this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2024
749 points (94.2% liked)
Microblog Memes
5793 readers
3039 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Reading that thread is painful. He complains about a feature that is in testing because he didn't know he could enable it and then complains because it doesn't work like how he wants it to even though he just had to expand the sidebar.
Samir you are breaking the thread. Triple sharp right!
Fast sharp right!
I had to immediately rewatch the video after reading this comment
Hadn’t seen it
Didn’t go well for their careers
He complains about the priority given.
source. He is also very aware it's not ready and even says so
source
I agree with him. Mozilla's priorities have been wack for more than a decade.
I don't understand what he's saying at all, though.
They announced both initiatives, LLM and built-in sidebar tabs, I think, even in the same blog post.
An LLM is much easier to integrate, of course it's going to be ready a few months earlier.
I do not understand what was supposedly worked on for 10 years. Assuming he means sidebar tabs because LLMs didn't exist 10 years ago, yeah, they've done the work to allow for extensions to provide sidebar tabs. You install Tree-Style Tabs or similar and you have sidebar tabs.
But it is pretty obvious that it is not the point here, or isn't it? The fact that Mozilla is putting work into AI instead of I don't know rewriting more of the Firefox backend in rust, which was the initial purpose of the language, is offensive. The Mozilla/Firefox VPN is offensive, because it is shit (was shit when I tried it). Sneaking in advertisement IDs into Firefox which are enabled by default is offensive. Having a for profit branch of Mozilla is offensive.
These are all from memory, and probably not accurate, the point still stands, Mozilla puts stupid shit into Firefox nobody wants or needs, instead of developing it along user needs.
Firefox is the last bastion of independent browser development. miss me with $obscure_browser_project, because they have no market share, cannot be used by my granny and are often using components of different browsers.
This is all we got, the rest is chromium based and is developed by a advertisement company.
I just want them to not add stupid shit. It costs money, manpower, and my nerves. None of them are available in abundance.
They can work on multiple things in parallel, and putting more people on project Y doesn’t always mean project Y gets done faster. Also some people do like AI tools and it’s certainly popular right now. Most people have never programmed before and don’t know what Rust is or why it would benefit them to have their browser written in Rust.
Mozilla VPN is rebranded mullvad, it should have been pretty good.
Mullvad doesn't support port forwarding so it's useless for most people that actually have a need for a VPN and aren't just victims of influencer marketing making them believe they need a VPN
So, genuine question, what do you do using your VPN where you need port forwarding? I keep seeing people say that port forwarding is a requirement in their VPN but nobody says what they actually use it for.
To my knowledge you should only need that if you're hosting something through your VPN but I don't even know how that would work or why you would want to do that. If you're doing that then why not just rent a remote server and not need the VPN? I can't think of anything off the top of my head that would need to be hosted from home, accessible remotely, and be completely hidden behind a VPN.
You need port forwarding for peer-to-peer protocols like Bittorrent
I've never done any manual port forwarding for torrenting and everything seems to download and seed correctly. Does the client automatically do it? Is it only required for private trackers? Once again a genuine question because I only know just enough about all of this to avoid the letters from my ISP.
Torrenting only works if the peers can connect to each other. If you dont have a port forwarded, then you can only connect to other peers that have a forwarded port. At least one of the 2 parties connecting to each other needs an open port for the connection to happen.
If you are on a public tracker it can happen that a torrent is shown to have multiple seeders, but if you try downloading it without having an open port it won't work unless at least one of those seeders has their port open. This is mostly a problem on public trackers, since many private trackers enforce their members to have working port forwarding.
So it is technically possible to download torrents without working port forwarding, but only if enough other other peers have port forwarding set up on their end and your tracker doesn't (rightly) ban you for it.
If you aren't using a VPN then most torrent clients will automatically set up port forwarding on your router using Upnp. Unless Upnp is disabled in your routers settings. If you are using a VPN you usually need to set up port forwarding manually, but there are some vpn clients that do it automatically
Edit: this article explains it better than me: https://protonvpn.com/blog/port-forwarding/
Oh my god this explains so much! I always wondered why sites would show torrents having +200 seeders and I would be lucky to get maybe 10 when downloading. I'll have to get my port forwarding set up. Thank you so much!
Now I just need to switch VPN providers but I've been planning on doing that for a while anyways.
It’s one thing to be disappointed by a business decision made by a company that you do not agree with, but to be offended by it seems a little much; especially when said decisions aren’t offensive to begin with (i.e., there is no political/religious/sexual/social ties).
I see two possible solutions (there may be more):
Keep in mind that neither of those options guarantee that you’ll get what you want. Developers do not owe users for decisions they (or higher ups) make on a project. Also, they are not required to accept outside contributions if it goes against their roadmap.
Talking to core developers can yield a lot of information about a project; both about whatever decision-making body has decided, and under-the-radar things they’d like to see. Plus it never hurts to ingratiate yourself to the folks doing the heavy lifting.
As for contributing, you can do more than just coding. And who knows, it could eventually lead to something else you might like (e.g., qa, documentation, evangelism, etc).
I was very confused by this tweet because I have no idea what chatbot he's talking about, or what side tabs he's talking about.
I am generally against putting AI in everything not because I think AI is necessarily a fad or anything, I simply don't need 400 different iterations of the same technology