sense of packaging firefox' addons?
Andrew Farris
lordmorgul at gmail.com
Thu Feb 28 03:54:38 UTC 2008
Randy Wyatt wrote:
> Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 05:37:35PM -0800, Andrew Farris wrote:
>>> can simply click an .xpi and restart their browser. Frankly, if you
>>> set aside security or stability concerns, it seems like a *major
>>> waste* to go to the effort of packaging extensions. The existing
>>> framework for their deployment works very well.
>>
>
> All,
> Look at the number of updates for certain critical extensions such as
> NoScript, and then judge about security versus maintainability. Quite
> Often, the update within Firefox doesn't contain the latest version. I
> would much rather the users take a suggestion about which updates should
> be included if a popup appears when they start their browser.
>
> And I keep a running log of the latest and greatest software which they
> have learned through extreme coercive techniques to consult before
> installing something willy-nilly
Bravo, afterall.. no security policy is 100% adequate to prevent a user from
doing something very stupid. Not updating adblock plus or noscript frequently
makes them ineffective, and if you're only providing the very first version via
system-wide install and then permitting the user's profile to update a local
extension version that seems a little silly to me.
--
Andrew Farris <lordmorgul at gmail.com> www.lordmorgul.net
gpg 0xC99B1DF3 fingerprint CDEC 6FAD BA27 40DF 707E A2E0 F0F6 E622 C99B 1DF3
No one now has, and no one will ever again get, the big picture. - Daniel Geer
---- ----
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list