[16:48] <hallyn> ahasenack: i don't even know enough to know whether /run/user gets bind-mounted into the snap's chroot
[21:18] <ahasenack> yeah, but it wouldn't load from /home either
[21:18] <ahasenack> except I didn't see an apparmor DENIED message in that case
[21:20] <ahasenack> I filed this bug, but I'm unsure canonical will tackle it, since the snap comes from mozilla: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/+bug/1967632
[21:23] <ahasenack> upstream bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1734371
[22:41] <JanC> Mozilla already broke some PKCS#11 support in recent Firefox versions, unrelated to snaps...  :-(
[22:42] <JanC> I'm starting to wonder if Mozilla even care about Firefox at all
[22:57] <JanC> BTW: if Firefox will be forced to become a snap, I will be forced to move away from using Ubuntu, in part because of this sort of bugs (I can’t allow automatic updates when they possibly block me from interacting with the government)
[22:58] <JanC> maybe that's something Canonical should consider...
[22:59] <JanC> Firefox-as-a-snap is a security issue
[23:03] <jjohansen> well, the last few years sure has provided evidence that they don't care about FF
[23:03] <jjohansen> and yes FF as a snap is a huge issue for many people
[23:07] <JanC> based on https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1759162 it also seems like upstream Mozilla are testing Firefox on Ubuntu 16.04 instead of (also) on more recent versions...
[23:09] <JanC> it's rather disturbing
[23:09] <JanC> supposedly these people are now maintaining browser packages in Ubuntu...
[23:09] <JanC> while using Ubuntu versions that are out of security support
[23:10] <JanC> how hard can it be for Canonical to pay 1-2 people to maintain a proper browser package?
[23:14] <Eickmeyer> JanC: That wasn't the point. The entire reason FF went Snap was because Mozilla chose that as part of their distribution agreement with Canonical, not the other way around. This was Mozilla's decision, not Canonical's.
[23:14] <JanC> I don't care if it's called "Ubuntu browser" or "Firefox" BTW
[23:14] <JanC> Eickmeyer: and I think Canonical shouldn't accept that
[23:15] <JanC> Ubuntu/Canonical
[23:15] <Eickmeyer> Then we wouldn't be able to redistribute Firefox at all.
 I don't care if it's called "Ubuntu browser" or "Firefox" BTW
[23:15] <JanC> fuck Mozilla if they want to lose even more name recognition
[23:15] <JanC> it's their loss
[23:15] <Eickmeyer> JanC: Please abide by the CoC.
[23:17] <JanC> Mozilla don't abide to the CoC, but you happily accept that...
[23:17] <Eickmeyer> JanC: I don't work for Canonical, and you are responsible for your behavior, not Mozilla's.
[23:22] <JanC> I used 1 word that a minority of people might maybe consider to be a violation of the CoC (although I would claim it shows humanity so it's perfectly fine under the CoC :P ), meanwhile Canonical/Ubuntu accept repeated Mozilla's anti-CoC behaviour without a single complaints
[23:22] <JanC> maybe I should file a complaint with the CC
[23:23] <Eickmeyer> JanC: I'm on the CC.
[23:26] <JanC> so, did you or will you put Mozilla's actual anti-CoC behaviour on the agenda, or will you only complain about people's silly choice of words on IRC?
[23:27] <Eickmeyer> JanC: I don't consider Mozilla to be violating the CoC right now, but I've seen multiple problems from you in this channel alone. So do yourself a favor: take a walk.
[23:40] <JanC> are you saying now that Mozilla is listening to and working with the community? because almost nobody I know actually agrees with that…
[23:41] <JanC> and that's part of the CoC...
[23:45] <Eickmeyer> JanC: This is not the place for this discussion. If you believe there is an *actual* CoC violation (btw, Mozilla doesn't participate as part of the Ubuntu community), then email community-council@lists.ubuntu.com.
[23:46] <JanC> yes, Mozilla is part of the Ubuntu community (maybe they don't want to be, and don't want to abide by the rules, but they are by the simple fact of insisting they make the official packages)
[23:48] <Eickmeyer> JanC: Ok, I've said this isn't the place for this discussion and I mean it. Further discussion will happen via email thread, but you have to initiate it.
[23:52] <amurray> shalocin[m]: thanks - but I can't take any credit - it's all ccdm94's awesomeness