On my system authors of software can't push updates to me at all. Instead the software is packaged, there is at least some oversight over what is packaged and plenty of user control over packages.

Yeah, so like the other poster your point reduces to "I trust Fedora to build Mozilla code more than I trust Mozilla to build Mozilla code". Which is nonsensical. At some point you're still trusting "someone" (the scary "someone" from upthread, even!) to give you software, so what's the complaint exactly?

> Yeah, so like the other poster your point reduces to "I trust Fedora to build Mozilla code more than I trust Mozilla to build Mozilla code". Which is nonsensical.

I don’t think it is. That way, you have two authorities checking things over instead of just one.

It's not nonsensical. I trust the distribution maintainers to maintain and update a cohesive system composed of thousands of third-party packages. This is entirely different from trusting those thousands of third-party authors to directly update whatever they want on my system whenever they feel like it.

Edit: I'm not implying anything about the capabilities of this preference-updating system; the subject was software updates and who is trusted to deploy them.

That's hyperbolic. Mozilla can't directly update whatever they want via this system. According to the article they can only "change the default value of a preference" within Firefox.

> trusting those thousands of third-party authors to directly update whatever they want on my system

You have completely misunderstood what Normandy does.

The comment I was replying to was about something much broader than Normandy: "trusting [Mozilla] to build Mozilla code" and "to give you software".

How so? Rolling out changes to default settings in an unannounced, automatic way based on users being automatically enrolled in that preference update program, with difficult to understand opt out settings changes required, sounds _absolutely_ like third party authors able to make unrestricted (and unannounced) modifications to my system.

I cannot understand how anyone could think otherwise of Normandy.

How is that nonsensical? Trusting someone does not imply trusting anybody, and even less everybody.

I trust my mother; it does not mean I trust you, and even less the entire crowd here on HN.

I've stopped using Windows years ago because I didn't trust Microsoft anymore. I'm having minor trust issues with Canonical and Mozilla. I still trust Debian and Arch.

Trust is personal. Hard to get and easy to lose.

Some systems (e.g., Debian, and derived Linux distros) make an exceptional effort not to randomly change user or system settings (via debconf, and governed by Policy).

This has some limits -- it largely applies to systemwide, not user settings, user dotfiles are generally outside of scope (though are also typically unmolested), and some packages, including Firefox, manage to introduce their own configuration management schemas and misbehaviours.

But yes, the general idea that software updates do treat user and local configuration as sacrosanct is well-established, decades-old practice, in at least some parts. And goes a long way to establishing and sustaining user trust in those systems and their update processes.

Mozilla face numerous challenges, including a large multiplatform largely non-expert userbase operating in an overtly hostile environment. The whole browser extension regime is a very unsatisfactory compromise itself. There remain lessons which might be applied from Debian.

Normandy only changes default preference values, not ones changed by users.

When Firefox updates, if there are problems, then I am likely to hear about it (e.g. on hn).

I know when my Firefox updates, so I can expect changes.

My Firefox is vetted by my Linux distribution.

This is the first time I have heard about Normandy, and I certainly would not turn it on, because I prefer my work machine to be a laggard than an early adopter.

You must be Windows or OSX user, sir.

Not for multiple decades, no. Though I'll admit that given the tone of your response I was assuming you were.

Only the trustee changes, so I still can't parse your concern. You don't trust Mozilla to RECONFIGURE (!) or REPLACE (!!) your software unbidden. You trust Canonical or Red Hat or whoever. And that changes what?

A third-party is less likely to have the first-party's motives, which makes a huge difference. Something blatantly stupid happens, there's a better chance of putting a stop to it before it can cause any harm and maybe even gives a little leverage to get the first-party to revert.