5 ms·

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 dis

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.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    What you want to have is a trustworthy place where >99% of users can get >99% of software. You can have that -- look at Linux package managers -- without preventing side loading. And in fact that's necessary to prevent despotism. The people operating the repository want people to use it. They don't want them getting things from untrustworthy places. But if they can just prohibit that, they can be tyrants -- refusing beneficial software that the user wants because the monopoly provider has a conflict of interest or is being coerced by someone else. By contrast, if the user can load the beneficial application themselves then the repository has the incentive to prevent that from happening (and thereby discourage users from doing that in general) by carrying it themselves. And the fact that there can be competing repositories means that the one that carries the most beneficial software and the least user-hostile software can be the one that wins in the marketplace. But not if the vendor locks everyone else out and becomes an abusive monopolist.
    - dao- 8y ago
      I think Linux is quite a bit different. Firefox shares its space with applications that have the same privilege, making sideloading into Firefox much easier, especially on Windows. And then Linux is also niche enough as a consumer OS that it's just not as attractive for malware in the first place.
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > I think Linux is quite a bit different. Firefox shares its space with applications that have the same privilege, making sideloading into Firefox much easier, especially on Windows. All the more reason to have a supported way to do it. If they require the malware to replace the Firefox binary with a different one, what happens when it does? The user ends up with twelve pieces of malware instead of one because the original malware author didn't bother to support browser updates properly and the user ends up with a browser full of publicly known security vulnerabilities. > And then Linux is also niche enough as a consumer OS that it's just not as attractive for malware in the first place. People have been claiming that as the reason there was so much more malware on Windows for decades. Then Windows adopted some of the same types of measures as Linux and the amount of Windows malware fell off considerably.
  - kingofhdds 8y ago
    Could you clarify your position please: do you think that "Significant part of FF's userbase decided in its favor exactly because of choice of third-party addons" is incorrect?
    - dao- 8y ago
      If by third-party you mean unsigned, then yes, I think that's 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.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  What you want to have is a trustworthy place where >99% of users can get >99% of software. You can have that -- look at Linux package managers -- without preventing side loading. And in fact that's necessary to prevent despotism. The people operating the repository want people to use it. They don't want them getting things from untrustworthy places. But if they can just prohibit that, they can be tyrants -- refusing beneficial software that the user wants because the monopoly provider has a conflict of interest or is being coerced by someone else. By contrast, if the user can load the beneficial application themselves then the repository has the incentive to prevent that from happening (and thereby discourage users from doing that in general) by carrying it themselves. And the fact that there can be competing repositories means that the one that carries the most beneficial software and the least user-hostile software can be the one that wins in the marketplace. But not if the vendor locks everyone else out and becomes an abusive monopolist.
  - dao- 8y ago
    I think Linux is quite a bit different. Firefox shares its space with applications that have the same privilege, making sideloading into Firefox much easier, especially on Windows. And then Linux is also niche enough as a consumer OS that it's just not as attractive for malware in the first place.
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      > I think Linux is quite a bit different. Firefox shares its space with applications that have the same privilege, making sideloading into Firefox much easier, especially on Windows. All the more reason to have a supported way to do it. If they require the malware to replace the Firefox binary with a different one, what happens when it does? The user ends up with twelve pieces of malware instead of one because the original malware author didn't bother to support browser updates properly and the user ends up with a browser full of publicly known security vulnerabilities. > And then Linux is also niche enough as a consumer OS that it's just not as attractive for malware in the first place. People have been claiming that as the reason there was so much more malware on Windows for decades. Then Windows adopted some of the same types of measures as Linux and the amount of Windows malware fell off considerably.
- kingofhdds 8y ago
  Could you clarify your position please: do you think that "Significant part of FF's userbase decided in its favor exactly because of choice of third-party addons" is incorrect?
  - dao- 8y ago
    If by third-party you mean unsigned, then yes, I think that's incorrect.