Re: Firefox, relic without a future
- Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 14:21:51 -0400
- From: Wolf K <wolfmac@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Firefox, relic without a future
On 2017-09-14 11:16, The Real Bev wrote:
On 09/14/2017 07:36 AM, Wolf K wrote:
On 2017-09-12 16:35, The Real Bev wrote:
On 09/12/2017 08:47 AM, Wolf K. wrote:
IMO, FB would do better to offer a paid subscription service sans ads,
and with fine-grained control over posts/viewers. Sort Of like a
mail service. I'd happily pay $10 a month for that.
I wouldn't. AdblockPlus is free and works well.
I would because FB's algorithms for displaying posts are defective. Like
Google's, they over-value current read history.
FB is nowhere near as good as usenet.
For interest groups. yes, except that every now and then a Usenet group
is messed up by trolls or by flooders.
Perhaps I'd feel differently if I
didn't have to jump through hoops to view FB videos with firefox (Chrome
has no problems) and
??? No problems with FF on Win8.1 Pro/64.
Probably a slackware thing. Lots of stuff just doesn't work right. I
have to open the video in a new tab, and click on the triangle twice --
and the spacing is important, sort of like a Venus flytrap. Then I wait
for it to open in the 'theater' (or whatever) mode and play. Maybe 30
seconds after the first click before it starts. Same thing in 'safe' mode.
if I could see ALL the posts I've chosen to see on
a timely (or "at all") basis.
That's precisely what I would pay for. All control at my end. You can't
control any ad-supported service. Blocking ads isn't the same as control.
If FB won't provide that service, maybe somebody else is smart enough to
Usenet is public broadcast.
The advantage of FB is that you can post for the public, or for friends,
or for some group. Like having an automated email/listmail service. I'd
like even more fine-grained control, and no ads.
"Wanted. Schrödinger’s Cat. Dead and Alive."
general mailing list