5 ms·
Several of the options (cache, TLS, certificate manager) he cited are already in the advanced panel and he wants to kill them. And in several places he explici
by agwa 14y ago
Several of the options (cache, TLS, certificate manager) he cited are already in the advanced panel and he wants to kill them.
And in several places he explicitly says that these killed options (whether they're currently in the advanced panel or not) should be replaced by add-ons, not by an advanced option or even by about:config.
So I don't think I dragged the article to a conclusion it didn't try to make. The article is clearly about killing options which I contend people need, and I think should be placed in an advanced section rather than killed.
- tptacek 14y agoHe wants to kill those options. Not all the options. I don't think that was a good-faith response. Can you defend the SSL 3.0 and TLS 1.0 checkboxes?
- arjie 14y agoFor what it's worth, some versions of the web interface for VMWare Server 2.0 will not work without disabling SSL 3.0.
- JoshTriplett 14y agoFile a bug in Bugzilla in the Evangelism component asking Mozilla to chat with the VMWare folks, and file another bug against the browser requesting a fix for whatever autodetection prevents it from falling back to some other protocol.
- revelation 14y agoBut he does want to kill plenty of these options. Thats why he constantly remarks about Addons, as if a Firefox addon should be able to globally disable JavaScript. It's the fault of this article: he constantly implicates that because something is an overly niche option, it should be done away with completely, instead of just removing it from the UI. Certificate manager in an addon? What?!
- tptacek 14y agoThe certificate management interfaces of every mainstream browser are so bad that they actually harm Internet security. They all need to be replaced. Add-on cert management interfaces sound peachy to me.
- revelation 14y agoThe point here being that you should not delegate cert management to an addon. Addons have no business being exposed to any of that, they need to be sandboxed in and restricted. And yes, they are so bad to the point they are harmful, but the only reason they are in there is because Firefox has it's own certificate store, more of a portability quirk than anything.
- tptacek 14y agoThe certificate UX for other browsers is no better.
- dasil003 14y agoOkay, but he didn't comment on the possibility of putting it in a hidden preference screen available by URL only. He hasn't explicitly commented on the middle ground between preference screens available from the menu and add-ons, so it's not fair to say that he's claiming it should be done away with completely. His point was, and I agree with it, that a mass browser does not need to expose cert management in a way that the 99.9% can access it because it's likely to cause more harm than good for anyone who is not capable of jumping through a few extra hoops to get to it.
- chris_wot 14y agoI'm sorry, but the answer isn't to remove options that often make sense. You don't want to be like the Gnome guys, who in the guise of making things "user friendly" removed often extremely useful functionality. Like removing the certificates manager. Or cache control. Or the ability to restrict cookies. Or JavaScript. Or the ability to turn off menubars, should you so desire to do so (kiosk mode). All of these things are used by people. Just because he doesn't like it, doesn't mean others don't want it.
- sandyarmstrong 14y agoNope: "The people that need to do these things should use add-ons, or at the very least an about:config tweak."