That's my message
I cancelled my subscription since I received a notification that my browser is not supported. Perhaps I should have mentioned my issues with DRM as well, but this may have gone too far. One message is clear, too many messages are noise.
I wish Firefox didn't support DRM of any kind.
DRM is a mistake and shouldn't be considered a "web standard"
I agree DRM sucks, but if Firefox didn't support it, even more people would flock to Chrome. You can disable it though.
Can you though? It still involves bundling non-free software that is basicly malware (software the harms the user)
Yes, you can disable Firefox's DRM feature, which means DRM code will not run and you won't see DRM-protected content.
That doesn't completely remove it though
Yes, disabling it doesn't remove it, but you can also remove it entirely if you want. Here are Mozilla's instructions (it's pretty easy). And here's Mozilla's post about implementing it, which also links to how to remove it. They supported completely opting out from day one, including opting out before Firefox has a chance to download the proprietary DRM code.
Then compile it yourself.
Gentoo~
Though you don't need it. I built my first Firefox on Ubuntu. It just felt better this way.
So I just installed Gentoo and I'm not going back. Holy hell how easy it is to ride that distro, and control flags what gets compiled in.
Firefox does not ship with the DRM module IIRC
It downloads it the first time you visit a website with DRM, after asking you first
I agree but admit that I share some responsibility as DRM is optional and I choose to enable it for some sites. Quite often, when a site is less essential to me (or its DRM features) I decline them. The more we decline them, the more probable that there will be free alternatives of some services.
LEGEND!! Wish more people were like you.
I doubt that they read those
Let them lose 3% of their business if Linux only
What is ff market share?
Similar but a bit over 5% if targeting desktop https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share
While there is overlap it definitely isn't 1:1 though. There are tons of ff non-linux users and tons of Linux non-ff users.
This isn't to detract from what you said, just add to it.
not just Linux though, wouldn't this happen on windows FF as well?
Theyβll lose maybe a dozen people on Linux/Firefox and they know it. Not even a rounding error since chromium is near monopoly status
They won't even lose a dozen. Itidd be like 5 after the rest spoof their user agents
People for sure read them.
Good. Fuck 'em.
There are hundreds of us! HUNDREDS!
jk. As a current and longtime FF user I feel your pain.
I should probably do this kind of thing more often, but usually I just avoid bad services.
Good call.
πππ
I'm proud of you, son
Priracy for the win!
Often with stuff like this, it still works when you clean cache and set your user agent to Windows and Chrome.
Would be curious to see if it works, OP.
The truth is that it mostly worked other than some issues with full screen but firefox has better ways around it. I really wanted to make the statement since I saw the notification that encouraged me to switch to another browser. Firefox is fully compliant and so should be their service. And should be DRM-free but that will be another discussion in the future.
To be fair, I shouldn't have to hack my Client signature to recieve a paid service.
Is it because of DRM, or reliance on experimental APIs?
I think we should address this question to the site. Neither is acceptable though.
I'm guessing it's completely compatible, I've had sites that show that and they've always worked fine after a useragent change. I have no idea why they'd say it doesn't work when I probably does, but I guess that's what you get when google rules everything
Whatβs this service? Some sort of streaming?
It's a streaming service which's main purpose is to stream football matches I believe. It's quite popular in my country.
GNU/Linux, cringe. Just say Linux, most tools that come with distros are not even GNU nowadays
Either Linux or GNU/Linux is OK to me. It's the practice that makes the difference. While I mostly use Debian, which defines itself as GNU/Linux and I appreciate every aspect of it, I recognise that Arch Linux (which drops the GNU) has a much healthier approach to free software than Red Hat (recently at least), which defines itself as GNU/Linux but adds clauses to RHEL which are against the spirit of free software. I prefer using GNU/Linux because, as a statement, respects things that are important to me. Of course, I am totally cool with other people using any term they feel more comfortable with.