5 ms·
> Because they could be updated So, this is a rally against all extensions? Expanding this argument, we basically get to a point where we don't trust any softw
by pyre 13y ago
> Because they could be updated
So, this is a rally against all extensions? Expanding this argument, we basically get to a point where we don't trust any software:
1. No more browser extensions.
2. Want ad-blocking in Firefox? Request feature.
3. Feature request denied.
4. Fork Firefox.
5. Add ad-blocking to Firefox fork.
This leaves us with a couple of issues:
1. The bar to adding functionality to a browser has now been raised significantly. With a larger barrier to entry, we will see fewer extensions for trivial things like 'adding collapsible threads to HN', which can make your life easier, but isn't worth a fork of the entire browser to achieve.
2. Trust. You still have to trust the developer of the browser fork that same way that you have to trust the developer of the browser extension.
- coldtea 13y ago>So, this is a rally against all extensions? Expanding this argument, we basically get to a point where we don't trust any software: Yes. So DON'T expand it. The thing is, third party updatable extensions are far less trustworthy than Firefox.
- pyre 13y agoThis is true, but to only trust Firefox means that you only get features that Mozilla adds to Firefox.
- njharman 13y ago> this is a rally against all extensions? No it is a rally against extensions which have a non-risky (and arguably) superior alternative. Risk is a gradient and cumulative. The more risky things you do, the more at risk you are.
- gcb0 13y agoYes. As it always been for any software. Host files: as secure as you can get. Whole network. Browser extension: remote code exploit possibility. Probably not available for mobile. Trusting someone who takes money from Google...