Dave Townsend wrote: > Some examples that I have heard (or experienced myself): > > Long review times leading to slow updates for the users. > Dissatisfaction with the new Sandbox. > Poor download statistics. > Restrictions on what kind of add-ons they will host. > Restrictions on the application compatibility you can set. > Not appropriate for the market of the add-on (site specific add-ons etc.)
OK. So instead of using our resource to fix these things, we are fixing the problem that they can't afford $40 for SSL hosting? a.m.o. isn't the best thing, but it's free. Hosting your own with SSL isn't free, but it gives you more flexibility. I really think the two options available here cover all the bases. We seem to be planning to spend a great deal of resource to enable people to not use our infrastructure, and also not spend $40. Is this really cost-effective? Gerv _______________________________________________ dev-tech-crypto mailing list dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-crypto
