Firefox Multi-Account Containers - <AUTHOR> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ <comment><USER2> Firefox Multi-Account contains are _awesome_ for software development and testing! At my work we usually work at tools which have three roles: user, reviewer, administrator so I generally have three containers for these user accounts. This means I can be logged in with all the accounts I need for testing in the same web browser without resorting to private mode (which does not remember cookies between sessions anyway).

In addition, I use the temporary container add-on[0] which also uses containers, but throws them away after being used (like reference counting).

These two tools have seriously improved my ability to both develop and test applications without the hassle of logging out and logging in all the time or needing any tricks when needing multiple clean browsing sessions.

[0]: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/temporary- con...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/temporary-containers/)

<comment><USER3> A few more usecases that I've added to my workflow since discovering container tabs:

* Work/personal separation

* Multiple AWS accounts

Also, I am very impressed with how well they're integrated into Firefox. For example, opening a link in a new tab will preserve the container. CMD+Shift+T will restore a recently closed tab and remember its original container. I really like the color coding too.

<comment><USER4> Use a different Firefox profile for work/personal.

Sign-in to personal (while at work) to sync bookmarks if firewall allows. Depending on whether you trust your employer you could sync further personal settings.

Don't sign-in to work profile and no work bookmarks or settings/logins get shared.

Don't get me wrong: multi-account containers are a blessing for those rare days when you absolutely have to log-in to facebook.

<comment><USER5> What are the differences between a profile and an account?

<comment><USER4> I suspect the mapping between accounts and profiles is 1:1, but you can have a different profile which is not associated with an account.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I can forgive the somewhat limited user interface for setting these up that is in the stock add-on, but the lack of automatic syncing of rules to all computers with the same Firefox account is really frustrating to deal with.

Putting in the effort to get them all set up nicely and then having them either blown away (I think this happened once...) or needing to get that over to another computer has made me limit my use to fewer containers than I probably would otherwise use.

<comment><USER7> There is a plugin that will sync the actual containers, but it doesn't sync your rules you setup to always open site X in your personal container, etc.

Without that, its useless to me. There is a bugzilla [0] for it, and 3 years ago, it was said they were going to look more into it, and nothing really since.. Its frustrating.

[0] [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1288858](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1288858)

<comment><USER8> M-A-C dev here ...

We're actually pretty deep into the work of adding sync to M-A-C. [https://github.com/mozilla/multi-account- containers/pull/161...](https://github.com/mozilla/multi-account- containers/pull/1611)

Predictably, synchronizing data is complicated, so it's taking a while and we're trying to do it in a way that doesn't destroy any existing data. So we'll be doing some heavy internal testing on it before we release it.

But it's definitely coming.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I love Firefox Multi-Account containers!

My only complaint (and really this is my biggest gripe with Firefox in general) is that there is no support for syncing containers using your Firefox account. This means every time I set up a new computer I have to reconfigure my containers and for each computer I have to re-associate all the sites I have sandbox with their own containers. This is such a huge pain.

Other than that, I love it.

<comment><USER10> It's also a great issue for me since I have to reconfigure everything.

I don't know how the Firefox account works but the fact that FMAC is an extension and not natively included in Firefox may be explaining why it's not synced ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Pair it with "containerise" ([https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/containerise/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/containerise/) ). With containerise, you can easily edit a text file (host, container name) to create/edit/backup multiple containers.

<comment><USER12> Does it sync this across multiple machines? Can I export/import this list?

<comment><USER11> Unfortunately, it doesn't sync. You can copy the text anywhere (e.g. email to yourself!) and use it elsewhere; it's still a much better UX compared to the built-in functionality.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I really _really_ want support for multiple browser profiles in Firefox. Multi-Account Containers are cool, but they don't allow me to change my bookmarks or browser extensions. This is the only thing left Chrome has over Firefox that I honestly care about.

The profile manager (about:profiles) comes so close, but it's just not as elegant as Chrome. Starting Firefox with the profile manager also causes issues when the OS tries to open another Firefox instance.

They have a Firefox sync profile badge now. Just give me the option in that menu to open a new Firefox instance with another profile. And when the OS tries to open a webpage, just use the default profile - or even whatever profile I opened a page with last.

<comment><USER14> Every time this comes up, everyone always dismisses it by just pointing to about:profile or the launch flags, but in my opinion those are weak excuses.

Chrome made profiles a first class citizen and they're an absolute pleasure to use. I literally use them every day. Firefox having a bunch of buried half baked UI isn't really an answer to that.

I believe Firefox is a better browser overall. Only this (profiles), the terrible bookmark/history experience (wtf is that?), and the developer bar are the remaining weaknesses.

<comment><USER15> The entire Library, Bookmarks/History/the archaic Downloads popup, all just makes me immensely sad. Meanwhile I keep seeing more badges (Pocket, Screenshots, Lockwise, etc) crap popping up in the browser UX...

To add on to what you're pointing out -- they even cloned Chrome's "profile- icon-in-the-bar" model, but didn't actually give you the ability to switch profiles with it! Instead more places to shove more links that I forgot about - Firefox Monitor and Firefox Send.

<comment><USER16> The history and bookmark management also has some unfortunate performance issues. I'm fairly certain there's a memory leak or something as well, as deleting several thousand entries at once (say, via 'forget this site' menu options) effectively breaks the browser until restart even when it has finished the operation.

A comment in the bugzilla for this issue[1] seems to suggest that they'd like to rewrite History at the very least. So it's on the priority list somewhere.

[1] [https://bugzilla.mozilla.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734643](https://bugzilla.mozilla.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734643)

<comment><USER17> "Forget this site" seems to work well for me, but selecting thousands of history items manually and then pressing the delete key will lock firefox up for tens of minutes.

There is definitely something profoundly broken with how history is being handled. Probably more than one thing that's broken, from the sounds of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I made a fork of this that gives you some additional control over how links are treated - specifically, you can set it up different rules for what container to open a page in depending on what container it was opened from: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/containers- wi...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/containers-with- transitions/)

The rationale is that you rarely want pages that you open from random Facebook posts or Reddit submissions, or pages that you arrive at by following more links from those, to have access to your Facebook or Reddit login information.

<comment><USER19> I'll be trying this— I like Firefox containers a lot, but I dislike how session-oriented they are. You can force a particular site into container X, but every click from there will stay in container X unless another rule forces it to a different containers.

What I want is something more like "jail site X in container X, and open every non-X link in a temporary container / container Y / whatever."

<comment><USER20> I use containers + Cookie Auto delete [0]. In the HN container, I keep HN cookies. Anything opened from HN will stay in the HN container and non-HN sites get cookies deleted shortly. This reduces some tracking for me, but doesn't do anything for something like an XSS against HN that the GP seems to be referring to.

[0]: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie- autode...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autodelete/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Nostalgic mode: I created a Firefox extension 11 years ago enabling users to have cookie containers by a tab (even when the Firefox API didn't enable this, it was basically a hack). Submitted the extension to the Firefox extend contest but not even a mention there. You can check an old video [1]

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Pfg- kJ4nAw&fmt=18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Pfg-kJ4nAw&fmt=18)

</comment><comment><USER22> The biggest drawback with Multi-Account containers is that they don't sync with the Firefox Sync. I have an elaborate and carefully crafted set of containers. I even have one for TheGuradian where I am allowing ads but the moment a new machine is added to the workflow all is lost.

</comment><comment><USER23> For privacy, I use first-party isolation. The effect is that all domains get their own container. In day-to-day use I haven't seen any sites that don't work with it enabled.

[https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/firefox- fpi.html](https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/firefox-fpi.html)

<comment><USER24> One step further: 'Temporary Containers', it trashes the container when you close the tab: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/temporary- con...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/temporary-containers/)

Specified sites can still be opened in specific containers, and not be trashed.

<comment><USER25> I use Temporary Containers all day. Love this addon. This is fantastic not only for privacy/security for everyday use but also great for testing sites while doing development. It becomes really easy to be logged into all the different types of users in a website at the same time and see the interaction.

<comment><USER26> Agreed. I have mine in automatic mode. My default browsing experience is that most pages have never seen my computer before (at least as far as cookies go), and don't get to set anything that will stick around, unless I manually add them to a named container.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This a really useful extension for working with multiple cloud service accounts (e.g. AWS assumes a global session, GCP theoretically supports multiple logins but it's in the usual Google NOQA zone where many things break) but there's a really important limitation to know about: the container configuration isn't synchronized with your account. This means that if anything reset your Firefox profile (like that bug they had last year) or if you use multiple computers, you'll be spending a lot of time duplicating the configuration:

See [https://github.com/mozilla/multi-account- containers/issues/3...](https://github.com/mozilla/multi-account- containers/issues/339)

</comment><comment><USER28> I love this and use it daily but am sad that they don't sync between machines (and the discussion over at [https://github.com/mozilla/multi-account- containers/issues/3...](https://github.com/mozilla/multi-account- containers/issues/339) is a bit disenhartening)

<comment><USER29> Why disheartening? There's a comment from a Mozilla developer in December saying they're planning to work on it.

<comment><USER28> It's been open since 2017, and it took many waves of commenting before they took action. For a privacy-oriented browser, that's a bit late.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I love this feature... on one machine at a time.

Without a built-in sync feature, I continue to use the simplest form of cookie management: Private Windows.

I know there's been some discussion on sync: [https://github.com/mozilla/multi-account- containers/issues/3...](https://github.com/mozilla/multi-account- containers/issues/339).

As of Dec 2019, it looks like some traction will be coming to syncing just Containers and Site Assignments (which I believe would perfectly suffice most basic needs).

If anyone really wanted to keep an eye on sync, I'm guessing these features will be committed to their syncserver, when available: [https://github.com/mozilla-services/syncserver](https://github.com/mozilla- services/syncserver).

<comment><USER31> Same here, love this feature and use it daily! Hoping for a sync capability in the near future.

</comment></comment><comment> m-p-3 I wish that containers would be transferable in Firefox Sync accross systems.

</comment><comment><USER32> I use this less for privacy and more for being able to keep all the different account signins straight. I wish there were support in the bookmark where I can define which bookmark targets which container.

<comment><USER33> (3 months ago) [https://github.com/mozilla/multi-account- containers/issues/3...](https://github.com/mozilla/multi-account- containers/issues/323#issuecomment-546400346)

> _With #1537, our next release starts to address container-bookmark > integration & UX. As @MichaelTunnell points out, it does not solve ALL of > the container-bookmark UX requests in this issue, or in #854 #1142 and > #1443._

> _Container-bookmark UX is a big project, and some of the solutions will > require changes in Firefox itself. Any changes here could introduce tricky > bugs both in technical integration and in UX flows._

<comment><USER32> Yup. I am waiting for that to happen.

In the meantime, I have been using a hacky work-around that more or less does the core thing that I want: quickly open up a specific bookmark in a specific container. (Actually adding it into the bookmarks and syncing across devices is a pain, but not as painful as not being able to open up bookmarks into specific containers).

<comment><USER33> Are you using the addon on AMO for "Open Bookmark In Container"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Easily one of the most useful extensions I've ever used in any browser. My only annoyance with it is that One Tab -- www.one-tab.com -- doesn't remember in which container to re-open saved tabs. I really wish this feature would be implemented in Safari, Edge, and Chrome.

</comment><comment><USER35> This was long time ago. It does compartmentalize the browsing info but the history is still accessible with other containers. For example, a Shopping container should have its own history. ([https://github.com/mozilla/multi- account-containers/issues/4...](https://github.com/mozilla/multi-account- containers/issues/47))

<comment><USER36> If I wanted to completely separate things like this I would use multiple different profiles. The advantage of the extension is that your history, settings, etc remains constant across the containers.

<comment><USER16> Profiles are unfortunately much more cumbersome to use than in Chrome.

The UX that container tabs have - being able to use them in the same Windows as other tabs, with accessible open-in options from the tab bar and from various context menus; creating new containers as easily as specifying a name and no more - is the UX that I wish Firefox had for their profiles.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Are these useful yet ?

I am very excited about this feature and have tried to incorporate it into my workflow but find it very difficult.

I want to open a _window_ (not tab) as a particular profile, and then all subsequent tabs in that _window_ are of that same profile.

This would seem to be the basic, beginning use-case from which all other use- cases would follow. I don't know why it doesn't exist ...

<comment><USER38> > This would seem to be the basic, beginning use-case from which all other > use-cases would follow.

I would never ever want to do that. So, no, it is not the basic, beginning use-case. It is a worthless use case for me. You shouldn't assume that your use cases are the obvious ones.

<comment><USER37> How do you open new, specific, container tabs with a keystroke then ?

As far as I can tell, the only way to open a specific container tab is to mousey-mouse-mouse to:

File > New Container Tab > Blah

Of course that use-case should be preserved, but it's woefully inefficient ... if you have a profile you do a lot of things under, you'd create a window and then (keystroke) (CMD)-t to get a new tab ...

<comment><USER39> It's not super-efficient, but it _is_ keyboard accessible: press Ctrl+. to open the Container selection menu, then the down arrow to the Container you want, and Enter to open a new tab in that Container.

<comment><USER37> Actually, I see that you can press number keys to spawn the container tab you want in that pick-list.

So, you don't need to down-arrow and pick, you can just:

ctrl + . (ctrl + period)

then hit '1' or '2' ...

<comment><USER39> Well, today I learned - thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Is there any way to run this on mobile Firefox? I've loved this on desktop and installed firefox on my Android tablet but this addon shows as "not available".

<comment><USER41> I don't think so, I am set up on mobile to use a password safe for account login, then I delete all cookies and state on log out. So when the browser opens, there's usually nothing in it, and then the signing for the site I want to go to is auto filled making login pretty simple, then I quit on close.

That's the best I've been able to do so far.

<comment><USER30> It sounds like your workflow could be replaced with Firefox Focus: [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/focus](https://support.mozilla.org/en- US/kb/focus)

Available for Android and iOS.

<comment><USER40> Focus is great, but it doesn't handle the use case of having multiple accounts for a site that you don't have to sign in each time to use. Otherwise it's basically a fancy "private browsing" window.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> A fantastic feature, but has a really frustrating UX issue still not fixed which is that you can't auto open a 'homepage' site for a new container tab, so say for example you have a container for one specific site, you have to open a new container tab and _then_ open that site using a bookmark or similar.

What you _can_ do is have a certain site auto open in a specific container, that way you can just go to the site from a bookmark, link, the address bar etc and it is just one step, but this breaks when you have more than one account on the same site and want a container for each.

If anyone does know a workaround for this, or knows if there's a fix coming, would be really interested to hear!

</comment><comment><USER43> I love MACs.

A couple of caveats, though:

* If you disable Multi-Account Containers at ANY TIME, all of your configuration will be gone. So, don't ever disable it. Or just be prepared.

* They don't sync with Firefox Sync.

* I use Alfred and in some of my workflows, when I have URLs that are designed to always open in a particular container, FF just won't open the URL. /shrug

* Always opening URLs depends on the URL. This works great for apps which give you account-specific URLs (e.g. Harvest, Jira, other services...) but doesn't work at all for stuff like Gmail or Drive. I wish there was a way to get FF to ask you how you want to open a URL like that.

</comment><comment><USER15> I would happily donate a thousand dollars towards seeing MAC integrated as a first-rate feature. As-is, I have a massive love-hate relationship with it.

1\. I'm horrified using Chrome these days. Browsing to a random site and having my Google account avatar pop up and offer to log me in is really unacceptable. So I fundamentally love what MAC provides. (Though some of this is also Firefox's aggressive cookie options.)

2\. It's ridiculously buggy. "Reopen in Container Tab" often reloads in the exact same container. Trust me, I've checked the various bits of configuration that control defaulting certain domains to certain containers, there are just times that it does the wrong thing.

3\. The config is hard to backup? I gave up last time I tried. It's a lot of work to get all of the domains setup to open in certain containers, establish the naming/coloring conventions so that it's not a mental burden.... and then have to lose it when I'm inevitably told that somehow Linux performance will be magically better if I make a new profile.

Example usages: multiple "personas". I have a Google Suite account and domain for certain things. I don't have issues switching between Google accounts because to Google, I'm only ever logged into one at a time. Dev/Test purposes.

</comment><comment><USER44> A big thread from 2017: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15256603](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15256603)

</comment><comment><USER45> I recently started using the multi-account container addon. And I love it. Just before I also started using Mozilla's Facebook container[1] and it works as intended as well.

I know supercookies and other fingerprinting means I am probably being tracked still, but at least I am minimising it without going full time incognito.

Previously I was using Profiles to separate personal, work and clients, and though about:profiles help switching quicker it was still messy, and confusing which profile a link would open in etc.

Now I can separate Facebook, Google products and Amazon into their own containers. I can keep various client browsing separate from my personal, I can keep more suspect websites in its own container, finance, infrastructure etc. Love it.

* [1] [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/facebook-cont...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/facebook-container/)

</comment><comment><USER46> I use this and for the most part it works just fine. The other day I ran into a problem where it got into this loop and I ended up making Chrome as my default browser just to get around this issue.

The issue is when you've an app that needs Google authentication and it opens the browser. To be more specific, I was trying to log in on Postman using the web authentication option. It opened my default browser (Firefox) just fine but it opened my other container (Work) which is not associated with my Google login. When i asked it to re-open the page in the other container (Personal), it lost all the redirect information and wouldn't let me continue back to Postman. I swear I had this same issue with another app but can't recall its name.

I suppose i could workaround this issue by having my personal container handle all the postman links but it seems like too many steps to get one thing.

</comment><comment><USER47> Does it work with Firefox Sync yet? That's the only thing stopping me from using containers - I've got multiple machines I would need to sync containers between. Last time I checked (admittedly a few years ago) it didn't and it seemed unlikely to be added any time soon.

</comment><comment><USER48> What are your favorite ways of setting up containers? At home I have the following containers, each with separate cookies:

      Banking - all finance related stuff

      facebook

      twitter

      amazon - Amazon + AWS + Zappos

      Google - google, gmail, maps

<comment><USER34> Or if you're a consultant working on mobile apps for different clients, having separate containers for each client allows you to be in all of the client's Google Play Console at the same time in one browser.

(Or in multiple accounts/logins of Twitter, Facebook, Gmail, Outlook, etc...)

<comment><USER49> This is my use case also. I have 14 O365/Azure dashes to wrangle and this is the only good way to do it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> This is the answer to nasty crawlers and trackers that are planted away by pretty much all sites like Google, Facebook, Amazon, Twitter etc. etc.

The simplicity of these Containers really amazes me.

</comment><comment><USER51> Firefox Multi-Account Containers are impossible to go back from once you get used to them. Add in Conex ([https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/conex/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/conex/)) and you have really great tab group switching WITH containerization / "firewall" between containers.

You can't get anywhere near this with Chrome as far as I'm aware.

<comment><USER52> Chrome Profiles. Sadly, way better IMO

<comment><USER53> Far inferior IMO. Containers are incredibly lightweight compared to opening a separate profile. I would say Firefox profiles are more cumbersome to use than chromes..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Nice. Now my wife and I can both stay logged in to our email. I've wanted this feature for 15 years. Now, bring multi row tabs back and FF will be awesome again.

<comment><USER55> Another option is setting Firefox to open the profile manager[0].

That's what I've always done when I don't want to use multiple accounts on the machine itself.

[0][https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager- create-...](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create- remove-switch-firefox-profiles?redirectlocale=en-US&redirectslug=profile- manager-create-and-remove-firefox-profiles)

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> While nice, sadly, Chrome Profiles are a way better implementation. Chrome profiles is _the only_ reason why I am using chrome as a daily driver.

</comment><comment><USER56> I have been using this for a while now, it's pretty good, but I always had trouble separating Gmail and Google search. It's necessary to add accounts.google.com and mail.google.com

I think I can't isolate Google search to ours own container.

I'm also using strict setting and cookies are cleared when Firefox is closed, and Gmail and accounts domain are white listed.

The UI of this addon could be a little better.

<comment><USER57> Do you want to be logged in while using Google search? I don't. So I have 2 Google containers (work + private) where I am logged in for Gmail, Drive etc. But search, maps, etc. I do in a 3rd container. Yeah, you cannot blindly follow all links, but that doesn't bother me too much.

<comment><USER56> I don't want to be logged in when searching.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> I agree, this feature is awesome for development. One of the logging platforms we use (PaperTrail) uses a single cookie for connecting to their platform. This in turn, makes it a complete pain if I want to view logs for a dev/staging instance because it logs me out of our live logs.

Multi-Account Containers completely fixed this for me.

</comment><comment><USER59> An alternative is to use firejail. If you want temp profiles you can write a script that: \- copies a good initial profile to /dev/shm \- launches Firefox in firejail with —private that points to the dir \- delete the dir

If you want the containers to stick around you can avoid /dev/shm and keep the dirs around instead.

</comment><comment><USER60> Shameless plug.

If You want a sidebar with tabs grouped by containers, I developed an addon for it: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/container- tab...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/container-tabs- sidebar/)

</comment><comment><USER61> I have been using this on desktop for sometime now and really like it.

I recently changed to using Firefox on Android and it seems some extensions like this one are not compatible which is a real shame.

I wish that this was compatible with Firefox mobile

</comment><comment><USER62> This plus destroy all cookies and accounts on shutdown... and for the international set Language switch!

Any want to automatically regenerate fingerprinting randomness?

Sites please enable 2FA and not require Captchas!

</comment><comment><USER63> I'd prefer using [https://gologinapp.com/](https://gologinapp.com/) or another antidetect browser. It's much more comfortable

</comment><comment><USER64> These are pretty good, but the Chrome implementation is better. Specific complaints: \- can't tie a bookmark to a container. \- too many clicks to open a new tab in a container (in Chrome the whole window stays tied to the container, not just the tab) \- bookmarks and history aren't container-scoped.

<comment><USER64> Also, it's annoying and a bit scary (for bugs) that this is an extension rather than being built into the browser.

<comment><USER65> It is built into the browser. The extension is just the UI to access it.

<comment><USER64> I have to install an extension to use it. With Chrome, I do not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> This has been released a long time ago. The documentation is from 2018. [https://support.mozilla.org/en- US/kb/containers](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/containers)

</comment><comment><USER67> I though they had discontinued it. Are they back at it?

</comment><comment><USER68> I still think that firefox profiles are better.

</comment><comment><USER69> Qubes. It's the only way to be sure.

</comment><comment><USER70> Almost useless as it doesn't sync the settings and containers as part of Firefox sync. Setting these up on all the devices is a pain!

<comment><USER22> well, Since I care about them so much that I am now taking backup of the Profile and shipping them across machines ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> This is awesome!</comment>


Twenty Rules for Amazon Cloud Security - <AUTHOR> http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2008/11/20-rules-for-amazon-cloud-security.html <comment><USER2> There's an assumption here that you use EC2 even though you don't trust Amazon. What is the cost of this assumption?

It would be interesting to separate these rules into universal ones and EC2 ones. I suspect that in many cases, following all these rules would add enough cost to offset any savings of using EC2.

</comment><comment><USER3> A lot of these rules apply to more than just Amazon's cloud. If you're deploying to any one of the major hosting providers out there, it's critical to understand where you should be encrypting network traffic, etc. This is especially true as most of the affordable service providers don't provide any real DMZ-type support for the machines you rent.

</comment><comment><USER4> In other words, how to shave the yak for about 6 months setting up a complicated security infrastructure.

These may all be good practices, but how many of them assume that Amazon itself will get hacked?

For entrepreneur on a budget, isn't #20 the most important one?

<comment><USER5> How does encrypting data and not allowing passwords for shell accounts affect your budget?

<comment><USER2> I suspect that many sysadmins have little experience with dm-crypt and all the key management you'd need with it, so learning and installing that stuff has a cost. And you better test thoroughly, because losing a key could mean losing all your data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Aren't you in an enclosed network subnet within your own cloud in ec2?

<comment><USER7> No, you share network subnet space with (an arbitrary number of) other EC2 users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> How about Google app engine?</comment>


Garry Winogrand's Photographs  Contain Entire Novels - <AUTHOR> https://lithub.com/garry-winogrands-photographs-contain-entire-novels/ <comment><USER2> An interesting take that doesn't (unless I missed it) refer to Winograd's own belief: " I think that there isn't a photograph in the world that has any narrative ability... They do not tell stories—they show you what something looks like. To a camera. "

<comment><USER3> ""I think that there isn't a photograph in the world that has any narrative ability. Any of 'em. They do not tell stories – they show you what something looks like. To a camera. The minute you relate this thing to what was photographed — it's a lie. It's two-dimensional. It's the illusion of literal description. The thing has to be complete in the frame, whether you have the narrative information or not. It has to be complete in the frame. It's a picture problem. It's part of what makes things interesting."" [https://www.americansuburbx.com/2009/06/interview-garry- wino...](https://www.americansuburbx.com/2009/06/interview-garry-winogrand- excerpts-with.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Poor Geoff doesn't know what side of the car a driver sits in the UK...

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm disappointed by the lack of steganography.</comment>


A123 Changes Name to B456 After Sale - <AUTHOR> http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2013/03/28/a123-changes-name-to-b456-after-sale/

<comment><USER2> B456 is what they're calling the bankruptcy spin off company. It's basically just a shell to renegotiate debt.

A123 Systems Inc will stay alive and well.</comment>


Teaching to the World From Central New Jersey - <AUTHOR> http://chronicle.com/article/Teaching-to-the-World-From/134068/ <comment><USER2> I've beat this drum a few times here on HN, but this is the future. Despite having been around this cycle a few times, people still always conceptualize adding computers to some existing process as "The existing process, _but on a computer!_ " Call it the BOAC! fallacy. But that is _never_ how it goes. Once the basic mechanics are worked out, computers don't merely augment a field, they _rewrite_ it. The same is going to happen to education. In 20 years, there will still be some things that resemble modern lectures, but they will merely be one aspect of a rich ecosystem. In 20 years the idea that the 20th century was some sort of golden age of education or the model of perfection, an idea floating around a lot of minds today at varying levels of conscious awareness, will be seen as utterly laughable.

Is there a bit of loss in this model vs. the current one? Sure. But what compared to what was taken, what was gained is much, much greater.

<comment><USER3> Yes, the basic mechanisms of social interaction are changing now, even if we are aware of not the new forms that are emerging, and had to happen to education itself. I was intrigued about the "BOAC! fallacy" you mentioned, what does it mean?

<comment><USER2> I just named it. It's easier to see if you look back into history and read about what people thought was coming. I think the clearest example is in online news. People in the 1980s tended to talk about receiving a newspaper on your computer, but it's hard from 2012 to really understand what they mean by that because we automatically fill in the blanks with what we know about how online news works. What they really saw was getting a newspaper online. Not even to the extent that you would use the New York Times website today; literally, conceptual screenshots of a computer screen picturing a newspaper, in a layout that we would dismiss in fractions of a second nowadays as worthless. The bolder of them imagined that you would be able to customize the newpaper's articles. Only a small handful of visionaries had even a sketch of what we actually have today.

Because instead what we got was RSS, Slashdot HN and Reddit, comments on newsites, partisan blogs and just blogs in general, aggregators and communities and yes, even some fairly newspapery sites that still have radically different layout and affordances.

But that's just one particular example from living memory. I remember seeing people hypothesize about playing board games like chess online, which is chess-by-mail, BOAC. Sure, we do that, but we also play Team Fortress 2. There's still a lot of people trying to make sure that television is just like cable television, BOAC, instead of embracing what computers can do, as Netflix is doing, let alone the many people who are actually using computers on a small scale to make movies that would blow the socks off of even a fairly well equipped home town TV studio fifteen years ago.

Just about the only domain I can think of that has immediately perceived and embraced computers as fundamentally transformative and revolutionary is the arts. The instant anything like a synthesizer appeared in the world, musicians were using them to make new sounds in every way they could think of. Computer special effects didn't go through a phase in which they were just used to replicate existing effects more cheaply until the mid-200xs, which seems to be over. The very first video game was immediately something that could not be replicated in the real world.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Not surprising, as Coursera in 2012 selects for a different cohort of student than a sociology course at Princeton does.

<comment><USER5> You mean, Coursera 2012 selects primarily for students who are intelligent and actually interested in learning?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> There have always been two places where (young) people from different classes and backgrounds mixed in a country - drafted in the army or at university. Britain was seen as a much more integrated society after 20 years of conscription petered out in the 60s.

I am struck by the number of reports on moocs that talk of online friendships - and I suspect that the open replacement for facebook will come out / be integrated into of coursera or udacity or the like.

</comment><comment><USER7> Resources like Coursera and Udacity are fantastic. They are how I got started on the path to becoming a professional software developer. They truly do a great job of democratizing education (at least to those with the resources to access the Internet).

I've mainly thought of free online education as impacting the lives of the thousands of students who yearn to learn, but do not have the opportunity to do so.

It's great to see that it's a two way street in terms of impact. Hopefully feedback from students who aren't traditional college students will help humanity broaden its understanding of the world and help us identify biases our academic disciplines may have. And we can all come out better for it.

</comment><comment><USER8> I felt like reading about a particle collider, except this time it was education that was projected against the wall of habits.</comment>


Ask HN: What are the signs that company you work for will be successful? - <AUTHOR> I work for a well-funded Series C SaaS startup in the Bay. The pay is in the 50th percentile for my skills and experience. My hope is that the company will hit IPO in the 2-3 billion range in the future (3-4 yrs). The company just had a positive cash flow of around 6M, with revenue over 60M.
BUT, I fear that there will be churn in the coming years. It has already started. Not sure if our customers find the service valuable. The company has pains around delivering value to our customers.
My question is: What should I look for in the company that can tell me whether to stay for > 3 years (so I'm fully vested) or cut losses and move on to another company with higher pay?
* I understand the HN wisdom is never to rely on future growth of a company and instead, just take higher paying jobs. But there has to be data-points and factors that will indicate whether a company will be successful or not, right? <comment><USER2> Several things I'd consider...

\- Is the $60M greater or lesser than last year? How strong is that growth? How does your growth compare to competitors, if there are any?

\- How much did that revenue cost the company? For example, if marketing expenses were $100M to win $60M revenue, that's probably a problem. If marketing was $20M, the company may be healthy.

\- With $60M in revenue, customers see some value, but what is the buying behavior of customers? Do they in general sign up and use for a while, then stop using? Do they 'buy up' to additional services (if that's your business model). Are there a significant number that continue to use and pay?

\- The concern about delivering value may just be healthy customer-focused anxiety, or, it may be due to undesirable customer buying behavior. I'd get to the bottom of that. If the buying behavior is not negative, then your management may actually be pretty solid. If the buying behavior is poor, you're going to need to make a judgement call on whether you believe management can work through it.

\- Also consider that at Series C, several VCs are already betting that your company will succeed. What is the track record of the investors?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for making good points. The VCs are pretty solid, they are some of the most respected VCs in Sand Hill Rd. Do you think they would push for an exit (IPO/Sale) and that would make it worth staying?

The revenue is 60M with cash flow positive (6M) this year, so I think all other expenses were less than 54M (including marketing).

Can you elaborate a bit about "healthy customer-focused anxiety"? I think a lot of customers go into our service thinking it might prove useful without seeing any value first. We have a good marketing and sales team, but I think (and it's _my_ thought) that now they are finding that they are not getting that much value from this service.

Now, I believe the management is solid and they are working to really re-focus on creating more customer value which really makes me happy. Yet, I still think there are several small sized competitors that could provide what we do at a lesser price.

I am hoping that this year's quarterly results will help me calm down. Because, I think if the company is not increasing it's return or on it's path to a successful IPO, then it's better I seek a higher paying job.

<comment><USER2> 'Healthy customer-focused anxiety' meaning they are focused on providing value to the customers with a sense of urgency and importance. I.e., the fate of the world relies on them providing true customer value. Thinking chicken and egg, the founders may have been successful thus far because of such a mindset, rather than developing that mindset because of poor performance. That is a purely speculative statement, but if I were in your position, I'd want to get a sense of which came first.

If I summarize the snapshot you've provided:

\- Series C: VCs have bet on your management 3 times.

\- Respected Investors

\- Solid Management, in your opinion

\- Significant revenue with + Cash flow

You most likely won't be dealt too many hands that strong. I'd stay with them at least another 12 months.

One last point. If you have options, I believe you're privy to their value at least annually. The Board of Directors should determine the company's value at least that often. (it's very subjective, but informative, a VC's job is all about company value). You might want to ask your HR representative for that information, going back as many years as they're willing. That info would provide insight into what they are thinking about the company's growth so far.

Good luck.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> If you could predict what you're asking you'd be the world's most successful VC funder. I think a better thing to do would be to have a few offers all the time. Be interviewing or building your network so that if you do lose your job you can find another one quickly. That and investing in yourself to be as good as you can be.

<comment><USER3> I was wrong. There are some common sense things you can do if you know the financials to see how well you're company is doing.</comment></comment>


The Reply All Button Must Die - <AUTHOR> http://fourreasonswhy.com/2007/11/30/the-reply-all-button-must-die/

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure if I agree with the article. More often than not an email is a way to communicate with a group of people so one must keep using reply all. I've had more problems with forgetting to CC someone or accidentally hitting reply instead of reply all than with sending am email to the whole team by accident.

Perhaps reply should always reply all, and the list of recipients should be more proeminent. Perhaps

</comment><comment><USER3> This is stupid. Please guys don't post things like that. While the "reply all" button gets abused sometimes, it is actually pretty useful.

</comment><comment><USER4> BS. I reply to all most of the time, because usually there was a good reason why people were on the distribution list. Also I find it quite annoying if I put someone on the list and a responder omits them. Happens mostly with people who lack enough email experience or etiquette or are just not smart enough or careful enough to think what they are doing and the author of the article seems to be among those.

</comment><comment><USER5> BCC is a solution from the originating end. Not hiring stupid people is a solution from the reply-all end.

</comment><comment><USER6> I can hear it now: "Great article! I'm forwarding it to everyone in the office!"

</comment><comment><USER7> As so often, the solution is not to get rid of Reply All but to log and follow up on misuses of it.

</comment><comment><USER8> Actually, Gmail's reply button is placed physically before its reply to all button, and I usually find myself hitting that instead of reply to all.

Of course, it all comes down to how retarded your friends are, because they might hit it just to send everyone a message that you may or may not want to read. Personally I think it isnt about removing the button, just getting less- retarded friends.

</comment><comment><USER9> He seems to have a problem more with "Great job!" e-mails rather than Reply All.

Pretty vapid piece.

</comment><comment><USER10> Seems to me to be another question of "should we let stupid users do stupid things" and you can't really help that, no matter how many buttons you add or take away. The reply to all button is actually quite useful.

</comment><comment><USER11> This guy doesn't even like Twitter, come on.

</comment><comment><USER12> One Reply: GMail's conversation view (why isn't this standard with every e-mail client?)

</comment><comment><USER13> I will be bringing cookies to the potluck on Tuesday. If this message reached you in error, just delete it.</comment>


Oracle pays artificial intelligence experts $6M - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.de/oracle-artificial-intelligence-expert-pay-2018-7 <comment><USER2> When the mobs come - and they will come - the tech community should expect to find themselves on the gulliotine, not with the revolutionaries</comment>


The Black Lotus – Eon – Amiga Demo (50 FPS) - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD9xk3SDSYc <comment><USER2> "Fun facts: \- We hit every documented hardware bug on OCS in this demo more than once

\- The song can't fit in chip memory all at once (the module is 559K in size)

\- We built so much tooling for this demo that it is kind of ridiculous: a register allocating assembler, a new linker, an emulator version with memory protection and instruction level trace profiling, the scene packing tools,.. will be looking to release some of them later"

Impressive stuff!

I was a PC guy, so wasn't familiar with the Amiga scene much. But when I saw Jizz[1] and Stash[2] they blew me away for 64k demos. Of course helped that I was really into goa trance at the time, but still, how had they managed to fit all that into 64k?!

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

[2]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjiY- TM_3Ns](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjiY-TM_3Ns)

</comment><comment><USER3> oh those fond memories

looked up 'State of the Art' and it's there too (!!!) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89wq5EoXy-0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89wq5EoXy-0)</comment>


Ask what do you need two laptops for is gender bias - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/AstronomerAmber/status/1064624037748342784 <comment><USER2> How does she know the guy was only asking because she was a woman?

Maybe he was just an ass and would have asked the same of a guy, in the same patronizing way.

As for this being a reason we don't have more women in stem, please. This just looks like someone looking for an excuse to be a victim.

</comment><comment><USER3> Wouldn't 2 laptops be close or over the battery sizes allowed per passenger?

<comment><USER4> Probably not. The FAA says you can have any number of lithium ion batteries, if each one is 100 Wh or less.

[https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/as...](https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ash/ash_programs/hazmat/passenger_info/media/Airline_passengers_and_batteries.pdf)</comment></comment>


Layoffs strike as Firefox's Mozilla reworks Asian operations - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnet.com/news/layoffs-mozilla-taiwan-changes-firefox-work-in-asia/ <comment><USER2> About ~70 people are impacted, mostly platform engineers. That means that they are getting rid of ~10% of their engineering, including Gecko module owners and people with very hard to find skills. But they keep failed VPs on the payroll.

Of course they give no explanation, because MoCo leadership is one of the worse you can think of, with their actions in total contradiction with their PR. They are betraying their own employees, and the Mozilla community at large.

After spending a year claiming that they were back with a rebuilt web runtime, they do that...

RIP Gecko

<comment><USER3> Looking who was fixing bugs in the "Core" of Firefox, there were a lot of Chinese names. It seems that's "the Taiwan office" mentioned, and it also seems Mozilla executives killed exactly those who improved the browser day to day.

Nobody should believe the PR -- even with the latest "new" stuff added it's still the "old" stuff that has to be improved as the "new" stuff is still just the "leaves" of the whole "tree." Firefox still eats significantly more battery than any other browser during typical browsing sessions.

<comment><USER4> > Nobody should believe the PR -- even with the latest "new" stuff added it's > still the "old" stuff that has to be improved as the "new" stuff is still > just the "leaves" of the whole "tree."

The Servo CSS style system, which was practically the headline feature of Quantum, is about as far from the "leaves of the tree" as you can get. Claims like yours are kind of insulting to those of us who worked really hard on it, to be honest.

<comment><USER3> The old infrastructure is still big and it dominates that what eventually makes the browser. Don't react with "being insulted" when there are techical claims that are either true or not. When Firefox takes twice as much power than other browsers all the time while displaying the whole page, it's because Gecko works as it works. The new code is excuted on some occasions in the "leaves" posituon of the code trace "trees" and still hasn't made Firefox less power hungry. Any other browser is better in that regard, and that is an actual sad state of Firefox. Sacking those who were supposed to work on such issues is a crazy management decision.

The ladt time I've checked, Servo is a project that is not inside if the Firefox/Gecko but only contributes some pieces to it. So what's your problem again?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I would probably really enjoy working for a company like Mozilla where the motive/mission is Generally Good. I'm not easily motivated to go build some silly App or Website to make money for Investors....

But seeing that they're willing to just ditch a bunch of employees scares me away quite effectively. I'd have expected the company to have hired bright, talented employees who could be repurposed and moved to other teams.

I guess even if you're off doing Good Stuff that isn't really a guarantee that you will be treated as a long term investment rather than a gap plugger.

<comment><USER6> Contrary to their PR, my guess is Mozilla has trouble attracting real talent from being non-profit and borderline irrelevant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Not cool Mozilla. You have more work than employees, and typically, your employees are of high standard. You aren't even driven by profits, or so you claim.

Whatever new direction you're aiming for, not being able to redeploy existing employees and letting them go is a failure on your part!

</comment><comment><USER8> The Mozilla board of directors should be entirely replaced as either corrupt or incompetent.

What they have done is squandered billions and personally pocketed millions. What they haven't done is build a functional organization or compete effectively in the marketplace. It's a slow moving train wreck.

Mozilla is losing the war for internet freedom through gross mismanagement.

It's sad that nothing will likely change until there's a big story or book written. Pre-order "The Mozilla Scandal" today.

</comment><comment><USER9> What makes me worry is that through a combination of Chrome dominance and bizarre managerial decisions Firefox will eventually be driven to obscurity no matter the technical prowess of its developers; and then we will be stuck with a Webkit monoculture. Back in the days Firefox managed to make a significant dent to the IE dominance, but this time is much more difficult to develop an engine from scratch as the Web is ridiculously more complex than back in 2002 when Firefox initially appeared. And even then Gecko was already in development for a longer time. However I believe that, eventually, a superior engine will appear, maybe even Servo will be the one. But it won't matter any more because even if that engine is better, more secure, etc., Chrome/Webkit will still be good enough for the 99% (if not more) of users.

</comment><comment><USER10> Relevant videos:

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

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMALm1VthGY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMALm1VthGY)

</comment><comment><USER11> People talk as if Mozilla was a true independent alternative to Google Chrome. I often view things through the Golden Rule - " Whoever has the gold, makes the rules." The vast majority of funding for Mozilla comes from Google. They are already financially strapped. The chance of them doing anything significant to upset the web that Google built as free content monetized by tracking advertisements is practically nill.</comment>


case for Knowledge processor vs knowledge banker. - <AUTHOR> http://minimalj.wordpress.com/2011/09/08/knowledge-processor-or-knowledge-banker/

<comment><AUTHOR> I could not ignore the question,Despite knowing that wave of semantic web/action knowledge discovery/connected knowledge/domain driven data mining is yet to arrive Your inputs requested</comment>


Kleiner Perkins' Randy Komisar: Maybe Web startups don't need venture capital - <AUTHOR> http://entrepreneur.venturebeat.com/2010/04/23/randy-komisar/

<comment><USER2> " _at least, not right away._ "

I.e., as detailed, the "common advice" that they " _need to cycle through different ideas with as little time and money as possible to discover which of their assumptions are wrong._ "

Which at this point in the game can be done rather cheaply. As pointed out in a recent discussion, "lean" meant something different in Web 1.0, where you had to spend a lot of money just to get basic infrastructure of all types.

Today we are _incredibly_ leveraged, not just in obvious thinks like renting cloud time instead of buying servers et. al., using high (enough) quality FOSS software, but also in just finding out stuff with Google, Wikipedia, etc. etc. etc. What works? What is this bug? What did someone do that worked when they faced this situation?

In the '70s Jerry Pournelle predicted we would fairly soon achieve a state where the answer to any question could be rapidly found. He packaged this neatly (e.g. ask your implant which talks to an AI...), but I think we've already achieved a crude and significant level of this.</comment>


Ask HN: Changing Video Online - <AUTHOR>

I am considering taking a job at a video startup.  I know many of you are saying yavs ( yet another video startup ), which sounds like a disease, but I really believe that video is a huge market and there will be room for more players.
so the question is, what are video companies doing right, and what are they doing wrong?
Ultimately youtube is turning into a Social VDN with some search, but Amazon, Netflix, Vimeo, and Hulu all have found niches' but is video being shared well?
How do you want to consume your video on apple tv, xbox, ps3, google tv, and maybe a roku?
If you have liked something like Dr. Horrible's sing along blog, when would you pull the trigger to pay for that video?  Would you subscribe to something? <comment><USER2> I'd pull the trigger after seeing a trailer, probably with some kickstarter- like funding scheme (I've helped fund a kickstarter DVD project). And call me old-fashioned, but I'd be more likely to pay outright for a self-contained chunk of content (think movie or tv season) than to subscribe to something open-ended. I'd only subscribe to something open-ended if I trusted the artists and vision behind the project.

</comment><comment><USER3> Online video has the potential to be a huge market. But in order to carve away from the $70 billion annual TV Ad market, content creators, publishers, and YouTube have to first convince advertisers online video media buys are effective.

Video should be platform agnostic and be consumed on all platforms.</comment>


Ask HN: Is there any specific company you wish you could work for? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Yes. I'm actually going through this at the minute. There's very few companies that work in both subjects that I'm passionate about. Zero in the country I live in.

And one of them recently started recruiting in my area.

Naturally I'm likely one of many applicants, so they will have their pick of the litter. I'm considering ways of standing out from the crowd. Tough stuff.

Such is life!

</comment><comment><USER3> Fogbeam Labs. Well, technically I already do, but I still have to work a dayjob to pay the bills. My dream is to work on Fogbeam full-time.</comment>


KidsCash: Fun, educational online money-management for kids - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/apps/2012/12/12/kidscash-online-money-management-for-kids/?utm_source=HackerNews&utm_medium=share%2Bbutton&utm_content=KidsCash%3A%20Fun%2C%20educational%20online%20money-management%20for%20kids&utm_campaign=social%2Bmedia <comment><USER2> This is a very interesting space. I met with some people from another company trying to do something similar, Virtual Piggy (<http://virtualpiggy.com/>).

I'm very interested in seeing how these companies gain ground.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the link! I checked out both of these pages; looks like an project that would be very useful! However, it looks like the focus of both projects is what you can buy or who you can donate to. Neither of their walkthroughs talk about how kids can save on the site, just how kids can spend.

While the online store aspect of this is important, it seems that saving is an equally important aspect of it. Does anyone know of a similar service where saving is more a focus? (Or perhaps where saving is the only focus.) Alternatively, can anyone talk about the saving process for either of these two services?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "KidsCash commission rate from vendors is relatively high, between 10-25 percent"

Pretty certain there's a good lesson right there!</comment>


Golden ratio in GUI design - <AUTHOR>

Does anyone else try to use the golden ratio in their GUI components?  I've been doing this for awhile now and it does make them look better, I think.

    final double goldenRatio = 1.61803399;
    dialog.setSize(
        DIALOG_WIDTH,
        (int) Math.round(DIALOG_WIDTH / goldenRatio));
 <comment><USER2> I am not sure I understand - wouldn't you want to be working with the DIALOG_HEIGHT in relation to the DIALOG_WIDTH?

<comment><USER3> He is. The first argument is the width, the second is the height. Therefore, the height is calculated based on the golden ratio applied to the width.</comment></comment>


Why the Apple UDID had to die - <AUTHOR> http://corte.si/posts/security/udid-must-die/index.html

<comment><USER2> <https://github.com/ylechelle/OpenUDID>

Replacements are already popping up. Seems like this will only mildly fragment the issue. I think they're all based on hashing the MAC address.</comment>