On 07/03/2015 01:47, David E. Ross wrote:
On 3/6/2015 10:42 AM, Rick Merrill wrote:
Desiree wrote on 02/13/2015 1:59 AM:
On 2/12/2015 9:05 AM, David E. Ross wrote:
According to
<https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/02/10/extension-signing-safer-experience/>,
Firefox will no longer allow extensions to be installed unless signed by
Mozilla. Users will have NO option to allow an unsigned extension to be
installed. That is, signatures by Mozilla will be mandatory.
Will this also be implemented in SeaMonkey?
The blog states this will NOT be implemented for SeaMonkey.
I stunned that Mozilla is doing this. This is political and could be the death
of Fx.
I can understand that some users love extensions, but I think security is the
reason
that this is being done, and so I am much in favor of it.
Before I retired, I had a 41-year career in software, first programming
and then testing. I developed approximately 25% of the specifications
for a military software project that eventually cost about $400,000,000.
I was called out of the shower (at home, getting ready for bed) to take
a phone call from a satellite launch facility to explain how to use the
command and control software for a space satellite that was within a
hour of launch. I taught end-users about the mathematics underlying
their software. I p[roved that a new software package failed to
implement the customer's requirements, delaying deployment about 6
months while the package was rewritten.
I do not need or want some developer who was not yet born when I started
my career imposing unwanted protection on me.
Wow!!! You have a very impressive CV!!!
I just wanted to know if you have been using the theme "Orthodox"
which does not work with SeaMonkey 2.32.1, but certainly works with 2.26.1
I love it!!
I don't have your programming and testing skills, therefore I remains
trusting
Mozilla for security!!
Best Regards
@lex
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
