The Security Announcement on the first link explains how the add-on hadn't gone through the code review and it was labelled as such. Granted, many users will just ignore all warnings and install anyway, which is why we're changing the security model to make even experimental add-ons go through code review before they are discoverable.
Updates are only pushed for add-ons that have already been approved, and only after the updates have been code reviewed.
Agreed. I think Apple's model is more about reliance on a very restrictive API that doesn't even enable you to do anything malicious. Firefox and other Mozilla applications, on the other hand, offer an open platform where you're allowed to do anything, good or bad. This is why it's so important to have a strict security review process, and why we're tightening it in the future.
I was replying to somebody who was questioning my work ethics. I'm sorry if the response was harsh. I also agree that Abine could've handled things much better, but that doesn't mean that they broke our rules. Whether we should change our rules about this is a matter of debate, and we'll surely be talking about it these days.
I know it's very hard for some people to understand that not all commercial companies are out there to get them, with evil plots to steal their identity and money. You must think that Abine is this all-powerful corporation that bribes all editors and is scheming to take all innocent, OSS-loving TACO users and screw them over. Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you. If you think this update is harmful to the general public (and I would disagree), then that's a problem with our policies, and ultimately my problem.
Mozilla is one of the most open organizations in the world, and there are multiplechannels you can use to complain or to try to get this decision reversed. Or you can continue with your conspiracy theories and proud indignation because you don't like the new version of a program.
Extensions by their nature have most of their source code in the open. You can easily read it, but not copy it of course. There's a part of this extension that is compiled code and you won't be able to read, though. Senior reviewers do get access to the compiled component source code in order to review.
What I've been trying to communicate here is that it is not our job to judge if an add-on is pretty or ugly, lightweight or bloated, subtle or in-your-face. Our job is to attest for its security, privacy protection, usefulness and ease of use. We reject add-ons that are impossible to figure out, have overly intrusive UI, or are annoying to users. The previous TACO did have some UI, little as it was, and the new one can be configured to be like that.
I know the new TACO is annoying to many, but I'm sure many others think otherwise. It's obvious that many TACO users like the minimalist interface it used to have, and are angered by the change, but that's something that the users need to judge, not us. There's already an alternative available if you want to switch.
And yes, when we say "core functionality", in this case it would mean warning about cookies and other trackers, and providing the means to block them.
FWIW, the people at Abine are well aware of the reception of this upgrade, and are already working on improving it.
We have an unexpected features policy, also called No Surprises. We wouldn't have allowed the update if it enabled unexpected features for users, or if it had really changed its core functionality. But it didn't. It added several features, but they are also privacy and security tools, and they're turned off by default.
I don't agree that we should warn about codebase changes, since that's the developer's prerogative, but I do agree that we should communicate privacy policy or EULA changes. That's something that we can't do through Firefox at the moment, but we definitely want to include in the future.
The page was wrong, and it looks like they updated it already.
The update was approved because it passes all our quality checks. It is not up to us to determine what features a developer can include or not, and it is not a new thing for an add-on to change hands like this. It is up to the developers (new or otherwise) to give their users what they want. If they screw up, they will lose their users. Our job is to make sure the add-on is safe to use and it does what it claims it does. The new TACO has a ton of new features, most disabled by default, but its core functionality remains.
Most users are complaining about the package size and the new user interface, which are things that won't get the add-on rejected unless they make it unusable, and that it not the case for TACO. I see nothing to be ashamed about.
Also, Eric Jung is on their 'Advisory board':
http://abine.com/team.php
If you don't know who he is, he is a board member of Mozilla Add-Ons governing board.
Wrong. Eric Jung is on the board of Mozdev, and independent organization dedicated to hosting Mozilla-related projects (like a specialized Sourceforge). He is not part of the Mozilla Add-ons team.
I'm in charge of the add-on review process at Mozilla, and I personally reviewed and approved the TACO update due to its complexity. I have no relationship with Abine whatsoever.
The add-on being proprietary or not is pretty much irrelevant. People are complaining about the "bloat" and very different user interface, contrary to what the summary suggests.
Rice helps absorb the moisture introduced to the device, reducing the chance of a short.
Whenever an electronic device is soaked in something wet, the best response is it turn it off, remove the battery, open it if possible, and let it dry for a day or two. GP continued using, and that's why it eventually broke.
> How does a country recover from such a tremendous brain drain
It's not correct to call that a brain drain from Ethiopia if that country doesn't build any brains itself. These brains are build by the US in the US. They are drained from nowhere.
The GP was referring to advanced degrees, just like TFA. The native Ethiopians would have received some form of education in their home country, and *then* migrate to continue their education. This is the same case as in many other countries, such as mine. These are already brilliant people who leave their country and never come back to contribute to the society they grew in. It is brain drain.
If certain countries, especially muslim one's, would leave behind their cultural backwardness (trying to violently live Qur'an like 1400 years ago - stupid backwardness !) instead of killing christians or other other-faith-people, students would have real incentives to return to such countries.
So these countries get what they act.
The iPod touch costs less than $300 (some models, at least). I wouldn't expect a tablet to cost $300, either, but comparing it to the iPhone is misleading, given that it will probably be more like the Touch (no mobile phone networking).
You can load a sound and have it buffer without playing it, but there's a limited media cache so it may require some juggling to have all the right sounds available at the right time. Probably enough to run a decent game:)
Slashdot Mirror
Not if you can easily receive the same income from somebody else if necessary.
The Security Announcement on the first link explains how the add-on hadn't gone through the code review and it was labelled as such. Granted, many users will just ignore all warnings and install anyway, which is why we're changing the security model to make even experimental add-ons go through code review before they are discoverable.
Updates are only pushed for add-ons that have already been approved, and only after the updates have been code reviewed.
Agreed. I think Apple's model is more about reliance on a very restrictive API that doesn't even enable you to do anything malicious. Firefox and other Mozilla applications, on the other hand, offer an open platform where you're allowed to do anything, good or bad. This is why it's so important to have a strict security review process, and why we're tightening it in the future.
Ah, then I guess a whoosh is in order. Nothing to see here, move along.
Insightful? Wow, just wow.
I was replying to somebody who was questioning my work ethics. I'm sorry if the response was harsh. I also agree that Abine could've handled things much better, but that doesn't mean that they broke our rules. Whether we should change our rules about this is a matter of debate, and we'll surely be talking about it these days.
I know it's very hard for some people to understand that not all commercial companies are out there to get them, with evil plots to steal their identity and money. You must think that Abine is this all-powerful corporation that bribes all editors and is scheming to take all innocent, OSS-loving TACO users and screw them over. Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you. If you think this update is harmful to the general public (and I would disagree), then that's a problem with our policies, and ultimately my problem.
Mozilla is one of the most open organizations in the world, and there are multiple channels you can use to complain or to try to get this decision reversed. Or you can continue with your conspiracy theories and proud indignation because you don't like the new version of a program.
Commercial add-ons commonly hide their code to avoid "the competition" to just grab it and use it.
Extensions by their nature have most of their source code in the open. You can easily read it, but not copy it of course. There's a part of this extension that is compiled code and you won't be able to read, though. Senior reviewers do get access to the compiled component source code in order to review.
Feel free to review it yourself if you like. Here's all the necessary information:
Our policies
Editor Guide
Code validator
You can also send a message to our mailing list (see wiki link) and ask another editor to corroborate.
What I've been trying to communicate here is that it is not our job to judge if an add-on is pretty or ugly, lightweight or bloated, subtle or in-your-face. Our job is to attest for its security, privacy protection, usefulness and ease of use. We reject add-ons that are impossible to figure out, have overly intrusive UI, or are annoying to users. The previous TACO did have some UI, little as it was, and the new one can be configured to be like that.
I know the new TACO is annoying to many, but I'm sure many others think otherwise. It's obvious that many TACO users like the minimalist interface it used to have, and are angered by the change, but that's something that the users need to judge, not us. There's already an alternative available if you want to switch.
And yes, when we say "core functionality", in this case it would mean warning about cookies and other trackers, and providing the means to block them.
FWIW, the people at Abine are well aware of the reception of this upgrade, and are already working on improving it.
We have an unexpected features policy, also called No Surprises. We wouldn't have allowed the update if it enabled unexpected features for users, or if it had really changed its core functionality. But it didn't. It added several features, but they are also privacy and security tools, and they're turned off by default.
I don't agree that we should warn about codebase changes, since that's the developer's prerogative, but I do agree that we should communicate privacy policy or EULA changes. That's something that we can't do through Firefox at the moment, but we definitely want to include in the future.
The page was wrong, and it looks like they updated it already.
The update was approved because it passes all our quality checks. It is not up to us to determine what features a developer can include or not, and it is not a new thing for an add-on to change hands like this. It is up to the developers (new or otherwise) to give their users what they want. If they screw up, they will lose their users. Our job is to make sure the add-on is safe to use and it does what it claims it does. The new TACO has a ton of new features, most disabled by default, but its core functionality remains.
Most users are complaining about the package size and the new user interface, which are things that won't get the add-on rejected unless they make it unusable, and that it not the case for TACO. I see nothing to be ashamed about.
Also, Eric Jung is on their 'Advisory board': http://abine.com/team.php If you don't know who he is, he is a board member of Mozilla Add-Ons governing board.
Wrong. Eric Jung is on the board of Mozdev, and independent organization dedicated to hosting Mozilla-related projects (like a specialized Sourceforge). He is not part of the Mozilla Add-ons team.
I'm in charge of the add-on review process at Mozilla, and I personally reviewed and approved the TACO update due to its complexity. I have no relationship with Abine whatsoever.
The add-on being proprietary or not is pretty much irrelevant. People are complaining about the "bloat" and very different user interface, contrary to what the summary suggests.
The market share for Firefox is far from stable.
Here. If you dig a little on that blog you'll find the actual sources, which are a mix of reliable web statistics providers.
Rice helps absorb the moisture introduced to the device, reducing the chance of a short.
Whenever an electronic device is soaked in something wet, the best response is it turn it off, remove the battery, open it if possible, and let it dry for a day or two. GP continued using, and that's why it eventually broke.
This thread is useless without pics ;)
> How does a country recover from such a tremendous brain drain
It's not correct to call that a brain drain from Ethiopia if that country doesn't build any brains itself. These brains are build by the US in the US. They are drained from nowhere.
The GP was referring to advanced degrees, just like TFA. The native Ethiopians would have received some form of education in their home country, and *then* migrate to continue their education. This is the same case as in many other countries, such as mine. These are already brilliant people who leave their country and never come back to contribute to the society they grew in. It is brain drain.
If certain countries, especially muslim one's, would leave behind their cultural backwardness (trying to violently live Qur'an like 1400 years ago - stupid backwardness !) instead of killing christians or other other-faith-people, students would have real incentives to return to such countries. So these countries get what they act.
See previous reply. You're wrong on all accounts.
The iPod touch costs less than $300 (some models, at least). I wouldn't expect a tablet to cost $300, either, but comparing it to the iPhone is misleading, given that it will probably be more like the Touch (no mobile phone networking).
Ha! Brilliant. So much in fact I'm not quite sure you were joking.
There's another one on the top that doesn't move. FWIW, I had the same problem for the first 10 pages or so.
You can load a sound and have it buffer without playing it, but there's a limited media cache so it may require some juggling to have all the right sounds available at the right time. Probably enough to run a decent game :)
Source: https://developer.mozilla.org/En/HTML/Element/Audio
The canvas element was introduced in Firefox 1.5.
Well, there's always the new audio tag, which is part of the technologies being introduced with HTML5. It can be easily controlled with Javascript.
Sadly, a base codec was never agreed upon, so you would probably need to have your sounds encoded in at least 2 different formats.