4 ms·
Functioning like Chrome in rendering and page features doesn't mean Firefox has to behave like Chrome in the UX. For example, why gut the ability of people to
by causality0 6y ago
Functioning like Chrome in rendering and page features doesn't mean Firefox has to behave like Chrome in the UX. For example, why gut the ability of people to skin and customize their browser as they see fit? Why is Mozilla involved in a running battle against users who want the tabs below the address bar? Why entirely prevent us from sideloading extensions instead of letting us turn the ability on and off?
- afiori 6y agoI guess that for the first two the answer is in part managing complexity
- asddubs 6y agoand the last one is to reduce attack vectors
- dependenttypes 6y agoAh yes, the good old walled garden approach. Not very "open", is it?
- asddubs 6y agoi mean I don't like it either, but I do believe them in this instance that it's mostly in service of not letting installers just sneak in a toolbar
- dependenttypes 6y agoI think that this is misguided. If a malicious installer sneaks in toolbars it can also install a keylogger/send all of your data to a server/install a firefox fork with the toolbar preinstalled/etc. If anything this kind of thing only hurts the users that know what they are doing (such as someone wanting to install a 3rd party addon or someone wanting to install addons via nix).
- notriddle 6y ago> If a malicious installer sneaks in toolbars it can also install a keylogger/send all of your data to a server/install a firefox fork with the toolbar preinstalled/etc. If it's totally rogue malware, sure. The toolbars, on the other hand, were coming from companies like Oracle that operated entirely within the bounds of the law.
- dependenttypes 6y agoInstalling a firefox fork is also within the bounds of the law.