Re:Mozilla’s Uncertain Future
by causality0 on Saturday August 15, 2020 @03:55AM
(#24166918)
Functioning like Chrome in rendering and page features doesn't mean Firefox has to behave like Chrome in the UX. For example, why gut the ability of people to skin and customize their browser as they see fit? Why is Mozilla involved in a running battle against users who want the tabs below the address bar? Why entirely prevent us from sideloading extensions instead of letting us turn the ability on and off?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
I guess that for the first two the answer is in part managing complexity
and the last one is to reduce attack vectors
Re:Mozilla’s Uncertain Future
by dependenttypes on Saturday August 15, 2020 @06:25AM
(#24167757)
Ah yes, the good old walled garden approach.
Not very "open", is it?
i mean I don't like it either, but I do believe them in this instance that it's mostly in service of not letting installers just sneak in a toolbar
Re:Mozilla’s Uncertain Future
by dependenttypes on Saturday August 15, 2020 @11:29AM
(#24169557)
I think that this is misguided. If a malicious installer sneaks in toolbars it can also install a keylogger/send all of your data to a server/install a firefox fork with the toolbar preinstalled/etc.
If anything this kind of thing only hurts the users that know what they are doing (such as someone wanting to install a 3rd party addon or someone wanting to install addons via nix).
> If a malicious installer sneaks in toolbars it can also install a keylogger/send all of your data to a server/install a firefox fork with the toolbar preinstalled/etc.
If it's totally rogue malware, sure.
The toolbars, on the other hand, were coming from companies like Oracle that operated entirely within the bounds of the law.
Re:Mozilla’s Uncertain Future
by dependenttypes on Monday August 17, 2020 @09:23PM
(#24194359)
Installing a firefox fork is also within the bounds of the law.