To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I fail to see how extensions are either a form of lock-in or a particular security risk. True, users will have to exercise a degree of discretion in selecting which extensions to trust and install, but that's pretty much true of all software -- even with package management in a Linux distribution, you're trusting the distribution authors, and the people packaging the software (which is probably fairly safe). I really don't see how the ability to install and use NoScript somehow degrades my browser's security.
And I don't really see how they're a lock-in either. Calling something a lock-in implies that steps are deliberately being taken to prevent competitors from implementing a similar feature, or preventing compatibility with competitors' products. The FireFox team is doing neither, to my knowledge: if google gets their extension framework sorted out and NoScript gets ported (or a function-alike is created), then there won't really be anything the FireFox team can do, and I wouldn't expect them to try prevent such an occurrence anyway.
Edit: And, when did Epiphany become more than Gecko in GTK decorations?
Edited 2009-12-22 17:53 UTC




Member since:
2005-07-24
I avoid FF because the current Epiphany is a better browser. I merely note where Firefox is almost certainly headed for trouble. Your complacency is duely noted. But rest assured that after the shit hits the fan, you'll still be able to either deny the problem outright, or blame it on Microsoft in some way.