3 ms·
It's explicitly stated that it will weaken the security model, but it's not explicitly stated that it will modify user.js. Now the author is claiming that rever
by shawnz 7y ago
It's explicitly stated that it will weaken the security model, but it's not explicitly stated that it will modify user.js. Now the author is claiming that reversing the change would be improper because it involves modifying user.js without explicitly saying so, but that's literally exactly what they did already.
They are not claiming that the problem is being forced to strengthen the security model without explicitly asking. They are claiming that the problem is specifically being forced to modify user.js without explicitly asking.
- cmcaine 7y ago> it involves modifying user.js without explicitly saying so, but that's literally exactly what they did already. We have never modified firefox settings without a user explicitly opting in. All the documentation for the `fixamo` function named the two firefox settings (as viewable in about:config) that `fixamo` would change. `fixamo` was an opt-in feature that users were only going to find by reading our help files or asking us on our support channel. Disclaimer: I am one of the authors of tridactyl.
- feanaro 7y agoI've certainly read somewhere that running `fixamo` would modify my user.js. I was fully aware of this fact prior to running the command.