If I'm running on Windows, I know to ignore the latter. That's a pretty big difference.
-- Dirk On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Avi Drissman <a...@chromium.org> wrote: > What the difference between: > > ★☆☆☆☆ this extension doesn't work at all!!!! waaaah!!!! > > and > > ★☆☆☆☆ As mentioned, this extension is incompatible with my Linux box. Bad > show. Bad show. > > Avi > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Mike Pinkerton <pinker...@google.com> > wrote: >> >> One viewpoint I haven't seen mentioned on this thread is from that of >> the extension developer. Suppose they write, from their perspective, a >> perfectly good extension that uses binary components. After being >> around for a few weeks, they notice they have a 2-star rating and a >> lot of angry comments saying "this extension doesn't work at all!!!! >> waaaah!!!!" >> >> That doesn't really seem fair to the extension writer. People are >> complaining because they haven't been informed and we've not put a >> mechanism in place to inform them, and they take it out on the >> extension in terms of a really bad rating. >> >> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:29 AM, PhistucK <phist...@chromium.org> wrote: >> > I believe the most elegant and quick (seemingly) solution is to provide >> > the >> > extension developers a field (in the extension gallery, not in the >> > extension >> > itself) that will include the platform and the version. >> > Going farther, you can add a check if the platform and the version (or >> > even >> > let the developer enter the search string) exist in the user agent or >> > anywhere else you can think of and show a warning next to the install >> > button. >> > And an automatic quick solution can be to go over the manifest (which >> > you >> > already do to search for NPAPI to add it to the approval queue) and see >> > if >> > there is a DLL, SO or whatever Macintosh is using in them. If there is a >> > DLL, add a "Compatible with the Windows platform" and so on, or the >> > opposite, if it does not contain, then you surely know - "Not compatible >> > with the Macintosh or Linux platforms". >> > ☆PhistucK >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 03:54, Aaron Boodman <a...@google.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Yes, extensions that include NPAPI are a very small minority. Last >> >> time I checked there were something like 5. It is a way out for people >> >> who already have binary code that they would like to reuse, or who >> >> need to talk to the platform. >> >> >> >> I don't see what the big deal is about a few extensions only >> >> supporting a particular platform. As long as it is clear to users >> >> (you're right, we need to do this), I think this is ok. >> >> >> >> - a >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com >> >> View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev >> > >> > -- >> > Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com >> > View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: >> > http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev >> >> >> >> -- >> Mike Pinkerton >> Mac Weenie >> pinker...@google.com > > -- > Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com > View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: > http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -- Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
