CosmicTurtle0

Ever since we've gone to hybrid working, I've been having to deactivate work notifications and enable game notifications back and forth and it's driving me nuts.

I have a Pixel 9 Pro XL and would like a way to allow app notifications to come through based on a variable that I can control. At my disposal I have Tasker and Home Assistant but can't find a way to perform automations to enable or disable specific app notifications.

Is there a way to do this? I have to imagine other people have this problem.

I've migrated both of my profiles on my Linux Mint desktop to Waterfox. I installed from tar which allows me to more easily integrate with Keepass -- Details in this thread. If you're using Keepass Browser integration, you'll need to install this way. But if you use a different password manager, you should be fine with flatpak or whatever your system uses for package management.

Migration from Firefox did not work -- I suspect this is a limitation on Waterfox as I also tried migration within Windows. I did attempt a straight profile copy, which did not work. While history, cookies, etc. looked like they came over fine, extensions struggled and it was hard to tell whether they actually were migrated.

So unfortunately, it's not an easy transition and it will be highly manual. Backup your bookmarks, passwords, etc. and import them. This also means any customization you made on addons (e.g. ublock origin settings, etc) will need to be imported as well. It helps if you have both Firefox and Waterfox open side by side and you can just go from one to the other.

My Windows laptop will be next week. I want to give my main driver to "bake" a bit before I do this on Windows.

So...AMA

I'm slowly piece mealing my way to Waterfox this weekend. One issue I've had is getting KeepassXC working.

I suspect this is more of a flatpak thing than a Waterfox thing. I'm not familiar with flatpak enough to know where I need to go to get it to work. If you have suggestions, let me know.

Right now I'm copying and pasting.

TL;DR:

• "all rights" has been replaced with "rights necessary"
• Overall language of "operate Firefox" still remains, with a link to their Privacy Notice.
• "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license" remains, but is explicitly limited to "the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox"
• Removed references to their Acceptable Use Policy

Details from a developer and FOSS advocate POV:

This is not enough.

Mozilla has yet to comment on why this change was necessary, outside of some vague "legally we have to" language. While these updated Terms shift more control back to the user, it's simply not enough. The only reason Mozilla would need any sort of license from the user is if they are going to be doing something with it on their systems. Any local use is and continues to be fully covered by the Mozilla Public License, which is the current license used by Firefox.

The MPL includes an indemnity and liability clause, which protects Mozilla from anything you might do with their browser. I can't think of a single FOSS license that doesn't include these clauses.

Controlling an application within the confines of your local device does not require the application to have a license to your content. It is, from a legal perspective, a tool you are using to do your own stuff. We don't give chisels manufactures a license for statues we make, notebook companies licenses for stories we write. And on the other side of that coin, no one sues Mozilla or Google because someone accesses The Pirate Bay or fmovies using the browser.

But let's take Mozilla at their word for a second. Suppose there was a legal reason for licensing your data.

Does Mozilla intend to force the websites you visit to agree to their terms? There are two sides to the connection you make on a website. For the sake of argument, say I'm visiting Disney+, another company super picky about their copyrights. I enter "www.disneyplus.com" into my browser, agreeing to Mozilla license provision. In order to "operate Firefox", the license allows Firefox to go to Disney+, who then responds back with their catalog. If Mozilla needs a license from me for my data, surely they need a license from Disney for their data to "operate Firefox".

In what world do you think Disney is going to grant Mozilla a "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license"? Their argument for any sort of licensing being necessary falls flat with this example right here.

Quick Edit here: their TOU assumes that you are the only license holder of content you upload using the browser. You cannot grant licenses to other people's content. So, in essence, you cannot upload a picture taken by your friend and if you do, the nature of these Terms allows your friend to sue Mozilla for copyright infringement. The very nature of asking for this license exposes them to liability for violations against copyright. Most websites have a clause that says something along the lines of "you agree that you have permission to share the content you upload to our servers and grant us a license to use that content as if it were you own" etc.

This isn't about your data within the local browser. This is about your data flowing through Mozilla. That's why they need the license. Their additional clause "This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content" does absolutely nothing. A license, by it's nature, means that Mozilla doesn't own the content and seeks your permission to use it.

To Mozilla's credit, they removed references to their Acceptable Use Policy, but remains in place their ability to terminate your license to use Firefox for any reason, keeping Firefox firmly in the "Source Available" category.

Each person will need to decide whether Firefox fits in within their personal use of the internet. I, for one, am tired of my content being used without my express permission. My goal is to move to Waterfox by the end of March, if not sooner.

Which is it?!

This headline came up in my news feed, from a very dubious source so I decided to investigate.

Headline after headline, many from identical sources, about how Walmart and Bank of America are either going to stop taking $1 bills or keep accepting them. The headlines read like a FUD article and I refuse to click through to read the details.

I can't find a reputable news source for this story so I'm assuming it's fake news.

It shouldn't be this easy to manipulate news feeds.

I've been searching around for a copy of the Resolute Letter that Trump left for Biden. The letters are typically released within a few days of entering office but this was never done because Biden wanted to talk to Trump first before doing so.

It's been almost four years. Surely it's been done by now and I can't seem to find any article with the letter or anything on the official White House website. I'm tempted to submit a FOIA request for it but wasn't sure where to start.

fmovies has been gone almost a month. I should have added "FBI" up there but really they used FBI to shoot down the service, not be like them.

I don't understand when these companies are going to learn that sharing their IP is going to get them more money than being so fractured.

I started using sudo-lol and seems okay. Streaming can be hinky at times but it works for most of the things I want to watch.

I know that torrenting can be a thing but sometimes I just want to watch and not deal with a whole finding a torrent, download, and then watch workflow.

I know it occasionally has service disruptions, but it usually comes back up after a day or so. Fmovies has been down for almost the entire week for me.

Anyone else having issues?