[Dylan16807]

> It destroyed a lot of trust.

The thing is, Mozilla has always had the ability to put arbitrary things into firefox, and it's always had easter eggs in it. The way they did it was a big mistake but from my point of view only because it was scary-looking (and showed their extension pipeline had issues, I guess), not because of what it actually did.

> Those two are not mutually exclusive :-]

How about this: It wasn't there to advertise to anyone that didn't already know about it.

[reitanqild]

I'd go a bit further about why it was a big mistake - basically I always knew they could put anything they wanted into Firefox but thought they'd never do such a childish thing in such a scary way.

- but it seems we mostly agree on this.

[emn13]

Would the you of many years ago that first started using firefox similarly have objected to an easter egg?

I still don't have any problems with easter eggs. Give me back my whimsy.

[reitanqild]

You might have caught me in hypocrisy, my jury is still out.

I mean: I too like whimsy, and adding an about:<something noncommercial> would probably be ok with me. (In fact I think there was an easter egg on some about:-protocol-page st some point.)

It was just the sudden surprise of seing an extension I didn't expect and then what at least felt like a hidden commercial motive on top of that.

[emn13]

Yeah, they sure bungled that one up well.

Maybe it's the jarring worlds of security! paranoia! Absolute Control! vs. the FF wants to fun! unpredictable! Think different (no wait, that slogan's tainted now...)!

Given the way they present the extensions... it - in retrospect - should have been clear to them it would trigger more initial reactions from the first set of perspectives, and not just the second.