2 ms·

But this is the fix. Instead of allowing open access to the internals of Firefox, which will never be secure, you use a limited API. It isn't difficult to imagi

by untog 10y ago

But this is the fix. Instead of allowing open access to the internals of Firefox, which will never be secure, you use a limited API. It isn't difficult to imagine that they can expand this API later to allow things that aren't currently possible. It's a hard problem to fix and there will be pain getting there. And the theatre analogy is just silly. It's not like shutting down a theatre because someone got shot in it, it's like enacting a "no guns in this theatre" policy instead.

falcolas 10y ago
This is a fix. It's not the only fix. I postulate that it's probably not even the best fix for Firefox. > Instead of allowing open access to the internals of Firefox, which will never be secure Android, iOS, and many other OSes do this all the time via rather granular ACLs. It can be done. All analogies are flawed - but Firefox is closing the theaters by completely killing off their add-on interface in exchange for an comparatively shallow experience.
- kibwen 10y ago
  > Android, iOS, and many other OSes do this all the time via rather granular ACLs. If it were that simple, then the Chrome team would simply have asked the Android team to provide their expertise in designing Chrome's extension API. And of course, it's not like Android provides apps unrestricted access to the hardware (there's a reason that people bother to root their phones). Firefox addons are currently less restricted than Android apps.
  - falcolas 10y ago
    > the Chrome team would simply have asked the Android team to provide their expertise in designing Chrome's extension API Chrome's choice to not use such ACLs has no bearing on whether it is possible or reasonable for a web browser to use. Chrome is not the be-all-end-all of browser technology. > Firefox addons are currently less restricted than Android apps. And that's what could be changed. The lack of restrictions in the current state doesn't mean that it can't (or that it shouldn't) change.
alphapapa 10y ago
The theatre already had such a policy. The sign did not deter the murderer. The analogy is apt.

by untog 10y ago

falcolas 10y ago

This is a fix. It's not the only fix. I postulate that it's probably not even the best fix for Firefox. > Instead of allowing open access to the internals of Firefox, which will never be secure Android, iOS, and many other OSes do this all the time via rather granular ACLs. It can be done. All analogies are flawed - but Firefox is closing the theaters by completely killing off their add-on interface in exchange for an comparatively shallow experience.

kibwen 10y ago
> Android, iOS, and many other OSes do this all the time via rather granular ACLs. If it were that simple, then the Chrome team would simply have asked the Android team to provide their expertise in designing Chrome's extension API. And of course, it's not like Android provides apps unrestricted access to the hardware (there's a reason that people bother to root their phones). Firefox addons are currently less restricted than Android apps.
- falcolas 10y ago
  > the Chrome team would simply have asked the Android team to provide their expertise in designing Chrome's extension API Chrome's choice to not use such ACLs has no bearing on whether it is possible or reasonable for a web browser to use. Chrome is not the be-all-end-all of browser technology. > Firefox addons are currently less restricted than Android apps. And that's what could be changed. The lack of restrictions in the current state doesn't mean that it can't (or that it shouldn't) change.

alphapapa 10y ago

The theatre already had such a policy. The sign did not deter the murderer. The analogy is apt.