Oh! my... I just realised some problems with the mail.
Please, sed -i -e 's/should/might/' or sed -i -e 's/should/might/' Please, it is just a suggestion, I did not intend to be rude. On 03-12-2011 14:26, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: >> --- 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 -- []s, Fernando de Oliveira Natal, RN, BRAZIL -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
