Mozilla enabled ads in Firefox and they're active in Fedora
stransky at redhat.com
Thu Nov 20 15:44:58 UTC 2014
On 11/20/2014 03:28 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> It's not about tracking per se – I'm fine with e.g. opt-in usage reports
> that feed into research for making a better browser – that benefits me
> (in a very indirect and miniscule way, but in the end the purpose is for
> the *user's* benefit).
> Ads are a feature that only benefits the upstream and the companies that
> pay for the ads. From my (user's) perspective, there is no reason to
> have them on my system. There is no benefit to me from this feature.
> None at all. This is a major difference from Gnome search providers,
> which I personally don't like either, but I can see how they might be
> good for someone.
From the user perspective Mozilla provides you a high-quality browser
for free (free as a beer). But they have to pay engineers for the work.
There are some other options there. To have free (basic) and paid
(extended) Firefox versions - Red Hat goes this way. Or direct donation
from users like Wikipedia. Mozilla chose the Ads way and you may or may
not accept it and you exactly know what's the (asked) price.
That's still much better than Chrome where the price (user tracking) is
hidden and you can't disable it.
You can remove the Ads from Firefox by one click so no big deal here.
The same case is using Addblock to block Ads on Web. But you're giving
nothing back then.
Every user likes the best software for free (as a beer), but there isn't
any magic wand which makes it up for you.
More information about the devel