I agree DRM sucks, but if Firefox didn't support it, even more people would flock to Chrome. You can disable it though.

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.

Chad

Let them lose 3% of their business if Linux only

What is ff market share?

They’ll lose maybe a dozen people on Linux/Firefox and they know it. Not even a rounding error since chromium is near monopoly status

People for sure read them.

I should probably do this kind of thing more often, but usually I just avoid bad services.

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.

I think we should address this question to the site. Neither is acceptable though.

It's a streaming service which's main purpose is to stream football matches I believe. It's quite popular in my country.

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.