[userbinator]

It's funny to read this and the previous articles about the loss of freedom in Firefox, then see the description on its download page (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/):

"Download Mozilla Firefox, a free Web browser. Firefox is created by a global non-profit dedicated to putting individuals in control online."

I find the "appeal to security" argument that's being increasingly popular these days as nothing more than an excuse to restrict general-purpose computing and control the users, and I am not happy about it at all. "Malware is the new terrorism." The idea that we should take away freedom just because someone could possibly make a wrong decision is personally quite horribly disturbing. On the other hand, from the perspective of wanting to exert control, it makes perfect sense: by decreasing the amount of decisions users have to do, it induces atrophy of their critical thinking skills, and makes them more inclined to accept things without questioning...

"Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes."

[nailer]

It seems like you haven't read the article. Users are still allowed to install any extension from outside the garden they want.

[userbinator]

Users are still allowed to install any extension from outside the garden they want.

It's yet another hoop to jump through, one that further splits "developers" and "users" and makes it harder to be a "casual developer" - one who just wants to make an extension and share it among a small group.

[nailer]

> one who just wants to make an extension and share it among a small group.

That's a fair point, but I don't think it's that bad. I do this all the time with Chrome, which already has walled garden:

"Hey guys, I made a Chrome Extension that inlines all the images in our shitty issue tracking app rather than having to download them all. Extract the zip, visit chrome://extensions, enable developer mode, and load that folder."

[scottjad]

Except in this new scenario it's install a different version of Firefox (Firefox Developer). Good luck with that on many work machines. My dad is unable to install any applications on his work machine but he was able to install Adblock for Chrome the other day. So had he wanted to install this hypothetical extension for Firefox he would have been unable to.

[nailer]

Does your Dad want to run unsigned Firefox extensions?

For a Jira-fixer extension, we'd be running FF Developer, but yes, if I did want to distribute it wider, then signing would be reasonable.

[digi_owl]

There seems to be less and less of a room for "casual developers" or "power users" in the tech world these days.

Either you are a bonded commercial developer, or you are a user (or maybe sheep-er?).

[blueskin_]

No, they aren't. Did you read it? Now they all need to be submitted to mozilla for 'signing' (read: approval).

[rpdillon]

The article appears to indicate that the addons will still need to be signed by Mozilla, however.

[blueskin_]

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."