3 ms·

It would be great if non-technical end-users could control their enviroment and disable these things; this page, while a great step forward, still is much too l

It would be great if non-technical end-users could control their enviroment and disable these things; this page, while a great step forward, still is much too long and complex - it's too long for me to read the whole thing. Firefox needs a button in preferences that says 'enable only connections specifically initiated by the user' - worded better and with appropriate warnings of functionality loss. Or an add-on would be great.

ghayes 11y ago
It would be great to have these all as a full set of toggles on one settings page with "Fast", "Secure", "Paranoid" presets.
- imglorp 11y ago
  Secure is an interesting preset to think about. On the one hand, pulling patches automatically protects you from the nasties. On the other hand, it also leaks information off your machine which might not be what you want.
  - 5ilv3r 11y ago
    How about a scale of "Most private" to "Most up to date and secure"
- wlesieutre 11y ago
  You'd want it to convey that "Paranoid" doesn't mean "Most secure," which is how a lot of people would read that. A typical person against typical adversaries really does want automatic updates.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    Some of these options, such as disabling automatic updates, would reduce security. But some, such as DNS prefetching, impact only performance and disabling them would improve security (confidentiality is a key part of security), however marginally in some cases. I think a distinction needs to be made for the users.
xlayn 11y ago
I disagree, there is a lot of functionality aimed to keep users safe, if "non-technical end-users" can't understand and go through them; they may be better leaving them alone. On the other hand also prevents those users from changing something and find non expected behavior.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > if "non-technical end-users" can't understand and go through them; they may be better leaving them alone. I understand this reasoning, but I think the pendulum has swung too far from end-user control to a patronizing attitude where we tell users what is good for them - in fact, we decide for them without even telling them. For example, in this case perhaps some users value confidentiality over system integrity or over performance; Mozilla doesn't empower them to make that decision; the users don't even know that a decision has been made. Mozilla could facillitate end-user control by making the options safe and by explaining them clearly. There is a balance of course, and I'm just using this issue as a example - it's hardly the most critical.
  - chc 11y ago
    Turning Firefox into Config Simulator 2016 would just alienate nontechnical users, not empower them. I don't see how it's patronizing to say, "You can set this the way you want if you care, and people who don't care aren't faced with a bunch of choices they don't want."
- firasd 11y ago
  Interesting historical context: When Firefox split off from the old Mozilla browser, the whole Firefox (then called Phoenix) project removed a lot of menus and buttons.

ghayes 11y ago

It would be great to have these all as a full set of toggles on one settings page with "Fast", "Secure", "Paranoid" presets.

imglorp 11y ago
Secure is an interesting preset to think about. On the one hand, pulling patches automatically protects you from the nasties. On the other hand, it also leaks information off your machine which might not be what you want.
- 5ilv3r 11y ago
  How about a scale of "Most private" to "Most up to date and secure"
wlesieutre 11y ago
You'd want it to convey that "Paranoid" doesn't mean "Most secure," which is how a lot of people would read that. A typical person against typical adversaries really does want automatic updates.
- hackuser 11y ago
  Some of these options, such as disabling automatic updates, would reduce security. But some, such as DNS prefetching, impact only performance and disabling them would improve security (confidentiality is a key part of security), however marginally in some cases. I think a distinction needs to be made for the users.

xlayn 11y ago

I disagree, there is a lot of functionality aimed to keep users safe, if "non-technical end-users" can't understand and go through them; they may be better leaving them alone. On the other hand also prevents those users from changing something and find non expected behavior.

hackuser 11y ago
> if "non-technical end-users" can't understand and go through them; they may be better leaving them alone. I understand this reasoning, but I think the pendulum has swung too far from end-user control to a patronizing attitude where we tell users what is good for them - in fact, we decide for them without even telling them. For example, in this case perhaps some users value confidentiality over system integrity or over performance; Mozilla doesn't empower them to make that decision; the users don't even know that a decision has been made. Mozilla could facillitate end-user control by making the options safe and by explaining them clearly. There is a balance of course, and I'm just using this issue as a example - it's hardly the most critical.
- chc 11y ago
  Turning Firefox into Config Simulator 2016 would just alienate nontechnical users, not empower them. I don't see how it's patronizing to say, "You can set this the way you want if you care, and people who don't care aren't faced with a bunch of choices they don't want."
firasd 11y ago
Interesting historical context: When Firefox split off from the old Mozilla browser, the whole Firefox (then called Phoenix) project removed a lot of menus and buttons.