On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Avi Hal <avi...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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?
Both Microsoft and Apple have investigated ways of making it harder to run unapproved/unsigned apps on their operating systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatekeeper_%28OS_X%29, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Account_Control). They have a responsibility to protect their users against malware, and Mozilla finds itself in a very similar position. > Look at the open community response to IOS closed garden. Look at the end-user response to the IOS closed garden - they need to worry a lot less about malware. That's one of its biggest benefits (which of course are traded off against the downsides of a lack of developer freedom). I don't think this particular proposal necessarily strikes the right balance, but we don't get to say "we are open and thus it must be a free for all". Add-on ecosystem freedom needs to be carefully traded off against user benefit, and that's what Jorge and team are attempting to do. We need to all be on board that we need to address this problem, and if this proposal isn't quite the best way to do that, we should be discussing how we can make it better, or how we can solve the same problem in a different way. The status quo is not an option. Gavin _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
