3 ms·

I know that people love to reflexively bash anything that Mozilla does (and I'm critical more often than not myself), but this seems positive overall. As a sav

I know that people love to reflexively bash anything that Mozilla does (and I'm critical more often than not myself), but this seems positive overall. As a savvy user, I can always manually install a plugin just as I can side-load an Android app that isn't on Google Play. However, my mom and other casual users who probably shouldn't be installing plugins at all have a somewhat more curated experience. I'm a bit skeptical of an automated security scan and approval process, but at least it provides a means to revoke a malicious plugin when complaints come in after the fact.

smhenderson 12y ago
According to the article you won't be able to do that; although not all extensions have to go through addons.mozilla.org they do all have to be digitally signed. There are exceptions - something about "in house, corporate" (whatever that means), developer editions of Firefox and nightly builds. But if I read correctly users of the current, stock Firefox will not be able to suppress the signature check when installing addons.
- chimeracoder 12y ago
  To be honest, I don't think people who aren't capable of or interested in downloading a developer edition should be installing unsigned extensions. If there's an unsigned extension you really can't live without, just download Iceweasel - problem solved. It's not like this will be that hard to get around for people who know what they're doing, so I'm not too worried about this change.
  - smhenderson 12y ago
    I don't completely disagree, and I know computer users have always been treated as separate groups based on skills. That said it's unsettling to me to see a group like Mozilla officially treating users this way. Software freedom is for everyone and, IMHO, treating one group differently than another with regards to this freedom just legitimises the walled garden concept further. As the article said, it's hard to call them a community or foundation when they turn around and announce a very company-like policy such as this...
    - blueskin_ 12y ago
      Mozilla took the power user out around the back with the shotgun long, long ago, unfortunately; just the latest sacrifice in their futile war to copy everything chrome does (and yet the PHBs making these decisions still wonder why they are haemorrhaging market share). Time to move to Pale Moon.
blueskin_ 12y ago
Coming soon: Firefox Safe Browsing: If you attempt to go to a site that is not on Mozilla's whitelist, it blocks it. Also for 'security' purposes. Mozilla are using 'security' in the same way oppressive politicians use terrorism and/or "Think of the children!".

smhenderson 12y ago

According to the article you won't be able to do that; although not all extensions have to go through addons.mozilla.org they do all have to be digitally signed. There are exceptions - something about "in house, corporate" (whatever that means), developer editions of Firefox and nightly builds. But if I read correctly users of the current, stock Firefox will not be able to suppress the signature check when installing addons.

chimeracoder 12y ago
To be honest, I don't think people who aren't capable of or interested in downloading a developer edition should be installing unsigned extensions. If there's an unsigned extension you really can't live without, just download Iceweasel - problem solved. It's not like this will be that hard to get around for people who know what they're doing, so I'm not too worried about this change.
- smhenderson 12y ago
  I don't completely disagree, and I know computer users have always been treated as separate groups based on skills. That said it's unsettling to me to see a group like Mozilla officially treating users this way. Software freedom is for everyone and, IMHO, treating one group differently than another with regards to this freedom just legitimises the walled garden concept further. As the article said, it's hard to call them a community or foundation when they turn around and announce a very company-like policy such as this...
  - blueskin_ 12y ago
    Mozilla took the power user out around the back with the shotgun long, long ago, unfortunately; just the latest sacrifice in their futile war to copy everything chrome does (and yet the PHBs making these decisions still wonder why they are haemorrhaging market share). Time to move to Pale Moon.

blueskin_ 12y ago

Coming soon: Firefox Safe Browsing: If you attempt to go to a site that is not on Mozilla's whitelist, it blocks it. Also for 'security' purposes. Mozilla are using 'security' in the same way oppressive politicians use terrorism and/or "Think of the children!".