Firefox to get a “walled garden” for extensions, Mozilla to be sole arbiter
nakedsecurity.sophos.com
Firefox to get a “walled garden” for extensions, Mozilla to be sole arbiter
1–10 of 104 posts
Re: Firefox to get a “walled garden” for extensions, Mozilla to be sole arbiter
#2With each passing day, Mozilla tries harder and harder to get me to stop using their browser. If not for Chrome being the only viable alternative, they would have long since succeeded.
Wreck the address bar algorithm? Ugh. Move the tabs on top? Ugh. Force me to keep download history? Ugh. Bury all the configuration options (like JS features) into about:config? Ugh. Turn the UI into a poor Chrome imitation? Ugh. Turn the new tab page into adware? Ugh. Promote a bigot to the CEO position? Ugh. And now turn extensions into a walled garden? ... I can't even muster up the energy to feign surprise anymore. I basically expect a new disappointment every time I hear Mozilla in the news.
Re: Firefox to get a “walled garden” for extensions, Mozilla to be sole arbiter
#3Instead of a walled garden approach, why cant they do a "Verified by Mozilla" badge for each plugin, with warnings if one doesn't have it BUT still giving the user control and choice of whether to use a plugin.
I a made a quick and dirty plugin for chrome a month ago only to find out i need to undergo an anal exam and give over credit card information to Google, fuck that! is that where Mozilla want to endup?
Re: Firefox to get a “walled garden” for extensions, Mozilla to be sole arbiter
#4Instead of a walled garden approach, why cant they do a "Verified by Mozilla" badge for each plugin, with warnings if one doesn't have it BUT still giving the user control and choice of whether to use a plugin. I a made a quick and dirty plugin for chrome a month ago only to find out i need to undergo an anal exam and give over credit card information to Google, fuck that! is that where Mozilla want to endup?
Well, they have featured plugins, but it doesn't seem to be helping.
Re: Firefox to get a “walled garden” for extensions, Mozilla to be sole arbiter
#5"That makes it vaguely more egalitarian than a complex and bureaucratic mechanism that tends to favour bigger, more established software makers, who themselves have the staff and bureaucracy to match."
This is FUD. Even Apple's App Store doesn't require huge amount of bureaucracy let alone what they seem to be talking about.
Re: Firefox to get a “walled garden” for extensions, Mozilla to be sole arbiter
#6With each passing day, Mozilla tries harder and harder to get me to stop using their browser. If not for Chrome being the only viable alternative, they would have long since succeeded. Wreck the address bar algorithm? Ugh. Move the tabs on top? Ugh. Force me to keep download history? Ugh. Bury all the configuration options (like JS features) into about:config? Ugh. Turn the UI into a poor Chrome imitation? Ugh. Turn…
I agree with you on this. However i have also seen that alot of malware and adware does indeed make it to the browser to make it more pathetic and i think its a good direction in that regard. However i think that they really need to actually think what users are going to use then just build random features that nobody really cares for. And the imitation game is definitely not good, why be separate if you're going to keep on imitating.
Re: Firefox to get a “walled garden” for extensions, Mozilla to be sole arbiter
#7With each passing day, Mozilla tries harder and harder to get me to stop using their browser. If not for Chrome being the only viable alternative, they would have long since succeeded. Wreck the address bar algorithm? Ugh. Move the tabs on top? Ugh. Force me to keep download history? Ugh. Bury all the configuration options (like JS features) into about:config? Ugh. Turn the UI into a poor Chrome imitation? Ugh. Turn…
> I basically expect a new disappointment every time I hear Mozilla in the news.
Shitty suggestions that elicit strong reactions seem to be better for the Mozilla Corporation than being more and more ignored.
Re: Firefox to get a “walled garden” for extensions, Mozilla to be sole arbiter
#8Malicious extensions are apparently the driver for this. So we're back to the problem that any sufficiently flexible platform is a vector for malware. The platform authority then institutes code signing as a checkpoint against this. Thus raising a big barrier to entry for non-malicious extensions.
It's hard to see how to get back into this particular Eden.
Re: Firefox to get a “walled garden” for extensions, Mozilla to be sole arbiter
#9"That makes it vaguely more egalitarian than a complex and bureaucratic mechanism that tends to favour bigger, more established software makers, who themselves have the staff and bureaucracy to match." This is FUD. Even Apple's App Store doesn't require huge amount of bureaucracy let alone what they seem to be talking about.
Agreed. Cryptographic signing of extensions in this context doesn't seem to me to be significantly different from the signing done by your other package management systems.
One of my professors said "the browser is the new OS" about a decade ago. This seems like more proof of that to me — if we want fast, low power JavaScript in browsers, we have to have a reasonable chain of trust imo.
Re: Firefox to get a “walled garden” for extensions, Mozilla to be sole arbiter
#10Malicious extensions are apparently the driver for this. So we're back to the problem that any sufficiently flexible platform is a vector for malware. The platform authority then institutes code signing as a checkpoint against this. Thus raising a big barrier to entry for non-malicious extensions. It's hard to see how to get back into this particular Eden.
Sorry for the rude question here, but is this speculation on your part or based on stuff said by folks at Mozilla (the corp, not just contributors/clients)? Some clearer sources would be helpful this early in the morning.