41–50 of 315 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It does make sense to keep the defaults where it prevents most users from harm. Wait, did we have an extension-caused apocalypse recently leading to this requirement ? Erm, I guess not. So why do we exactly need it ?
Approximately 5% of users are infected with adware. This is one way to combat it. Google has already taken this approach.
Ah, feels like they're following Chrome's example, which decreed that it should be exceedingly difficult for Windows Chrome users to install extensions from somewhere other than https://chrome.google.com/webstore/ . This basically killed an internal app we had at work (a fork of a "REST client", with some added request-signing features specific to our internal APIs.) There was no strong reason to keep it secret, but…
This is deeply disappointing. Two details: the extensions need to be signed by Mozilla , and only US English speakers will be allowed to disable this requirement. The point of free software is that users, individually and collectively, are free to modify it as they wish, without requiring approval from third parties. (And of course to use, copy, and redistribute.) This is a sharp turn away from the free-software etho…
Do they assume that non-English speakers are just drooling baboons who cannot decide this for themselves unlike English speakers?...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Approximately 5% of users are infected with adware. This is one way to combat it. Google has already taken this approach.
How many % of this 5% are running Internet Explorer ? Let me guess, 95% ?
It's the "no override" part that concerns me. I created and maintain an extension that is used by visually-impaired people around the world (it has been translated by volunteers into Dutch and Chinese, for example). Occasionally a Firefox update breaks this extension. OK, fine, that's the cost of doing business. Of course, the automated compatibility report that Firefox creates is utterly useless; it almost never cat…
This is deeply disappointing. Two details: the extensions need to be signed by Mozilla , and only US English speakers will be allowed to disable this requirement. The point of free software is that users, individually and collectively, are free to modify it as they wish, without requiring approval from third parties. (And of course to use, copy, and redistribute.) This is a sharp turn away from the free-software etho…
> only US English speakers will be allowed to disable this requirement Do they assume that non-English speakers are just drooling baboons who cannot decide this for themselves unlike English speakers?...
[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/03/brendan-eich-steps-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Users still can, they can download one of the provided builds that do not have this restriction. The issue is that most users don't understand software on a deep level, and just click "yes" on dialog boxes, etc. It does make sense to keep the defaults where it prevents most users from harm.
Why don't we teach people the don't understand so they can make informed choices instead of preventing it entirely?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Users still can, they can download one of the provided builds that do not have this restriction. The issue is that most users don't understand software on a deep level, and just click "yes" on dialog boxes, etc. It does make sense to keep the defaults where it prevents most users from harm.
Why don't we teach people the don't understand so they can make informed choices instead of preventing it entirely?
Specialisation always was this species strong point. Acceptance that the user might have his strong-point elsewhere and is so nice as to not harass you with his worldview. Imagine if you went into your local bakery, and there behind the counter stands a guy all in white:
"Good morning. Try our donuts today. You could make donuts too. Its easy. Come on ill show you. And then you will be self reliant when it comes to donuts. There are thousands of great recipes online - okay, some are broken, but you dont get to become a expert in donut making - without giving a little bit back.. Sir, Sir - you forgot your Donuts. Maybe he is diabetic and forgot - or evil cooperate donut buyer - or the one dough ring to bind them all is too much of a power.."
With great specialisation comes great loss off understanding on other parts of your life.
It's the "no override" part that concerns me. I created and maintain an extension that is used by visually-impaired people around the world (it has been translated by volunteers into Dutch and Chinese, for example). Occasionally a Firefox update breaks this extension. OK, fine, that's the cost of doing business. Of course, the automated compatibility report that Firefox creates is utterly useless; it almost never cat…
This seems like a good approach to me. Instead of Mozilla itself signing developers' extensions, why can't Mozilla issue certificates so developers can sign their own extensions locally? If a developer turns rogue, Mozilla can revoke their certificate.