Of Responsabilities

Yesterday, Mozilla Foundation announced that future versions of Firefox will have support for a DRM scheme called EME. By their own blog post — and by several news outlets around — it is not a decision they are happy with and feel they had to add to not force anyone to switch browsers.

(Just small note here: Yes, they don’t want people to switch browsers because that would mean less revenue for them, but at the same time, Firefox is one of the only major browsers that really cares about privacy and not just how their icon looks better in this version. Anyway…)

After the announcement, a lot of people start claiming some stuff like “hey, last CEO was called out for a lot less than this” and “we need a new ‘pure’ browser”.

Yeah, yeah, I get why you are angry. I just think your anger is misdirected.

Imagine this: there is this kid. The kid is bullied non-stop by richer kids, but he’s stoic. He takes the punchs like nothing. You root for the kid, because he never returns violence with violence. Then, one day, the kid kills himself. What happens?

1. You call the kid stupid for killing himself?

2. You go after the rich kids and show them what they did?

The right, moral answer is 2. The kid suffered enough and just saw no other exit. It was not a noble option (or smart, let’s say), but it was the only option he saw.

Now, that’s the same thing: Mozilla had to kill one of its morals because richer kids pushed something made to reduce your freedom just so you wouldn’t need to give up your other freedoms (privacy, for example).

And then people want full rampage on Mozilla for taking this decision.

A decision forced on them by richer kids.

Richer kids like Google, Microsoft, BBC and Netflix.

Now, there is absolutely no one going after Google for backing EME; there is no one saying “Microsoft, always fucking up with the user”; there is no one telling BBC to stick to news and stop messing with IT; there is no one willing to lose watching The Next Generation for the 11th time instead of supporting Netflix. Nope, everyone is against Mozilla decision.

Mozilla is not resposible for DRM on Firefox; Google, Microsoft, BBC and Netflix are.

So, if you’re pissed, go cancel your Microsoft account; delete your Gmail; forget about YouTube; stop getting your BBC news; cancel your Netflix account. Show the rich kids that you don’t accept their actions and don’t want to be around them anymore.

(But, in the end, it’s a lot easier to switch browsers than stop watching cat videos on the internet thanks to YouTube or watching your old series on Netflix. And, thus, it is easier to go after Mozilla than doing what’s right.)

Mac OS applications are not very friendly

Long before having a Mac, I learnt about it interface and the Application/Window relationship on Mac OS.

You see, there is a fundamental difference between Linux/Windows application and Mac OS application. While in the first two the window is the application (and closing the windows, closes the application), on Mac OS it is not quite like that: you can have an application running without any windows (it would still show on the task list and it would have a menu on the top, but you may have no windows at all.) It makes sense for some applications to don’t have any windows, as it makes sense for some applications to simply disappear if there are no windows open.

Examples: if you are using some text editor, when you close your window/document, it really means you are done? Maybe not, maybe you just want to close that document before starting a new one. In this case, it makes sense to have the application still running. The same goes when you have more than one document open: displaying it as two separate windows make them independent of each other and you can choose how to work with them (that’s something it took years to Microsoft to realize and dump the MDI [multi-document interface] Word was using since it was called Word.)

So, basically, what you have on Mac OS is that every document should be a window and closing all documents don’t close the application.

One of the things that annoys the hell of me is trying to use Mac OS applications in a Mac OS way. One example is Safari: If you follow the idea behind the window/application Apple introduced, you’d have one Safari window for each site. The thing that annoys me on that is that there is no visual feedback about what it is doing. Firefox have the spinning circle, Safari has nothing. To make it display any feedback, you have to enable tabs, which means you’d start opening tabs for every page, which is not the way you should use this. And, to be honest, have a single, dangling tab just to display a damn spinning circle is quite stupid.

Mail.app is another application that completely fails on user feedback. I have some 20-something filters and my IMAP server is not that fast. So, when I start the application, it does nothing. Then it beeps. And displays nothing. And then, suddenly, it displays the mail counts. And there is this space in the sidebar which says “Mail activity”. A completely lost space which could be used to display, for example, “Retrieving your email”, “Applying filters”, “Checking new mail on folder X”.

Other applications simply decide not to follow the window/application metaphor. One example is PhotoBooth. I really like to take a picture of me from time to time and update my 15-something social networks site (well, from “time to time” more likely to be “every year or so”.) The thing about PhotoBooth is that, if you close the window, the application closes too.

Software Update is ever worst. If it doesn’t find an update, it displays “There are no updates” and, when you click “Ok”, it simply disappears. No window, no application, no nothing. What kinda of user feedback is that? Show the user that the update list is empty and let the user close the window or the application. Like every other Mac OS application.

And, on top of that, all those applications where produced by Apple itself. And I won’t even comment about iTunes, which doesn’t even follow the default theme you’re using.