Path: csiph.com!news.swapon.de!newsfeed.fsmpi.rwth-aachen.de!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!news-2.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.enyo.de!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Florian Weimer Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript Subject: Re: FYI: Mandatory extension signing in Firefox Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 08:45:45 +0100 Lines: 24 Message-ID: <87wppdl8eu.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: news.enyo.de 1457423145 28103 192.168.18.20 (8 Mar 2016 07:45:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@enyo.de Cancel-Lock: sha1:+K1o6vjecxsYSiFPO//hbbzD0yM= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:29855 * Stefan Weiss: > Users can still use one of the alternative versions mentioned above, but > that's not always feasible: > > - You can't just ask all of your beta testers to run an off-brand or > experimental release. > > - Experimental builds may be buggy and insecure. > > - If you're writing an extension, but can only install it in > non-standard FF versions, you cannot test it where it will actually > be used. > > - Non-standard versions often have no convenient upgrade methods. I think the Adobe DRM only runs in the original Firefox, so if you install an alternative version, you won't be able to get access to some online content. I don't know to what extent add-ons an circumvent DRM. Perhaps Mozilla is worried that without mandatory add-on signing, Firefox will lose users because users can't access restricted online content anymore?