On Thursday, October 31, 2013 2:09:06 AM UTC+2, David E. Ross wrote: > This appears to be a total reversal of past Mozilla philosophy, ...
Agreed. Central repo and mandatory approval is not what Mozilla is IMO. While there are some gains from such move, I think it hurts freedom and openness more. Essentially the browser has become an operating system, where apps/addons could be installed to it, including malwares. However, consider what happens if Microsoft or Apple would not let any app run unless it's approved on their main desktop OS? Look at the open community response to IOS closed garden. What about companies who have private addons for their own employees which they don't want to share with Mozilla? What about addons which are against some US regulations? can we stop the government from preventing Mozilla approving those? What about addons which are against Mozilla's philosophy? Do we wanna stop those? Would we? This really is a line Mozilla should not cross IMO. Mozilla may provide signing for those who request it, or even maintain a repository of malware hashes (sort of antivirus), but making mandatory approval of addons is not something I'd like to see. - avih _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
