Given you can just go override Firefox and enable disabled extensions, I'm not sure I understand the outrage. Then again, Mozilla does seem to attract a remarkable level of vitriol despite being one of the true stewards of an open internet...
> Given you can just go override Firefox and enable disabled extensions
_I_ can bore out a V-8 0.030 over, choose a proper cam, match all my bearing clearances, assemble the thing balanced, and then tune 30% more power out of it than it came with from the factory. But not all automobile drivers can do that.
Everyone else is running maybe uBlock and a privacy extension that their kid installed for them, and those will be whitelisted.
This is a tempest in a teapot, just like every other "controversy" that Firefox finds themselves embroiled in.
We have no idea who will be affected, because Mozilla hasn't specified their plans for this "feature".
> Everyone else is running maybe uBlock and a privacy extension that their kid installed for them, and those will be whitelisted.
I'm an extension developer myself. I'm not ok with a world where a tiny number of lucky extensions get whitelisted, while my extension and everyone else's extensions get silently, remotely disabled by Firefox.
> I'm an extension developer myself. I'm not ok with a world where a tiny number of lucky extensions get whitelisted, while my extension and everyone else's extensions get silently, remotely disabled by Firefox
Ah, now I see the real concern.
Honestly, I'm not that sympathetic. Extensions have always been a potential security liability and anything that protects less savvy users when accessing online banking or other sensitive services is a good thing.
Heavy extension use is the hallmark of a power user. Power users can configure Firefox to enable these extensions (Mozilla has specifically said they plan to deliver more user controls in 116), so I personally don't see the problem.
Which domains will be quarantined? And which extensions will be exempted?
Everyone seems to be assuming "banking" with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Mozilla hasn't said.
There are countless banks in the world. Is Mozilla going to maintain a list of every banking web site?
The fact is that nobody knows what the hell Mozilla is going to do with the quarantine list.
I assume the best because I believe they have an exceptional track record.
I see what they say and assume the best intentions.
You look at what they don't say and assume the worst.
I guess at this point we'll just see how it shakes out.
https://venturebeat.com/mobile/mozilla-responds-to-firefox-u...
https://www.theregister.com/2017/12/18/mozilla_mr_robot_fire...
(I'll grant you that Mr. Robot thing six years ago was pretty damn stupid, though)
You'll forgive me if I don't find myself moved to outrage.
Perhaps you trust Mozilla to the end of the world, but for some people all it takes is one particularly bad incident to completely lose faith. You have your own threshold, other people have theirs.
Mozilla management has a history of consistently steering Firefox towards being less and less of a user agent.
This is why I think that if you trust Mozilla as a steward of the Firefox browser, you have not spent much time following their behavior.
Mozilla used to be all about respect for the user. Not so much these days.
Sure. I guess that makes sense.
In the future I should use this entire situation when illustrating Hanlon's Razor...
But I would check it meticulously at the top, middle, and bottom on every cylinder, in two axis, before bolting it together. Trust, but verify.