4 ms·
There’s no good reason for such a policy. Someone will argue about extensions, but Firefox has policy management tools available too, and if you’re restricting
by nullfield 4y ago
There’s no good reason for such a policy. Someone will argue about extensions, but Firefox has policy management tools available too, and if you’re restricting your devs from full admin I’ll throw a company in the same box, for the same reasons starting somewhere around “if you can’t trust” and ending in “shouldn’t have hired”-and full admin means your policies only kind-of matter.
If the company is large, please name and shame (presuming you’re not concerned about being identifiable), but obviously don’t put yourself at risk if you’re not sure this is safe.
Seriously, and I know everyone doesn’t have this luxury, as a dev this kind of thing would pretty much make me leave immediately-it speaks to a certain kind of culture, and let’s just say I’d be a bad fit.
- bryanrasmussen 4y agowell I would be identifiable, but anyway part of their argument is to make risk coverage easier, so they don't have to manage FF but do manage Chrome and Edge - didn't say anything about Brave. :) At any rate I will just keep going as is until I get ordered to remove and then make arguments.