10 ms·

It's not gonna happen. Firefox would be dead by now if it still allowed bad or incompetent actors to make Firefox unusable (as in slow, unstable, and btw insecu

by dao- 8y ago

It's not gonna happen. Firefox would be dead by now if it still allowed bad or incompetent actors to make Firefox unusable (as in slow, unstable, and btw insecure), because users wouldn't keep up with that for too long. They'd just use another browser. This may be okay with you for now because you know how to protect yourself against malware, but in the long run Mozilla needs market share to stay relevant and be able to compete with the richest companies on this planet.

the8472 8y ago
That's like saying windows is dead in the water because it gives the user the ability to install applications not approved by microsoft.
- dao- 8y ago
  Well, it's actually a been big problem for Windows, and installing unsigned software on Windows is harder than it used to be. Also, luckily for Microsoft, installing another OS is harder than using another browser. (I say using, not installing, because there's always another browser already installed on most OSes.)
  - kingofhdds 8y ago
    I'm not sure the "big problem" of Windows stemmed exactly from possibility to install third-party apps, and not from poor security defaults which let those apps to mangle everything around without asking for permission, and poor architectural decisions which let some programs to install themselves (aka viruses). Nowadays Windows is much better with this staff than it's used to be, in spite of the fact that (contrary to your statement) installing unsigned software is still as easy as pushing buttons.
    - PyroLagus 8y ago
      To be fair, Linux and friends aren't much better in that regard. Permission management for locally running programs is pretty much poor by default in all major operating systems. SELinux and AppArmor for Linux improve on the situation, but they're usually not the default unless you're using Fedora, and even there, it might need some extra configuration. I'm looking forward to capability-based systems with microkernels, since they really improve on the situation, but I think it'll take a while until we get some major ones. Maybe Google's Fuchsia will establish itself soon enough, who knows? (We'll also have to see what can be done about hardware security, since any software mitigation could potentially be rendered useless by insecure hardware.)
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > To be fair, Linux and friends aren't much better in that regard. Linux gets there a different way. The standard way to install applications is from the package manager and essentially all of the applications in there are trustworthy (because they're all open source and if they did anything seriously user-hostile, someone would fork it and that version would be the one in the package manager). Meanwhile the package managers do actually add nearly everything that isn't user-hostile, so the need to install anything from another source, while still possible, is rare enough that most people never have to do it. And binaries downloaded via web browser don't even have the execute bit set by default. You can still do it, but you have to know how, and the people who know enough to know how to do it generally know enough to be suspicious when doing it. And even then, things typically run as the user rather than root/administrator, so they can't alter the system or anything other than that one user's (presumably backed up) home directory. Having even more granular permission would be even better, but restricting the harm to one home directory of one user and only in cases of users who are at the same time knowledgeable and stupid has already handled basically the entire problem.
        mindslight 8y ago
        Package managers are exactly the centralized "app store" model, and there have been plenty of periods where users have had to add third party repositories to get basic functionality (DeCSS, video codecs, ZFS, etc). The difference is that Linux repositories are less noteworthy to attack, have a more distributed culture not ruled by capitulating lawyers, and can actually jurisdiction shop. The ultimate problem is a lack of a cross-software security model of the OSs, Linux included. User-based isolation is cool and all, but orthogonal to the modern world [0]. For decades we've been continually looking for better ways of isolating local apps, while also rejecting centralized control. We keep looking, while centralization keeps ratcheting. I'm still hopeful that a well done capability (handle-based) system would go a long way, but not fully solve it. Unfortunately that means shedding off POSIX/LSB rather than duplicating the entire monolithic OS environment for every security context. [0] Where say even a local LAN IP address is security-critical information!
  - the8472 8y ago
    So, if hypothetically microsoft were facing more competition and people left due to malware you would support them doing the same move where they only allow microsoft-approved applications unless you replace some flag in the bootloader for example? And of course the next step would be DMCA takedowns for applications in the appstore. Everyone's computer would effectively be under US jurisdiction.
throwaway2048 8y ago
This is a really bad argument that can be used to justify any anti user feature whatsoever.
- dao- 8y ago
  No? First of all, I'm saying that allowing sideloading is actually hostile to the majority of users, and I'm also saying this threatened the very survival of Mozilla, so this needs to be part of the consideration.
  - throwaway2048 8y ago
    It absolutely can, for example: "It's not gonna happen. Firefox would be dead by now if it still allowed users to customize their webbrowser and make Firefox unusable (as in slow, unstable, and btw insecure), because users wouldn't keep up with that for too long. They'd just use another browser. This may be okay with you for now because you know how to protect yourself against misconfiguration, but in the long run Mozilla needs market share to stay relevant and be able to compete with the richest companies on this planet." Substitute in any positive feature that puts the user in control of their web browsing experience, power over something means the power to break it too, using that as a reason to remove functionality is stupid. Doubly so when you pile on the "omg if they do this mozilla is doomed" hysterics.
    - dao- 8y ago
      Sure, you can always claim that some random lockdown is vital. The thing is, not every assertion is the same. Yours could be nonsense while mine could still be true.
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        If you claim something like "John is a carpenter because John is a human and carpenters are humans" and someone points out that your logic doesn't follow (by applying it to some other known non-carpenter human), you can then claim that this doens't prove that John isn't a carpenter, but the point is that the original claim utterly fails to prove that he is.
kingofhdds 8y ago
Significant part of FF's userbase decided in its favor exactly because of choice of third-party addons.
- dao- 8y ago
  How significant? Firefox' market share was falling rapidly. (It still is declining, but not as dramatically.)
  - kingofhdds 8y ago
    I can't offer you a number, but it's significant enough for Google to offer me to autocomplete "firefox quantum addons" with "stopped working", and relevant discussions left a visible footprint on the net. I'm not sure how is the second sentence related to the question. If you're implying that addons dragged it down - it for sure is incorrect.
    - dao- 8y ago
      Quantum changed the API model, not whether you could install unsigned addons, so that's a different discussion.
    - kingofhdds 8y ago
      Yes, Quantum changed API => it made a bunch of addons dead => lots if worried, and upset users appeared discussing it. I have nothing against Quantum, I accept it was necessary to go for a new model, but it clearly shows addons are important for a significant share of users.
      - dao- 8y ago
        You said "exactly because of choice of third-party addons" and that's what I'm questioning. I'm not questioning whether addons in general are important for a significant share of users.
        8y ago
PhasmaFelis 8y ago
> because users wouldn't keep up with that for too long. They'd just use another browser. Users will leave in droves if...Firefox allows you to install third-party extensions if you choose to do so? I don't get it.
apostacy 8y ago
You are deeply misinformed, and to be blunt, people like you are killing Firefox. Somehow Firefox managed to go for over a decade without blocking sideloading of extensions. And no Mozilla should not be thinking in terms of "market share". There is no market! Mozilla is a non-profit. They should not be sharing the same paradigm as Google. And it is this vanity-driven pursuit of "brand prestige" and "market share" that has ruined things. It makes business sense for Google's platform for them to do things the way they do. It makes absolutely no sense for Mozilla to emulate Google. The very fact that Mozilla can just afford to make unique software without the constraints of the market, supported by donors, is a strength, not a weakness. They should be leveraging it instead of trying to "stay relevant" and compete with Google on Google's terms. And this whole incident is a disgrace. If it wasn't for Mozilla getting between users and their software, then this takedown would be nearly irrelevant, as it would be that much easier for users to install it. It would probably even disincentivize take-downs like this, because they would be so futile.

by dao- 8y ago

the8472 8y ago

That's like saying windows is dead in the water because it gives the user the ability to install applications not approved by microsoft.

dao- 8y ago
Well, it's actually a been big problem for Windows, and installing unsigned software on Windows is harder than it used to be. Also, luckily for Microsoft, installing another OS is harder than using another browser. (I say using, not installing, because there's always another browser already installed on most OSes.)
- kingofhdds 8y ago
  I'm not sure the "big problem" of Windows stemmed exactly from possibility to install third-party apps, and not from poor security defaults which let those apps to mangle everything around without asking for permission, and poor architectural decisions which let some programs to install themselves (aka viruses). Nowadays Windows is much better with this staff than it's used to be, in spite of the fact that (contrary to your statement) installing unsigned software is still as easy as pushing buttons.
  - PyroLagus 8y ago
    To be fair, Linux and friends aren't much better in that regard. Permission management for locally running programs is pretty much poor by default in all major operating systems. SELinux and AppArmor for Linux improve on the situation, but they're usually not the default unless you're using Fedora, and even there, it might need some extra configuration. I'm looking forward to capability-based systems with microkernels, since they really improve on the situation, but I think it'll take a while until we get some major ones. Maybe Google's Fuchsia will establish itself soon enough, who knows? (We'll also have to see what can be done about hardware security, since any software mitigation could potentially be rendered useless by insecure hardware.)
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      > To be fair, Linux and friends aren't much better in that regard. Linux gets there a different way. The standard way to install applications is from the package manager and essentially all of the applications in there are trustworthy (because they're all open source and if they did anything seriously user-hostile, someone would fork it and that version would be the one in the package manager). Meanwhile the package managers do actually add nearly everything that isn't user-hostile, so the need to install anything from another source, while still possible, is rare enough that most people never have to do it. And binaries downloaded via web browser don't even have the execute bit set by default. You can still do it, but you have to know how, and the people who know enough to know how to do it generally know enough to be suspicious when doing it. And even then, things typically run as the user rather than root/administrator, so they can't alter the system or anything other than that one user's (presumably backed up) home directory. Having even more granular permission would be even better, but restricting the harm to one home directory of one user and only in cases of users who are at the same time knowledgeable and stupid has already handled basically the entire problem.
      - mindslight 8y ago
        Package managers are exactly the centralized "app store" model, and there have been plenty of periods where users have had to add third party repositories to get basic functionality (DeCSS, video codecs, ZFS, etc). The difference is that Linux repositories are less noteworthy to attack, have a more distributed culture not ruled by capitulating lawyers, and can actually jurisdiction shop. The ultimate problem is a lack of a cross-software security model of the OSs, Linux included. User-based isolation is cool and all, but orthogonal to the modern world [0]. For decades we've been continually looking for better ways of isolating local apps, while also rejecting centralized control. We keep looking, while centralization keeps ratcheting. I'm still hopeful that a well done capability (handle-based) system would go a long way, but not fully solve it. Unfortunately that means shedding off POSIX/LSB rather than duplicating the entire monolithic OS environment for every security context. [0] Where say even a local LAN IP address is security-critical information!
- the8472 8y ago
  So, if hypothetically microsoft were facing more competition and people left due to malware you would support them doing the same move where they only allow microsoft-approved applications unless you replace some flag in the bootloader for example? And of course the next step would be DMCA takedowns for applications in the appstore. Everyone's computer would effectively be under US jurisdiction.

throwaway2048 8y ago

This is a really bad argument that can be used to justify any anti user feature whatsoever.

dao- 8y ago
No? First of all, I'm saying that allowing sideloading is actually hostile to the majority of users, and I'm also saying this threatened the very survival of Mozilla, so this needs to be part of the consideration.
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  It absolutely can, for example: "It's not gonna happen. Firefox would be dead by now if it still allowed users to customize their webbrowser and make Firefox unusable (as in slow, unstable, and btw insecure), because users wouldn't keep up with that for too long. They'd just use another browser. This may be okay with you for now because you know how to protect yourself against misconfiguration, but in the long run Mozilla needs market share to stay relevant and be able to compete with the richest companies on this planet." Substitute in any positive feature that puts the user in control of their web browsing experience, power over something means the power to break it too, using that as a reason to remove functionality is stupid. Doubly so when you pile on the "omg if they do this mozilla is doomed" hysterics.
  - dao- 8y ago
    Sure, you can always claim that some random lockdown is vital. The thing is, not every assertion is the same. Yours could be nonsense while mine could still be true.
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      If you claim something like "John is a carpenter because John is a human and carpenters are humans" and someone points out that your logic doesn't follow (by applying it to some other known non-carpenter human), you can then claim that this doens't prove that John isn't a carpenter, but the point is that the original claim utterly fails to prove that he is.

kingofhdds 8y ago

Significant part of FF's userbase decided in its favor exactly because of choice of third-party addons.

dao- 8y ago
How significant? Firefox' market share was falling rapidly. (It still is declining, but not as dramatically.)
- kingofhdds 8y ago
  I can't offer you a number, but it's significant enough for Google to offer me to autocomplete "firefox quantum addons" with "stopped working", and relevant discussions left a visible footprint on the net. I'm not sure how is the second sentence related to the question. If you're implying that addons dragged it down - it for sure is incorrect.
  - dao- 8y ago
    Quantum changed the API model, not whether you could install unsigned addons, so that's a different discussion.
  - kingofhdds 8y ago
    Yes, Quantum changed API => it made a bunch of addons dead => lots if worried, and upset users appeared discussing it. I have nothing against Quantum, I accept it was necessary to go for a new model, but it clearly shows addons are important for a significant share of users.
    - dao- 8y ago
      You said "exactly because of choice of third-party addons" and that's what I'm questioning. I'm not questioning whether addons in general are important for a significant share of users.
      - 8y ago

PhasmaFelis 8y ago

> because users wouldn't keep up with that for too long. They'd just use another browser. Users will leave in droves if...Firefox allows you to install third-party extensions if you choose to do so? I don't get it.

apostacy 8y ago

You are deeply misinformed, and to be blunt, people like you are killing Firefox. Somehow Firefox managed to go for over a decade without blocking sideloading of extensions. And no Mozilla should not be thinking in terms of "market share". There is no market! Mozilla is a non-profit. They should not be sharing the same paradigm as Google. And it is this vanity-driven pursuit of "brand prestige" and "market share" that has ruined things. It makes business sense for Google's platform for them to do things the way they do. It makes absolutely no sense for Mozilla to emulate Google. The very fact that Mozilla can just afford to make unique software without the constraints of the market, supported by donors, is a strength, not a weakness. They should be leveraging it instead of trying to "stay relevant" and compete with Google on Google's terms. And this whole incident is a disgrace. If it wasn't for Mozilla getting between users and their software, then this takedown would be nearly irrelevant, as it would be that much easier for users to install it. It would probably even disincentivize take-downs like this, because they would be so futile.