81–90 of 315 posts
At this point I don't think I'll ever return to using firefox after the mountain of stupid shit mozilla has pulled in the last ~2 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't think of many OSS projects that aren't being manipulated by a strong community of liberals.
Is that the US definition of 'liberal'? i.e. the one that would apply to most center-right parties in the rest of the world?
I hope 41 is an ESR
update, nope: only 38 and 45 are ESR
https://mozorg.cdn.mozilla.net/media/img/firefox/organizatio...
What is the point of this? Shouldn't users be allowed to make their own decisions no matter how stupid or dangerous?
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.
And by experience supporting users, this is not how bad extensions get installed on the system: they're pulled in by malware which gets installed by other means.
This is only going to irate legitimate extension developers, which already have to wait weeks for AMO to review even the most basic change. I've been distributing extensions separately precisely for this reason.
What happens to all of those extensions that are on they gray area of DMCA? Who is this move benefiting? The users or the sponsors?
>>Is this a way for Mozilla to censor add-ons they don't like, enforce copyright, government demands, etc.? >No, the purpose of this is to protect users from malicious add-ons. We have clear guidelines[1] for when it is appropriate to blocklist an add-on and have refused multiple times to block for other reasons. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/Add-on_guideline... Copyright, DMCA, and legal concerns a…
If tomorrow Mozilla can shut down any extension, the calculus changes. Forcing Mozilla to kill ad blockers still makes EvilCorp look like assholes, but it might be successful. There's a big upside now, so much more reason to try and force Mozilla's hand.
So much for beta-testing your extension prior to release. It's already hard to get users involved, now they just can't. Or using any other channel to get your extension. !Thanks Mozilla, really.
I wonder if this will mean that all the extension version numbers will stop ending in -signed. I'm used to having any build number with -label in its name denote it's a pre-release and isn't stable [0]. I was recently searching for user agent switcher add-ons as part of a blog post [1] and almost all have -signed in the name. To some people it could look like the un-signed ones are more stable and better. [0] http://…
It's important to note that the Developers Editions (and the Nightlys) will have a setting for disabling the requirement. The assumption being that developers need to test as they develop. And are a more informed user.
Did they say why beta wouldn't have this setting? If anything beta is closer to release and developer would target that. Developer edition is still nightly if I'm not correct?
It should still possible to fork Firefox and remove this requirement, right ?
