMO behaves.

And no, I'm not in a corporate environment. I'm talking about decentralization.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> What is the point of this? Shouldn't users be allowed to make their own decisions no matter how stupid or dangerous?

<comment><USER37> Users still can, they can download one of the provided builds that do not have this restriction.

The issue is that most users don't understand software on a deep level, and just click "yes" on dialog boxes, etc.

It does make sense to keep the defaults where it prevents most users from harm.

<comment><USER36> Why don't we teach people the don't understand so they can make informed choices instead of preventing it entirely?

<comment><USER38> They can't be taught, nor do they care to be. Education is not the solution to the problem of users who don't want to know.

<comment> yoz-y This. Most of the people do not care about this stuff and they do not wish to learn it. Also, like with vaccines, it is important that sufficient number of people are protected for the malware/viruses to not spread.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> This is disappointing. Everything is becoming centralized, even Firefox extensions. I wish there was an opt out like "unknown sources" in android, but they keep saying we're not smart enough to make or own decisions. They won't even put one in about:config. This change well undoubtedly upset developers and other techy folk, exactly the kind of people you want working with your software.

Fdroid is working on third party repositories, maybe that will catch on to decentralize the mobile world a bit. Something like that for browser extensions would be sweet. Take a look at Fennec Fdroid for a cleaner Firefox mobile experience at least.

<comment><USER40> The point here is to stop junkware authors (who operate pretend-legally) from trivially installing extensions into Firefox. Right now, this type of software commonly injects javascript into all web-pages a user visits which do things like add adverts or redirect searches.

If you allow a tick box to disable this, then how do you stop the junkware authors from simply checking that box on behalf of the user? Because that's what would happen, the user would click "next" on some random installer (which the junkware authors argue grants them expressed permission to install), and the junkware will claim they tick the unknown sources box to fix a "backwards compatibility issue."

What they're trying to do is make the option to disable the check SO niche that it really isn't a valid option for the junkware authors to use anyway (since most consumers won't have it, only corp. networks which are a hard target for junkware for other reasons).

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I wonder how long it will take until adware producers patch out the requirement for signed extensions in the binary when you install stuff from them on your computer.

<comment><USER42> That route is getting harder with application signing becoming more prevalent on Windows and OS X.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Isnt chrome already like this? I spent 45 minutes trying to find a way to install a non extension store extension this weekend and gave up after being blocked repeatedly.

<comment><USER44> I don't think what chrome does is relevant in this discussion at least not in the context of defining what is the the correct way for mozilla to go forward.

<comment><USER45> Unfortunately it's relevant in the discussion of what Mozilla can get away with.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> It should still possible to fork Firefox and remove this requirement, right ?

<comment><USER7> In theory, but that will be very difficult.

<comment><USER47> Difficult how? Even though Mozilla is going to providing builds of just such a fork themselves? Is it particularly hard to build firefox?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Well, at least they're paying lip-service to enterprise users who may have internal extensions to deal with:

      What about private add-ons used in enterprise environments?

      We haven't announced our plan for this case yet. Stay tuned.
      In the interim, ESR will not support signing at least until
      version 45, which won't come out until 2016.

<comment><USER49> I have seen several suggestions along the following lines as far back as the original blog post which announced the intention to require extension signing

Allow an extension signing certificate to be place in a directory/store which requires elevated privileges to modify (ie /etc/ or similar).

Extensions in the user's profile signed by this certificate will load as if they were signed with the Mozilla certificate.

If the user has enough privileges to add an extension signing certificate then they also most likely have the ability to modify the Firefox itself, I think this addresses any concerns that this method could be used to load malicious extensions (if the user is willing to run unknown executables with elevated privileges then extensions with apparently valid signatures are the least of their worries).

This allows enterprises to sign and distribute their own extensions, with the additional step of creating and distributing the signing certificate, and could work also work for home users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Mozilla used to be the best place in the world for extension developers -- it was natural to have your best extension on Firefox because you could release early and often. Active developers made the platform.

When Chrome came along they decided to go in a different direction entirely slowly making it more and more painful to accomplish what used to be easy in the name of security. The review process went from automatic if you were trusted to weeks and then months and then more than a quarter year. They started demanding source code. It became scary to release to addons.mozilla.org because you never knew how long it would be before your next release would be approved.

Mozilla needs to realize they're hastening their own demise - Chrome now offers better features than when Mozilla was the leader including releasing to a percentage of users and faster nearly invisible to the user updates. They should go back to their roots and embrace developers again.

</comment><comment><USER51> I wonder if this will mean that all the extension version numbers will stop ending in -signed. I'm used to having any build number with -label in its name denote it's a pre-release and isn't stable [0].

I was recently searching for user agent switcher add-ons as part of a blog post [1] and almost all have -signed in the name. To some people it could look like the un-signed ones are more stable and better.

[0] [http://semver.org](http://semver.org)

[1] [https://unop.uk/dev/how-to-watch-bbc-news-videos-on-a- deskto...](https://unop.uk/dev/how-to-watch-bbc-news-videos-on-a-desktop- without-flash-in-firefox)

<comment><USER42> The -signed label was a one time effect to update existing extensions to signed versions (since AMO didn't want to arbitrarily bump the version numbers of all its hosted extensions). Future updates do not have this label.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> What happens to all of those extensions that are on they gray area of DMCA? Who is this move benefiting? The users or the sponsors?

<comment><USER53> >>Is this a way for Mozilla to censor add-ons they don't like, enforce copyright, government demands, etc.?

>No, the purpose of this is to protect users from malicious add-ons. We have clear guidelines[1] for when it is appropriate to blocklist an add-on and have refused multiple times to block for other reasons.

[1] [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/Add- on_guideline...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/Add- on_guidelines)

Copyright, DMCA, and legal concerns are not listed. So I take that to mean nothing will be rejected from signing for those reasons. Hosting on AMO has stricter rules, so they could sign the extension for you to host, but refuse to host it themselves.

<comment><USER54> Today, Mozilla doesn't get demands to take down extensions because sending demands would be pointless. If EvilCorp tried to force Mozilla to take down uBlock and friends from addons.mozilla.org they would just get hosted elsewhere and EvilCorp would look like assholes. It's all downside, no upside, so EvilCorp don't even bother to ask.

If tomorrow Mozilla can shut down any extension, the calculus changes. Forcing Mozilla to kill ad blockers still makes EvilCorp look like assholes, but it might be successful. There's a big upside now, so much more reason to try and force Mozilla's hand.

<comment><USER55> I do wonder if some lawyer will argue that a take down notice for an extension should include revocation of its signing?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> It's little more than a year ago that Brendan Eich was ousted from Mozilla by an ugly orchestrated cabal. When I read Mitchell Baker's vapid blog post [1] on the decision, filled with polite backstabbing and politically correct buzzwordery I understood that Mozilla has been taken over by politicians and that its decline is just a matter of time.

[1] [https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/03/brendan-eich- steps-...](https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/03/brendan-eich-steps-down- as-mozilla-ceo/)

<comment><USER13> I have been looking at [https://input.mozilla.org/](https://input.mozilla.org/) now and then for a long time, and I am still astounded at how it's typically around 90% unhappy, 10% happy.

I know that some Mozilla supporters will justify that huge difference by saying, "but unhappy people will always complain and happy people won't say anything", but I don't think that's necessarily the case. Here we have Mozilla's own stats saying that a lot of their users are extremely unhappy with Firefox.

Clearly something is very wrong for the disapproval rating to be so high, and the satisfaction rating to be so low. In other situations, such a high disapproval rating would be met with extreme concern, immediate retrospection, and panic.

Even in the case of US presidents, where people don't have an immediate alternative like they do with web browsers, and where people's emotions run rampant, it's very rare to see an approval rating under 40%. The very worst approval ratings still are around 25%.

So something is seriously wrong for Mozilla's products to consistently have an approval rating of only 10%, or even 20% if we're being generous.

<comment><USER57> "I have been looking at [https://input.mozilla.org/](https://input.mozilla.org/) now and then for a long time, and I am still astounded at how it's typically around 90% unhappy, 10% happy."

I've been reading Mozilla's bug system for 17 years and the bug numbers keep going up. That can't be a good sign.</sarcasm>

<comment><USER13> It's disappointing to see Mozilla's leadership respond with sarcasm and denial when faced with the fact that 80% or more of their users are not happy with recent versions of Firefox.

<comment><USER58> That should be 80% of the users who have some reason to be poking around in Firefox's Help menu and are motivated enough to click "Submit Feedback". That group does not include many people who have a perfectly good experience with Firefox.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> You know, there was something beautiful about users being able to pick up a tutorial and extend their browsers, if they wanted. There was something very empowering about being able to write extensions even in a corporate environment.

I've written Firefox extensions for personal and business use, and Mozilla are preventing that from every happening again. Why? Cui bono?

I'll mention, again, that they completely broke the security of Firefox Sync: it's no longer a trustworthy place to store passwords. Why? Cui bono?

<comment><USER60> Didn't Chrome take this same approach? I suspect that if multiple major browser vendors are pursuing it, it's probably to address some issue. It's not like Mozilla just thought, "let's limit people more, that will make them happy." This doesn't make it the right approach, but it does make it understandable.

So I suspect it's to the benefit of the "average user" if that's what you are asking.

I'm going to step outside of HN for a minute and say that in my work I work with people who rely on the Internet, but have no concept, and I mean none, how it works. They do not understand that when they create a Yahoo email account that no one can help them when they forget their password. They do not understand that if you type "yaho com" that you are not going to get anywhere (until auto search came along, that is). I've come to realize that Internet safety is not a simple set of rules, it's a complex understanding of the whole ecosystem that can't be readily taught in the time I have with these users (and never taught to some). I can't explain why I click on links in some emails and not others, so I just say "don't click on links". I can't explain why you shouldn't use the same password everywhere to someone who needs to reset their password literally every time they log on, so I just tell them to use the one their friend or child has written down for them. It's terrible, but I get it when vendors draw a line in the sand and say "this is to protect those users."

That said, as a user who _does_ understand, there's an element of frustration. Hopefully they bury an override option somewhere, or maybe just add it to their ESR but I doubt I would ever use it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> So much for beta-testing your extension prior to release. It's already hard to get users involved, now they just can't.

Or using any other channel to get your extension.

!Thanks Mozilla, really.

<comment><USER42> If your extension has been fully reviewed by AMO, you can upload beta versions that only have to pass the automated signing review to be posted to AMO.

<comment><USER61> Please don't assume all extensions have a reason to be on AMO. There are plenty of extensions which are developed in-house for in-house use only.

Also, as a developer, I never cared to run the "nighties": I don't want an unstable browser, and I don't want fancy new features. I always ran the stock version, also to ensure compatibility with the user base, and never needed anything else.

Maybe Mozilla should also remove the developer tools from the stock version, because clearly it's too dangerous in the hand of people that could cut&paste code with full privileges into it, and it's only a keystroke away!

This is a giant slap in the face, frankly.

I don't see a difference between a walled garden such as google play and this.

<comment><USER62> I gave Mozilla money back in the day when they asked for donations in the beginning to be on that full-page NY Times ad.

I wonder if I can have a refund? I'm very disappointed in how Firefox has aged.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Mozilla is doing everything to stop using their browser.

<comment> glass- And instead people are going to use what?

<comment><USER64> not sure yet, but as soon as there's something I'm making the switch.

Too many extensions are required to try to make firefox into something usable, mainly reverting changes or fiwing broken or missing features: ad blocking, sidebar, download manager, bringing back the add on bar, putting back the ability to disable javascript, session manager, cookie manager ability to take screenshot, mouse gestures, tab manager, …

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> I like the fact that a security issue is being tackled. What I absolutely hate is the fact that there are no ways to turn this option off.

Just like HSTS I can't turn this off and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Were originally I considered firebox to be a browser for power users, now I'm not too sure any more.

<comment><USER66> I'm mixed on the general issue – an option to turn it off is an option which is certain to be used to social engineer millions of people – but this is somewhat different from HSTS:

HSTS allows a site owner to set a security policy for access their own servers. There's no downside to using it, it doesn't affect anyone else, and in any case if you choose to use a service you're subject to their security policies. The fundamental choice is unaffected: use their service or go somewhere else.

In contrast, this is more controversial because it involves telling the user that they cannot do something they want to do. I think there's a strong argument that this is a pragmatic choice in the current security environment but it really does undercut user choice unless you reach the point of saying that the users who want to do this should know how to compile Mozilla.

<comment><USER65> I really, really disagree. If your data is on my computer I should have a say in what happens to it. If I want to tunnel your hsts connection through a proxy I should be able to do so.

You can't imagine how frustrated I was when I found out that I couldn't use my proxy any more, because some guy somewhere decided that it'd bee too hard to hard to add the following lines to firefox:

if (user_doesn't_want_hsts) { dont_do_hsts(); }

I can't even bend my head around how someone thought it was acceptable to totally take this option away from people. I understand that such an option should be hidden deep inside a config somewhere so as to prevent a normal user from compromising his/her own security. But please don't presume that you did everyone a service by taking this option away. I can't express how angry and frustrated I become when I even think about it.

As for your 'no downside', as I said, perhaps not for normal users. But I most definitively am not. And I probably need to jump though a lot of hoops to tear this "feature" out of my own firefox build.

<comment><USER66> > I really, really disagree. If your data is on my computer I should have a > say in what happens to it. If I want to tunnel your hsts connection through > a proxy I should be able to do so.

You need to read more about how HSTS actually works:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Strict_Transport_Security](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Strict_Transport_Security)

It does nothing that a site could not do by having their webserver redirect all HTTP requests to HTTPS with the exception that it prevents the browser to never make an insecure request to prevent a man-in-the-middle attacker from tampering with it.

Of particular interest, note that it does not prevent you from using a proxy if you choose to configure one. The only thing it prevents is a transparent proxy intercepting all traffic on the network, which is a class of MITM attack, and a frequent source of security or privacy issues.

If you need to use a tampering SSL proxy you would, of course, need to configure it to generate certificates using a CA which you trust, which is a well-documented feature and something which has already been a requirement for many, many years.

> As for your 'no downside', as I said, perhaps not for normal users. But I > most definitively am not. And I probably need to jump though a lot of hoops > to tear this "feature" out of my own firefox build.

Or learn how to configure your proxy so that it works with the security mechanism rather than unnecessarily exposing you to attacks. Your argument is a perfect example of why this is a good move: most people will simply hit whatever button causes the page to load without thinking through the security implications.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> An automated review which takes seconds? What will it be looking for exactly? Seems to be something that will either break every extension out there or will be so easy to bypass that it won't do much.

"This is not the same process that currently applies to AMO add-ons, which has been typically slower."

Also the fact that you can't seem to be able to disable it even with some "debug/developer" mode in FF seems to be a bit over the top.

What happens if you are tied to an older FF extension that isn't signed? What happens when you want to develop an extension? yes beta extensions will be signed also but what happens before the BETA what happens when i just want to make hello world and to learn what i can do?

</comment><comment> norea-armozel This is going to be an annoying change me since I use the 1Password extension which isn't signed as far as I know. So, it's likely I'll switch over to Chrome (which I've had performance issues with in the past) or Pale Moon. Seriously, it's my browser. It's fine if you want to make users white list extensions but to completely block unsigned extensions is a bit over zealous. Unless Mozilla makes the signing process automatic (since it seems some extensions on addons.mozilla.org can go months before being updated to the current version) I don't see this working out at all.

<comment><USER68> Hi. I'm Eva and I work for AgileBits, the makers of 1Password.

I wanted to reassure you that we are working with Mozilla on getting our Firefox extension signed. That will allow you to continue using Firefox as your default browser while still using the 1Password browser extension.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> Will this also affect Firefox for Android?

Mozilla currently don't provide a dev build for Android, just regular and beta versions [https://play.google.com/store/apps/developer?id=Mozilla](https://play.google.com/store/apps/developer?id=Mozilla)

The security problem that this "fixes" is not really an issue on Android due to Android's own app sandboxing, so maybe the Android build will allow unsigned extensions? It's not mentioned in the FAQ.

<comment><USER28> Mozilla provides Aurora and Nightly for Android. They're just not on the Play Store, but you can download them from their website.

[https://nightly.mozilla.org/](https://nightly.mozilla.org/)

 _not really an issue on Android due to Android 's own app sandboxing_

A malicious add-on could still steal all your passwords.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> Who wants malware affecting all of the naive users on the internet? I don't. I think you can all put your pitchforks away and take a deep breath knowing that Firefox is trying to improve the experience for people who are not like yourselves. The process is automated and takes little time. Stop acting so entitled.

</comment><comment><USER71> Firefox disabled HTTPS Everywhere with no warning to me whatsoever. I use Dev Edition. I always just assumed it would always work, but apparently I can't rely on that anymore. Wasn't Mozilla pushing for non-encrypted HTTP to be deprecated? They should wait for that to happen before disabling HTTPS Everywhere.

</comment><comment><USER72> Epic fail. Mozilla should be making the browser subsystems more secure, not saying 'Trust us, we'll ensure your add-ons are secure'.

Will the add-ons source code be reviewed by a CISSP skilled in the languages used within the add-on? Will the add-on be tested with the top 1000 add-on combinations out there? If the add-on provides an API, will it be tested using fuzzing? The list of these questions, and the others to which your answer is likely 'no', goes on. If you are not doing these things then you are providing a false sense of security. You may catch the bottom 60-80% of malware and unstable add-ons, but the most dangerous 20% will likely slip through, in my opinion.

This does not make sense from a UX perspective, as MANY others here have pointed out, so I won't go into that further. I will point out that it doesn't make sense from a business perspective either. If you are saying your add-on signing program improves security, and you let an add-on through that has malware, then you might be sued (I am not a lawyer, this does not constitute legal advice, etc.).

So to recap and summarize, with brevity, and with accuracy...

EPIC FAIL

<comment><USER73> The law allows people to make mistakes. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

<comment><USER72> Heh. Sure :)

You're right about law, I know little - I am not a lawyer.

I suspect there will be someone who blames their corporate data breach on Mozilla's policy, if they can make even the flimsiest case. Mozilla might win, at the cost of money, time, and bad PR. I suspect it more likely that they'd settle out of court. I'd love to hear a lawyer weigh in.

I also love how I posted on here (I seldom do) about an issue I felt passionately about, in an area that I do know a bit about, and you responded with a personal attack.

Ask yourself this, what is it you hate so much about the world, yourself, me, or my post that compelled you to personally attack a complete stranger who was donating time and thought to the discussion? Did it make you feel better? Stronger? Isn't that the very behavior you've campaigned against, elsewhere on the web?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> > [...] plugins don't need to be signed.

So the worst kind of threat is still there. Great job, Mozilla!

<comment><USER75> That's because plugins are going to need to be white-listed (modifiable via about:config). The win64 (beta) edition of Firefox only allows the Flash Player Plugin, for example.

<comment><USER76> isn't this still vulnerable to the attack reported up-thread where whatever malware just goes and changed about:config before installing their plugin? (and the reason that the addon opt-out is being removed from ff42)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> As if it wasn't already difficult enough explaining to people why I use Firefox...

</comment><comment><USER78> I hope Firefox 41 is really good because it's the last one I'll be using.

<comment><USER79> What do you consider the better alternative? (serious question)

<comment><USER80> I think at this moment it's fair to say that switching to Pale Moon is the next obvious step for power-users in need of fiddling with their browser as they please.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> This is very frustrating. Made worse by the fact that they just replaced their packaging tool with a new jpm tool that doesn't yet match the functionality of the old tool.

</comment><comment><USER82> I wonder if extensions will be allowed that facilitate illegal activity, such as downloading youtube videos in violation of copyright.

</comment><comment> norea-armozel Does anyone know if the maintainers of Pale Moon or Waterfox intend to keep the extension signing requirement on their builds?

<comment><USER83> I very much doubt Pale Moon will, based on their reaction to previous restrictions and removals of features. I know that it would be hypocritical if they did.

Waterfox... I don't know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> Between that and e10s being on by default, FF42 is going to go over like a lead balloon.

I hope 41 is an ESR

update, nope: only 38 and 45 are ESR

[https://mozorg.cdn.mozilla.net/media/img/firefox/organizatio...](https://mozorg.cdn.mozilla.net/media/img/firefox/organizations/release- overview-high-res.7f1fea43e9e2.png)

<comment><USER85> What would be the problem with e10s? Sure, it's a big change, but it seems quite desirable imho.

<comment><USER83> 2-3x the memory use and lower performance due to the additional overhead of talking between processes.

There are advantages, but it is not without its disadvantages.

<comment><USER85> [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis/Firefox](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis/Firefox)

"Goals

There are number of things we believe the e10s project will give us:

...

2\. Improved performance, especially on multi-core machines.

3\. Better memory core stats."

That seems to directly contradict your concerns. However, these are stated goals and may not align with practical reality. I'd be surprised if, when these are numbers 2 and 3 on their list of priorities, the reality would be so very different.

<comment><USER83> See [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9558745](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9558745) (and actually the rest of that submission also)

Now, mind you, that was nearly 3 months ago. But the concerns there are still very relevant.

<comment><USER85> Those 3 months can make a world of difference. I'd like to see it in action before I decide whether it is a good or a bad thing.

Also, I'd be very surprised if the numbers in this little test are more than anecdotal. Performance will depend heavily on the kind of content you're viewing and I'd wager that the IPC calls make up a very small minority of the runtime profile for a tab process. Also, not everything is so performance- critical. For instance, if response to a mouse click went from 1 to 7 milliseconds, would anybody notice it? If _everything_ in the browser just slowed down by a factor of 2, would Mozilla really ship it?

<comment><USER83> > if response to a mouse click went from 1 to 7 milliseconds, would anybody > notice it?

Considering that a frame at 60fps is ~16.7ms, YES. That's 42% of your _total_ frame budget!

And it's not just IPC calls, either. There are many things that are less efficient when you segment things between multiple processes.

Also, you're completely ignoring / missing the point of memory use. FF (or rather, Pale Moon) is currently using >1/4 of the RAM on my laptop. And swap is (really really really really really) slow.

<comment><USER85> The exaggerated response time example was for a typical usecase. The amount of situations where there is actually 60fps rendering going on and necessary are few and far between. Most browser usage is of fairly static content. Especially in the case of a mouse click, when you expect something to change on the screen and almost everything in that change will depend on something much slower than the simple IPC call (if that even happens) of tranferring the mouse click event. Splitting things up between multiple processes can slow things down if done badly, and can also bring tremendous speedups if done right. I assume the folks at Mozilla know what they're doing.

And yes, I'm ignoring memory usage for now. Mostly because it is a horribly complex thing, especially in multi-process situations. The numbers are notoriously difficult to interpret between working set, commit charge, shared memory, memory mapped file IO. Unless you're actually debugging the code or an expert, it's basically just guesswork. Mozilla have improved Firefox's general memory footprint significantly these past few years and they're not going to throw those advancements away easily. Again, I trust them to know what they're doing.

As I said before, I'll reserve judgement on e10s until I get to experience it in daily use. All I will say in advance is that the premise and the stated goals make a lot of sense to me and it seems like a highly desirable technology.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> Here is an idea, sometimes it is a good idea to look inwards rather than outwards.

</comment><comment><USER87> readability extension i miss you so much

</comment><comment><USER88> At this point I don't think I'll ever return to using firefox after the mountain of stupid shit mozilla has pulled in the last ~2 years.

<comment><USER89> I share your sentiment, but Google Chrome is better only in terms of performance [1], it fares worse in both privacy and extensibility (no ad blockers/addons on mobile Chrome).

For people like me, who want:

* a free software browser

* android/desktop sync

* adblock and other addons

it is pretty much a binary choice between two evils.

[1]: Possibly, of course -- but that is a debate for another time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> Is there a good open Firefox fork that are relatively well maintained? This is getting out of control.

<comment><USER83> Pale Moon is decent. Or would be, except for the frustrations with addon compatibility. (Suffice to say, the Australis update pushed breaking changes to add-ons, in such a way that you cannot easily support both pre-Australis and post-Australis)

</comment></comment><comment><USER91> Ad-blockers have finally reached a point that the financiers of the major browsers are setting the groundwork for tightening the screws on them. Not right now, but in a couple years when earnings start trending down. Google and Yahoo -- driven by ads -- fund Chrome and Firefox, over half the browser market.

Nobody innately wants to be evil; these are still * mostly * engineer driven companies. But when it comes to an extensential crisis of revenue vs freedom, there is no real choice.

So thanks guys. We had a good run with open browsers, but it is quickly drawing closed because you just couldn't stand the ANNOYANCE of seeing ads next to your content. It's been fun, and now back to the darkness we go.

<comment><USER92> I don't see what would prevent folks from switching to a fork if that happened.

<comment><USER91> Sure. It will be a fork that falls behind master without funding or support. Get enough momentum and push it far enough and Chromium and Firefox will stop being OSS altogether.

<comment><USER66> This is indistinguishable from the conspiracy theories people used to circulate about a magic carburetor design which got 85MPG and was killed by Detroit automakers for unknown reasons.

Just look at the chain of unsupported assertions which have to all come true for this to make any sense: Mozilla will prevent you from installing ad- blockers, and that this will bother enough users to matter but somehow that won't lead to enough volunteered developer time to maintain even an almost unmodified "fork" which changes only a build flag (or a signing key)?

Or that somehow if that proved popular enough to attract a large number of users they'd react not by reconsidering such policies but instead push everyone over to Edge/WebKit? Microsoft and Apple are not primarily advertising companies and at least Apple is marketing actively on the idea of respecting your privacy – it's hard to imagine anyone working at a browser vendor not realizing that such a move is simply going to push users to switch.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Patent infringement claim re: "Creating Shazam in Java" blogpost (2010) - <AUTHOR> http://www.royvanrijn.com/blog/2010/07/patent-infringement/

<comment><USER2> It terrifies me that even disclosing that you are attempting to understand a patent implies you intend to infringe upon it. It's as close to a thoughtcrime as possible without peeking into our heads. Worst of all, this is only happening thanks to our modern age of information sharing[1], which helps encourage innovation.

Even if this topic covered was complex enough such that a patent was warranted, this is still disturbing as this accusation of patent infringement aims to directly halt the understanding of any of the innovations at play. Patents are an exclusive right granted in exchange for detailed public disclosure of the invention - to promote understanding and innovation is their purpose!

This wasn't angled towards mass production, just simply understanding and spreading knowledge - a fundamentally important concept in our knowledged based field.

[1]: Quote: "Also, as I'm sure you are aware, your blogpost may be viewed internationally. As a result, you may contribute to someone infringing our patents in any part of the world."

<comment><USER3> This is the double bind. You can't go looking because you're penalized.

Yet the PTO and patent community refers to patents as "teachings". I continually heard that. "This patent 456 teaches that yadda yadda bing-bap- boom" and your very soul (well, professional career) is pillar-of-salt material if you even go look.

And yet, none of the _really hard_ stuff seems to be patented. Or I could just be bitter. Or both :-)

"Let's see if someone's got prior art on (super whiz-bang technology)." Click, page, click . . .

"Wait, no--"

"Oh crap, I just read someone's hash table patent. Pass me another mind-wipe pill, would you?"

"Sigh. I'll have them hire another lawyer downstairs."

Which is what it's really about these days. Ka-ching, baby.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Even those that promote patenting algorithms should agree that patents purpose is opening the details of a machine or process in exchange for a monopoly.

That was the purpose of original patent's plans, that everybody could replicate your machine or process with the information provided.

When you want a monopoly and also ban publishing the details of the algorithm or working examples, something wrong is happening.

It has gone too far, with people recommending other people NOT to read patents, because it will be bad for them on court.

<comment><USER3> The reason that companies tell employees not to read patents is that knowingly infringing a patent is triple damages (as opposed to just accidentally reimplementing something).

I've read a bunch of software patents, with attorneys helping me out with language and advice, but this was under the guise of "How can we do a product like X, but not infringe on the related patents?" The patents in question were very broad, nearly without exception either ridiculously obvious or adoption of techniques that I found in textbooks and papers from conferences. It was almost like the company producing product X had bribed the PTO, it was that bad.

I believe that nearly every piece of software exceeding a few hundred lines of code infringes on someone's bullshit software or business methods patent. And of course, you can't go reading all the patents, so every software project is pre-screwed. Shipping software these days is a matter of ignoring the issue, crossing your fingers and hoping that a patent troll doesn't come knocking.

<comment><USER5> The PTO largely doesn't seem to care or do any research beyond the bare basics. As far as I can tell they're not really incentivised to do so either.

They collect a whole heap of fees for getting and maintaining a patent ([http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and- payment...](http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and- payment/uspto-fee-schedule)), and even claim a fee for revisiting a patent, but so far as I've been able to find, it doesn't cost them anything to actually invalidate one. It ought to cost them all the money they've taken so far, and then some on top, to provide them with more of an incentive to make sure the patent is correct.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Trolling hobbyists is indefensible, but it's simplistic to say that this is an obvious patent on "matching music using a hashing function." The patent in question is: 6,990,453. It describes doing a frequency domain analysis of the audio signal to obtain a set of landmarks, and using characterizations of those landmarks to obtain the fingerprints, and using the fingerprints to match songs: [http://www.google.com/patents/US6990453](http://www.google.com/patents/US6990453). That's why Shazam can recognize recorded and transcoded music. Simple hashing would not do that.

In fact, the article in question is actually based on a different article, which is based on a paper published by one of the Shazam authors: [http://www.ee.columbia.edu/~dpwe/papers/Wang03-shazam.pdf](http://www.ee.columbia.edu/~dpwe/papers/Wang03-shazam.pdf).

IMO, the outrage here is the tone-deaf PR of the CTO.

<comment><USER7> While technically awesome, it's still math. It cuts so closely to being able to patent proofs or mathematical expressions (it's kind of hard to argue that's not exactly what it is) and I hope one day the judicial system understands software well enough to invalidate software patents.

It's technically amazing. Shaman still amazes me with its speed and accuracy. But in the end, it's simple (advanced) numerical analysis.

I'd much rather their implementation be held close to the vest as a trade secret, where stealing source code is illegal, but if I produce similar functionality on my own via my own work and time investment, I don't need to fear that someone has government sponsored exclusivity on that pattern of mathematical analysis.

<comment><USER8> _> ... it's still math..._

This is a very prevalent misconception around here, so I will address it again. Saying "software is mathematics" is about as correct as saying "machines are physics". (Note that you cannot patent laws of physics either.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm always surprised by the confusion of well meaning, intelligent, creative but obviously naive hobbyists trying to understand the justice or logic when they are threatened by lawyers backed by organisations with lots of money.

Here's a wakeup call: Justice has nothing to do with any of this, and the only logic behind it is the golden rule, i.e that those who have the gold make the rules. This is nothing new. Satisfying greed of the powerful by invoking terror on the less powerful is a very common occurrence throughout human history. The only things that change in different times and places are the implementations of this rule.

Sorry to be so cynical about this, and I'd be delighted if you prove me wrong. It's ironic how patents today exist to mostly serve the exact opposite of their original intent.

</comment><comment><USER10> I don't think you can patent the description of the algorithm. Doesn't the patent itself contain the description of the algorithm?

This just sounds like pure bullying from third-rate "lawyers".

</comment><comment><USER11> Interesting letter showing lawyers think matching music thanks to an hashing function is not obvious (else why would they try to bully someone to remove that information from www).

<comment><USER12> Lawyers actually "think" nothing. Or rather, what they write and what they argue is what they are paid to write and argue. It has no actual connection to what they actually think - they might not even have actually personally considered the issue, and may never do so. However, what they write is in many ways _meant_ to be taken seriously and reacted to, just like troll posts. Therefore, take care not to be trolled by lawyers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> A quick search on github.com ([https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=shazam](https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=shazam)) lists a lot of implementation related to it. Bad that they are running behind a single guy. May be their implementation is exactly same as what is posted on the blog.

</comment><comment><USER14> Why hasn't AcoustID been targeted? [0]

[0]: [https://acoustid.org/](https://acoustid.org/)

</comment><comment><USER15> Streisand effect in 3, 2, 1...</comment>


TechCrunch has 2M Likes but they only get 300 Likes per Post. Fake Likes? - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/techcrunch-posts-50-times-day-what-you-can-learn-tom-ordonez <comment><USER2> No, I think it just reflects that Facebook put the average post in front of a tiny percentage of fans of a page, and of those only a small percentage will like, comment or share.

If a larger than usual proportion of users interact with the post, Facebook will start showing it to more people - possibly starting a snowball to full- fledged virality.</comment>


Gravitation water vortex power plant - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation_water_vortex_power_plant <comment><USER3> Microhydroelectric has come up on HN before: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6895582](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6895582)

This open design looks interesting, but there are a couple oddities in the Wikipedia article I'd appreciate clarification on from a subject matter expert:

 _> It was first patented by Greek-Australian Lawyer & Inventor Paul Kouris in 1996[1], who was searching for a way to harness the power inherent in a vortex._

What power is inherent in a vortex apart from gravitational potential energy being converted to kinetic energy?

 _> after a year of use its operation cost was approximately one US dollar per Watt capacity of output._

Shouldn't that be installation cost, not operating cost?

<comment><USER4> Fluid dynamicist here. Your understanding is correct. I would not read anything into vague statements like "the power inherent in a vortex". That explanation is basically woo. There's nothing special about vortices. The large vortex used here is sustained by the gravitational potential energy, as you said.

The Wikipedia article read a bit like an advertisement to me.

I don't suspect the Coriolis force of the Earth contributes much to this turbine either, though I admit I don't know much about the Coriolis force in fluid dynamics. For objects of the size shown, Coriolis forces are neglected in my experience.

Edit: Wikipedia backs me up on the Coriolis force being negligible. Aside from starting the rotation in the cited tests (something needs to break the symmetry), the Coriolis force is negligible compared against gravity. In the turbine case I believe turbulence would break the symmetry (the turbulence itself being influenced by imperfections in the flow, surfaces, vibrations, etc.).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force#Draining_in_bat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force#Draining_in_bathtubs_and_toilets)

<comment><USER5> Ignoring the BS about coriolis, I think there is something legit here.

Of course there isn't any power to be gained from the vortex. What you would gain is a lot of RPMs from very little head. It makes the system be high speed and low torque. The dynamos would be higher voltage (lower amperage), the wiring and inverters are cheaper with lower amperage, and the structure doesn't have to be as strong since the torques are lower. It might even automatically safe during floods, since too much water entering it would distrupt the vortex and halt the wheel.

It is more like a clever hydraulic gearbox that potentially makes all the other components less expensive. Or am I completely off base? The water is spinning around faster than it would be flowing out, correct?

<comment><USER6> This other company[1] built a prototype of a low-cost vortex in Chile, and claims it produces 15Kw consistently with a drop of 2-3m. If true that's fantastic. As suggested in their video, they could could build several of those in a row because they don't need a massive reservoir.

[1]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3p2e1-kN4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3p2e1-kN4)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have one of these on my property the previous owner built it. It takes quite a bit of maintenance to keep working properly, every 3-4 days I have to hike up the trail 15 mins to clear debris. If it rains then I have to clear that day. Also it is sorta scary, it's basically a drowning machine a few years ago I had to build a cover for it to keep wildlife from getting trapped. One of the best things I like about it is that it doesn't seem to effect fish any they come and go up and down stream freely.

</comment><comment><USER8> Usages are comparable to a hydraulic ram (which has been around for a long time). Probably less expensive because of the simplicity. Clever. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_ram](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_ram)

"The hydraulic ram is sometimes used in remote areas, where there is both a source of low-head hydropower and a need for pumping water to a destination higher in elevation than the source."

<comment><USER6> I wanted to mention hydraulic rams too! I think they're easily one of the most ingenious and clever mechanical devices ever invented. It's too bad they're not practical for large scale systems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> here's a good 2m30s youtube that shows 15kW one in action: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3p2e1-kN4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3p2e1-kN4)

its amazing how little there is to it, and how relatively quiet it is.

<comment><USER10> Interesting, this is a bit different design... it appears water has to "fall through" that turbine, rather than using the "stirring force" per the wikipedia article.

<comment><USER11> Not really the same at all. The gravitation water vortex power plant is designed in such a way that fish can easily go through in both directions because the turbine is in the upper, not lower portion of the vortex, leaving the drain clear for fish (and a certain extent, debris) to pass through. This is just a turbine installed in the drain. It's really not much different than a traditional hydro plant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't think there's any more water power being converted into rotational force ( via the vortex ), then there would be using any number of conventional [water turbine]([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_turbine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_turbine)) designs, like those used at, for example, the [Hoover Dam]([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity)).

<comment><USER13> Once you remove the inhabitat.com-style magical thinking (coriolis, vortex), the main selling points are being fish-friendly and that all the technological bits are in a single package conveniently accessible above water level.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> A couple more interesting things come to mind:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_turbine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_turbine)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrnul6ixX90](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrnul6ixX90)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_valve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_valve)

Also see: Viktor Schauberger (caution: will take you down quite a rabbit hole).

<comment><USER15> wow, definitely a rabbit hole! the whole Schauberger family it seems.. interesting stuff, thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> In general arrangement, it looks rather like a downsized, simplified Francis turbine.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_turbine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_turbine)

<comment><USER17> You're right. The main selling point of both turbines is the axial flow: the velocity differences between the water and the blades are the same on every sides of the turbine. The shear forces are low enough to let wildlife pass through unharmed (supposing that it's not heavily torqued by a high electric loads).

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This has been around in Switzerland for a while. Sadly, the company running it (the first of its kind here) went bankrupt

[https://www.srf.ch/news/regional/aargau- solothurn/wasserwirb...](https://www.srf.ch/news/regional/aargau- solothurn/wasserwirbel-kraftwerk-schoeftland-kritik-am-konkurs)

</comment><comment><USER19> With such a drop required could you harness a tide to produce power. Like maybe allow the tide to fill San Francisco Bay and harness it when it recedes.

</comment><comment><USER20> Can someone hint why this is different from the usual stuff like falling water on turbines? Perhaps this is more efficient?

<comment><USER21> This is good for low hydraulic head scenarios(basically, where the water doesn't have that much room to fall). With this system you can install it even if water only falls 2 feet, whereas more traditional turbines might need 6-10 feet

<comment><USER22> Yeah but that just means there's less power there to begin with, so not really economical or useful.

<comment><USER23> I don't think that's necessarily true. Couldn't you make up for it on volume? I can picture scenarios where you'd have a lot of water falling a small distance and it would be more convenient to install something like this than to use a site with a lesser amount of water falling a larger distance.

<comment><USER24> Absolutely. The potential power is _water mass/sec * head height * g_ - <USER2> water volume is just as valuable as more head height.

Actually, looking at that calculation, I wonder how much the fact that this turbine doesn't introduce cavitation (bubbles) affects the efficiency. The water would be more dense, which would theoretically improve output... no idea if enough to worry about, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Stupid question time: could this be used in sewage systems or similar to generate energy from us flushing the loo?

<comment><USER26> Of course, its just harnessing gravity pulling down water to spin a turbine.

There are _many_ cases where energy can be harnessed in daily activities, the biggest issue is the efficiency and cost of doing so. Most plumbing use wouldn't add up to nearly enough energy to offset the construction.

<comment><USER25> My original question was very nearly: can this be used in guttering? I figured that the non-constant flow would probably make it uneconomical.

<comment><USER27> Technically yes. But there just isn't enough potential energy in the water falling on a typical house.

For example, US average yearly rainfall of 76cm, on a 10m*15m roof, at height of two stories at 5 meters, would give you 1.5kWh of energy per year. That's enough to run the appliances in your home for an hour.

You might be in a more rainy location, or have a larger home, but the end result is still insignificantly small.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Back in '95 or so I saw someone who used an old turbo (well, half a turbo) to the same effect during a field trip in one of my "appropriate engineering" classes. I guess it was (is?) enough of a thing they figured out the formulas to size the turbo vs the water head &etc.

Much smaller scale but along with a little solar and a little wind they were 100% off the grid.

</comment><comment><USER29> I'm dumb as a post, I can't understand why some fancy vortex thing will get you more power than an ordinary water wheel.

<comment><USER30> A water wheel can not have more than 75% of the blades in contact with water at any point (or it would slow it down) and it is rarely practical to have more than 30% of the blades in contact with water.

A turbine in a vortex has 100% water-blade contact all the time, which means it can transfer more power with a smaller size and cheaper materials.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> And you can use it as a washing machine [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akJ9Zo5hhM8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akJ9Zo5hhM8)

</comment><comment><USER32> Seem cheaper and less complex + maintenance with solar.

<comment><USER33> But with solar you only have maybe 10 hours of generation per day at best, so you need to store the energy ( which has inefficiencies) or a grid that can cover many timezones. Using stored water for potential energy means it can be turned on and used as needed, and rated for an average use. In Australia there are plans for more stored energy systems using pumps and generators, probably fed by solar and wind.

<comment><USER13> Stored hydro isn't the realm of vortex turbines because they cannot be reversed, and because they excel at high volume/low drop. Pumped storage prefers high drop/low volume because losses from evaporation and seepage don't scale with height.

Vortex turbines are for tapping a creek or the canals left behind by a pre- steam ways mill that would otherwise be uneconomical to harvest, or where ecological impact of other installations would be too high.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> We used to make these in our above ground pool when I was a kid by running in circles.

</comment><comment><USER35> 73% sounds really efficient. How does it compare to other power plants?

<comment><USER36> Large hydroelectric plants can apparently have efficiencies of over 90%[1]. Smaller ones somewhere between 80% and 90%.

[1] [http://www.mpoweruk.com/energy_efficiency.htm#comparison](http://www.mpoweruk.com/energy_efficiency.htm#comparison)

<comment><USER35> Shoot never mind then. Perhaps the appeal here is how efficient they can be while also being small scale.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> This is so weird, I had a dream 2 nights ago of this very thing, a steady state hydrocyclone that had a steady state net power output and clean water!!</comment>


Slur, open source, decentralized and anonymous marketplace for data - <AUTHOR> http://slur.io/

<comment><USER3> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8794256](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8794256) (125 points, 197 days ago, 54 comments)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Wikileaks 2.0 - looks very evil for me and i unfortunately think, that people will use this for illegal stuff and not for a better world :( - <USER2> technology anyway!</comment>


Origins of Venmo - <AUTHOR> http://kortina.net/essays/origins-of-venmo/ <comment><USER2> _Iqram ended up finding a cheap sublet in West Philly, and we spent the summer building websites for restaurants, salons, bars, etc. We went door to door selling, "Hey, you need a website. We'll build it for $500…. $100? OK, deal." We learned a lot as we tried to abstract the sites we were building into something modular, and we got a lot of experience pitching and hearing "no." One "no" that I still regret more than most of the others I have subsequently heard (for much bigger deals) was for this amazing Pakistani restaurant, Kabobeesh, that served a chicken kabob sandwich on fresh naan bread for $3.50: we tried to sell them a site for 100 chicken rolls, but failed to close them._

I love how much time was spent exploring the early grind phase of this journey. Maybe Far too often this gets glossed over or glamorized as a mere waypoint on the way to eventual success.

</comment><comment><USER3> Not directly related to the post but I just wanted to say Venmo is awesome. I've had an account for a while now but most of my friends didn't want to use it and so I wasn't very active. Starting about 2 years ago I got all my roommates on Venmo (Venmo to pay and Splitwise to track it) to handle groceries/rent/utilities/etc and I love no longer getting checks/cash.

I'm not sure if they had always offered debit-card-only setup (I think I had to add a bank when I first signed up) but they do now which is great for when people want to pay me. I can have the money in Venmo and moving towards one of my bank accounts in minutes. Just a few months ago my Mom wanted me to buy a gift for my dad so that it didn't show up on her card and so I ordered it and then after he had the gift she Venmo'd me the money. She didn't have an account setup but I had the money in less than 10 minutes. She isn't technically illiterate but she sometimes needs help with computer stuff but I just told her to use Venmo and she figured it all out by herself.

I have a bachelor party I'm attending this weekend and in a group chat with the other guys attending the guy who setup the hotel said we could bring cash/checks or just Venmo him the money. This is someone who, while they grew up with tech, isn't someone I would expect to use Venmo. It just goes to show that what I think of as "someone I would expect to use Venmo" is wrong/outdated.

I'm really excited to see Venmo get used more and more as it makes my life extremely more simple when it comes to paying friend back or getting paid back. I am going to start pushing my friends that don't have it yet to sign up, I'd like nothing more than to never get a check/cash from a friend again.

<comment><USER4> When I went on a bachelor party last year we used GroupMe for all the shenanigans (pictures, scheduling, keeping in touch while out boozing, etc.) and a few months later it got payments added. If they could somehow use Venmo and drop the fee, it would be unbelievably awesome.

[http://gizmodo.com/5989263/groupme-now-lets-you-split-the- bi...](http://gizmodo.com/5989263/groupme-now-lets-you-split-the-bill)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Venmo is the first app to actually change my life in a major way (beyond google maps, text messaging, the basics). It Is the single handedly most valuable app on my phone by 10 fold.

It basically removes all transaction costs involved with spending money and going out with friends.

</comment><comment><USER6> Ending the story with a crazy list of future topics is a great way to get email subscribers.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm still blown away by this app. It moves money faster than my bank can to my account.

I look forward to seeing more of the story.</comment>


Ask HN: What useful Linux (Ubuntu) software should more people be aware of? - <AUTHOR> Hey guys! I've been Windows users for over 10 years and about 2 months ago I switched to Ubuntu. I wonder what software do you think will be really useful for the average Linux user and more people should be aware of?<p>I just would like to improve my daily user experience :) <comment><USER2> GNU parallel

its a super useful tool to execute tasks using all cores of your machine. A simple example [https://vidanp.wordpress.com/2016/11/04/paralelizando-en- lin...](https://vidanp.wordpress.com/2016/11/04/paralelizando-en-linux/)

</comment><comment><USER3> In case you haven't yet: Set up an automatic backup system.

If you prefer a graphical user interface consider _backintime_. [https://www.howtogeek.com/110138/how-to-back-up-your- linux-s...](https://www.howtogeek.com/110138/how-to-back-up-your-linux-system- with-back-in-time/)

Otherwise check out _duplicity_. [https://help.ubuntu.com/community/DuplicityBackupHowto](https://help.ubuntu.com/community/DuplicityBackupHowto)

Duplicity supports a bunch of protocols / target services (SFTP, dropbox, google drive, amazon S3 ...)

Duplicity uses asymmetric encryption (via gnupg) so the backup commands can be run unattended. (Your private key is not required for encryption during backup)

</comment><comment><USER4> You could add PPA for VS Code on Ubuntu, you should try rsync (cli) or grsync (gui) and get Meld for diffs. Shutter for screenshots, Parcellite for clipboard history, Caffeine to inactivate the screensaver. Also you could get a lot of task specific software via so called snaps or package your tools own with snapcraft.

</comment><comment><USER5> Standard Notes :) It's an encrypted notes app I work on. Available on Linux and almost every other platform. [https://standardnotes.org](https://standardnotes.org).

<comment><USER6> Very cool! Is there a CLI?

<comment><USER5> No CLI currently..I would probably leave that to the community to develop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> * systemd-nspawn - aka. chroot on steroids -- for all your container needs -- I use this a lot for all my development, for trying new programs, for games, etc.

* RetroArch - for all your emulation needs in one package.

* ripgrep - better and faster than ag (The Silver Searcher).

* mpv - very nice video player, it can also be used together with youtube-dl for streaming from various websites, including youtube, etc.

To site admins: stop marking my comments as dead for no good reasons, my suggestions are valid.

<comment><USER8> +1 on ripgrep. I have rg installed on my main work laptop and now ag feels a lot slower.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Franz: [http://meetfranz.com/](http://meetfranz.com/)

It's a cross-platform messaging client that combines, Whatsapp, Facebook chat, Slack etc. into one application.

<comment><USER10> and a second ago I wondered why I as a wandows user even read this thread :) thanks

<comment><USER10> oh, it just wraps the web tab and captures the notifications. No better than pinned tabs for me I think.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Tunesviewer to access the university courses available on iTunes. It allows you to choose which videos to download and you can watch it through tunesviewer itself or your favorite media player.

[https://github.com/rbrito/tunesviewer](https://github.com/rbrito/tunesviewer)

</comment><comment><USER12> GNU/units

Its a wonderful CLI app when you calculate things with units.

Eg: You have: (1000W * 5 hour)/(24V _100A) You want: min_ 125

Or: You have: 10 km * 6L/100km * 1.3 EUR/L You want: USD * 0.837486

You should try it !

</comment><comment><USER3> If you like vim or other console applications with vi-like key bindings I'd would recommend taking a look at [http://ranger.nongnu.org/](http://ranger.nongnu.org/)

Ranger is an highly customizable file manager that can be controlled by using the keyboard only.

File management (searching, copying, moving, renaming...) takes considerably less time since I switched from windows-explorer / nautilus / nemo to ranger.

I can't imagine going back.

Getting started with ranger: [https://github.com/ranger/ranger/wiki/Official- user-guide](https://github.com/ranger/ranger/wiki/Official-user-guide)

</comment><comment><USER13> The following suggestion is definitely not the most useful, but really nice to have.

If you're feeling adventurous, you could experiment with different window managers, such as bspwm, awesomewm or i3.

Check out some examples in [https://www.reddit.com/r/unixporn/](https://www.reddit.com/r/unixporn/)

Here's a good demo of bspwm [https://github.com/windelicato/dotfiles/blob/master/why_bspw...](https://github.com/windelicato/dotfiles/blob/master/why_bspwm.gif)

</comment><comment><USER14> It all depends on what you do with your computer. For one I am a stats nerd so I tend to have Conky running.

OpenOffice or Libre office; for all your Office needs, it can also output to Microsoft formats.

Screen; for multi terminal windows within one terminal. Also very handy when working remotely.

<comment><USER15> tmux is a replacement for screen that feels more integrated and full featured.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> If you don't already you should get familiar with Aptitude (apt-get). There's nothing like hopping into the command line and immediately installing the piece of software you want.

I like the Clementine music player.

Being able to hop into the command line to process text is neat. You might want to do a toutorial on grep, awk and sed.

Gimp is nice for photo manipulation, I use Inkscape for vector graphics.

Opera is a nice second browser (chrome is a memory hog) it also has built in vpn and Adblock.

<comment><USER17> Opera is chrome-ish now that they've ditched their old rendering engine :/

(though I'm fairly certain they use a different strategy for managing tabs than chrome that might still be more memory efficient)

<comment><USER18> Opera is now 360 and there's no way I'm touching anything they're involved in having combated their intrusive software on Windows.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> For a person who is initially starting with Linux. I'd suggest you to get familiar with the terminal. I'd also ask what your primary use case is. If you are a software developer vs code is a great editor to download.

</comment><comment><USER20> Riot: End-To-End encrypted chat system the runs on Matrix. The idea behind Matrix is to connect different protocols through "bridges".

Matrix is federated (I suppose XMPP is federated too). You can send an email from Gmail to Yahoo, Outlook to Protonmail, etc.

</comment><comment><USER21> Nextcloud

</comment><comment><USER22> "Linux" "user experience"

Good luck.</comment>


Building an exchange with transactional mealy machines - <AUTHOR> http://scattered-thoughts.net/one/1300/292121/72985

<comment><AUTHOR> I've had a couple of people recently ask me about the exchange software about Smarkets so I wrote about one of the systems I still remember. I've poked the Smarkets team about writing more technical articles. I also just noticed that their web framework is now on github: <https://github.com/skarab/smak>

</comment><comment><USER2> Nice overview, thank you for sharing.

Besides this article, jamii's comment below provides more context of the system.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2328220></comment>


Ask HN: Review my startup - YakGroups - <AUTHOR>

YakGroups is project management for college students involved in class group projects.
I am releasing it in its early possible useable state in hopes of starting to receive some useful feedback from actual users. I will then, of course, iterate and build out the remaining features based off of that feedback.
Right now, it's in open-Beta, completely free, and will stay that way likely through the summer. For the Fall semester, I will introduce Basic and Pro plans. I'm not sure yet exactly how I will implement the plans, but the current idea is that the Basic will be free but pretty limited (limited file uploads, etc) and the Pro will have all features unlocked and cost around $5 per semester per person.
The app is built around group ToDo's: scheduling them, assigning them to group members, and discussing them. The idea is to let users quickly add ToDo's using the "Quick Add." The "Quick Add" acts like Google Calendar's feature of the same name and will parse out date data as well as the names of any group members and assign it to them. Then users can drag ToDo's to reorder them, onto the calendar to re-assign a due date, and onto discussions to link them to the discussion.
Additional notes for those curious: I developed YakGroups with Django and jQuery using Netbeans as an IDE on a Mac starting in early September 2009. I finished my CS undergrad in May 2009, just completed my first semester as an MBA grad student, and I have been desperately wanting a tool like this for the many group projects I have encountered over the past several years.
In developing YakGroups, there are some nods to Google Groups/Cal and to Etherpad. I tried to keep the signup process as close to Etherpad's wonderfully succinct model as I could; as a result, one click on the homepage will allow you to start using the application. Not yet, but eventually the discussions will be linked to emails like in Google Groups.
Thanks for all your feedback.
http://www.yakgroups.com <comment><AUTHOR> Clickable link: <http://www.yakgroups.com></comment>


Ask HN: What is your perspective about the future of your society? - <AUTHOR> I'm not completely sure my question belongs here or if my english helps me to explain what I am looking for. But it is creating for me some anxiety almost every day for at least 1 year, maybe more.
And I want to hear some perspectives/opinions different than what I read in the news or online articles about this subject:
_How to you see the future?_ (as human society, democracy, rights,… ). I'm asking this in general not just for US or a specific country in EU.
I want to know what other people are thinking. It might be that I am wrong. For sure my understanding of the world is limited so things are escaping from my overview.
I'm interested in perspectives that are not directed to criticism/judgement of what happened.
But more like an imagination exercise of how the world might be, why it would be like that and how do you prepare for it. <comment><AUTHOR> I'm thinking that maybe I could share my current train of thoughts (where "c" = cause and "e" = effect) as an example.

Hypothesis: There are a lot of nationalists movements that are starting to be more vocal and get supporters.

If they start to gain momentum (c1) then the countries will fall back to seeing their interests first (e1).

So it follows that they will protect first national/local businesses and then focus on international deals (c2).

In this case the flow of money starts to be slower (e2).

So the push for innovations and creativity will suffer a pressure at least from lack of investments (c3).

And from this it might be that the advancement of the IT into automation and being integrated part of almost all of live aspects it might slow (e3).

Less startups, less focus on innovation from companies, less research (c4).

In this case then we will have less benefits of 21st century (e4) (free movement, vacancies, talking about happiness, learning a new programming language …) and more focus on efficiency and pragmatism.

Now if this is the case than I have to think in what direction should I start preparing myself so that I get the most probable best future. I'm in IT doing a combination of development, product management with focus on teams and prototyping ideas.

Is the best preparation to keep learn a new framework/programming language? Or is it getting deeper into what I already know? Should I learn more how to work in physical world?

A lot of questions and the answer for them - at least for me - resides in how do I foresee the future.

edit: formatting

</comment><comment><USER2> Unfortunately the "greatest generation" is gone and we have to relearn the mistakes they made for ourselves.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok, let's assume that your hypothesis is:

> the "greatest generation" is gone

What are the effects of this for the future in your opinion? And I'm asking it with a background focus on trying to understand what might be the possible development for the IT.

edit: formatting

<comment><USER2> I meant to post my comment in the gorbachev discussion.</comment></comment></comment>