> --- Em qua, 30/11/11, Andrew Benton <[email protected]> escreveu: > > > De: Andrew Benton <[email protected]> > > Assunto: Re: [blfs-dev] Firefox > > Para: [email protected] > > Data: Quarta-feira, 30 de Novembro de 2011, 23:51 > On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 00:15:33 +1100 > Wayne Blaszczyk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Could I make one suggestion. > > Can we have the /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins as the directory, and symlink > > to this rather than the other way around as it is now. > > This way, the plugins will not be tie to a specific version of Firefox > > and save the user trouble of copying them across every time Firefox is > > upgraded. > > Fernando de Oliveira has just made a good point about this on BLFS > Support. If we put plugins in /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins they'll be found > by all Mozilla products including Thunderbird. This raises security > concerns, if there is an exploitable bug in a plugin. I seem to recall > that there were some problems with Adobe's pdf plugin. Certainly flash > has its bugs. Whatever. The bugs are all there in the browser. If the > user wants an email application that can render html they may well like > to have plugins enabled too. Personally I prefer Sylpheed because it > doesn't render html but each to their own. > > What do other people think? Should I change the Firefox/Xulrunner pages > so they don't suggest putting the plugins in /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins? > > Andy
Andy, thank you very much for the attention and the citation. It took a while to reply, because I was thinking about it, without a clear conclusion. I did mean one thing in that mail, but you understood other (problem of my English writing), and at first I was agreeing with your understanding. But further thoughts made me needing to write this. 1. It is better to have /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins, as it saves time, is good organization and is really more secure to know where the plugins are linked to. However, the links ln -sv /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins /usr/lib/package/plugins can (and for the sake of transparency, should) be dropped from the package page(s). 2. About security: the plugins can be disabled in a particular package, if the user wants to (I looked for this today, and disabled them all in Thunderbird). 3. Although it seems otherwise, plugins have to be used by most desktop users. Bank accounts, YouTube, need them, just to cite two. I do not keep watching YouTube videos frequently, but some news sites point to them. Also, some news sites have contents in the form of flash animations. (And just to be more complete, I do not even know how to use FaceBook or Orkut or Twiter; Gnuzilla Icecat has a good plugin for mozilla applications to protect privacy against them). 4. Just to reply you about preferences, I do need Thunderbird, although I do not prefer Thunderbird, and perhaps would prefer, like you, Sylpheed. But an old "smart" phone I have needs Funambol in order to sync contacts, and I could never sync in a different manner (in any Linux distributions). Plus, I do not like to throw things (gadgets) away and replace them, if they are still functional, according to my needs. Furthermore, Thunderbird (version 3) is the only software I know which can sync to Funambol. I wish I had other options here. 5. I am very happy using gnash, instead of flash, but about this I am going to send another mail. Thank you very much, again []s, Fernando -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
