Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
Jay Garcia wrote:
If Mozilla is the only one supplying the updates then how do you
figure that's a dangerous move, i.e., How is malware,etc. going to
get injected into a Mozilla-0nly supplied update? By your thinking,
Microsoft automatic updates are also "dangerous".
Without taking a position either way, how does the user know it's really
Mozilla supplying the update? Is there some kind of authentication
process, or do we just have to close our eyes and trust?
If I were a malware author, I would LOVE to be able to tap into one of
these update pipelines and infect millions of trusting users within
hours. But I'm not, so I don't understand what safeguards are in place,
if any.
I was briefly an AOHell sufferer in the days Phillip describes, and I
absolutely HATED having my computer taken captive without notice and
without my consent to install something they thought was essential.
Fortunately, that's not Mozilla's way.
I am aware the AOL method described is not used in Mozilla. But that's
what your going back to with silent installs.
No one knows for such But apple gives you the option to use your own
head. If you screw up then its on you. You take ownership of what you
download. On the other hand on other Platforms you just get updates and
you have no choice so if your computer gets screwed up you don't
necessarily own the responsibility for getting whacked.
Here is another thought suppose you (Mozilla) put out an update with a
bad bug (could bring down system and it’s a silent update. By the time
you tell everyone it’s a defective patch its too late. If you have the
option you can stop the update before damage can occur.
--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net mailto:[email protected]
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
