3 ms·
You're right, I think it just makes it less "gray". If Oracle bundles crapware with a Java installer that installs an unsigned plugin in Firefox, you can write
by jszymborski 8y ago
You're right, I think it just makes it less "gray". If Oracle bundles crapware with a Java installer that installs an unsigned plugin in Firefox, you can write a PR release to smooth things over.
If the crapware uninstall Firefox, install Firefox Dev Edition, and installs the unsigned plugin, there's not much of a "gray" defence there.
- the8472 8y agoAdware came bundled with chrome itself (for the money), i.e. installing new browsers is not out of the question here. That excuse feels really flimsy and tailored to permit only the exact choices made and no other option. But there are other options, such as helping users to get rid of adware when it's detected in the browser. It would also result in a larger benefit of improving their system instead just the browser.
- jszymborski 8y agoI find my explanation more plausible than the implication that "Firefox went through the effort of making plugins required to be signed for any other reason so long as it's arbitrary or somehow malicious" that you and others seemingly subscribe to.
- the8472 8y agoThat's not what I am saying. I am saying that through a chain of choices they arrived at a specific conclusion how to solve their problem and then added justifications that admitted no alternatives when alternative solutions would have avoided the situation today. People, including myself, were argueing against putting mozilla in a position where they are a single point of failure. That critique was countered with the specific argument that giving users an override is not acceptable because any override could also be used by adware and thus mozilla must be the sole arbiter of what addons can be installed.