171–180 of 288 posts
Lots of heat in this thread... So, Addons are mostly reviewed by volunteers. Sometimes people make mistakes. The best course of action is to try to reach out for the AMO team on IRC or their mailing list. - Addons forum is at https://discourse.mozilla.org/c/add-ons - All contact info for AMO dev stuff is at: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons#Con... - Developer Hub for addons is at: https://addo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then you don't get security updates. That's forcing users to make uncomfortable tradeoffs.
The developer edition allows you to use unsigned addons, that has security updates. You can't live in the modern world and expect all choices to be handed down without consequences and tradeoffs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can toggle a compile option to allow unsigned addons. I've mentioned this repeatedly and I'm unsure how you didn't notice that.
And I've explained that you can't expect the average newbie coder to navigate the recompilation process; I'm unsure why you blithely dismiss people who aren't as capable as you.
I'm not dismissing people who aren't as capable as me either, I've mentioned alternative approaches and I'm getting tired of having to repeat "there is the dev and nightly edition" to the same 5 people over and over again.
Mozilla is making tradeoffs in protecting the average user and giving the power users a little bit less freedom unless they use an edition of firefox intended for power users and developers. Simple as that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then you don't get security updates. That's forcing users to make uncomfortable tradeoffs.
The developer edition allows you to use unsigned addons, that has security updates. You can't live in the modern world and expect all choices to be handed down without consequences and tradeoffs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The developer edition allows you to use unsigned addons, that has security updates. You can't live in the modern world and expect all choices to be handed down without consequences and tradeoffs.
Right, we can't. Unless we're promising to give users control over their machines and there are trivial ways to accommodate this means of giving them control.
The average user cannot be trusted with full control of their machine and it's fairly reasonable to say that power users need to take the extra steps to, for example, install a power user edition of firefox.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The developer edition allows you to use unsigned addons, that has security updates. You can't live in the modern world and expect all choices to be handed down without consequences and tradeoffs.
They could add a way to add signing keys to the stables. This gives you security updates and user freedom without significant downsides because the user would still be in charge of signing.
Most users, ie, the average user plus a significant amount, don't really care that they can't install random addons from outside the addon store.
Lots of heat in this thread... So, Addons are mostly reviewed by volunteers. Sometimes people make mistakes. The best course of action is to try to reach out for the AMO team on IRC or their mailing list. - Addons forum is at https://discourse.mozilla.org/c/add-ons - All contact info for AMO dev stuff is at: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons#Con... - Developer Hub for addons is at: https://addo…
My experience with firefox add-on reviewers has been hit or miss - One of the most frustrating things is that reviews often happen long after your add-on has been published. I'd rather have a longer waiting time, but once an add-on is published then it means it's been approved. From the developer point of view it means that it's very hard to communicate on releases, because you never know when your addon is going to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've recently been experimenting with creating an extension, and the automated signing was literally one of the first things I did when I followed the Hello World tutorial. It's very easy to obtain an .xpi that you can distribute to your users yourself.
How do you do this without leaking your code to mozilla?
This would not be an issue at all if Firefox had not jumped the shark in version 37 by implementing anti-user features like requiring Mozilla approval (signed) to run add-ons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, we can't. Unless we're promising to give users control over their machines and there are trivial ways to accommodate this means of giving them control.
Users will abuse the ability to control their own machines. Given full administrative privilege on their machine, it takes, by my experience, about a month until the machine either has various pieces of malware installed or their malware has malware installed. The average user cannot be trusted with full control of their machine and it's fairly reasonable to say that power users need to take the extra steps to, for e…
I'm asking for: "If the user goes into a deep part of the obscure developer options and bypasses the warnings about unsigned addons, and then uses a non-obvious but documented process for side-loading, something virus peddlers can't really walk users through, then Firefox should honor that while explicitly displaying the list of unsigned addons the users added."
>I'm not dismissing people who aren't as capable as me either, I've mentioned alternative approaches and I'm getting tired of having to repeat "there is the dev and nightly edition" to the same 5 people over and over again.
And I and others have explained how those involve unacceptable tradeoffs and run directly contrary to "give users back control over their machines" ethos, though not, of course, to your extremely limited version of the ethos.