sense of packaging firefox' addons?

[Andrew Farris]

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
----                                                                       ----