On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 01/07/2016 10:30 AM, Martin Stransky wrote: >> On 01/07/2016 04:19 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> On 01/07/2016 09:46 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 08:33:37AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Naheem Zaffar >>>>> <naheemzaffar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> ESR will only delay the problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can the Fedora build add a secodary key to accept signed >>>>>> extensions? >>>>> >>>>> This is one of the suggested solutions, but it is not >>>>> currently implemented upstream. >>>>> >>>>>> AFAIK the long term plan is todeprecate the current method >>>>>> of extensions in favour of a more browser agnostic >>>>>> approach. >>>>> >>>>> Correct. >>>> >>>> Is it just me, or does it seem odd to take Mozilla to task for >>>> doing something with their (relatively much larger) ecosystem >>>> we also endeavor to do with Fedora's? >>>> >>> >>> Could you explain what you mean? Mozilla's intent is lock-in: >>> they're providing exactly one source from which you can retrieve >>> extensions. With Fedora, we do signature signing for trust >>> reasons, but you are always offered a way to bypass that (or add >>> your own keys, etc.) >> >> I'm sure you're wrong here. lock-in means you can't change your >> software. How is it related here? How are you locked and by what? >> You can use the unbranded Firefox with your own extension without >> any limitations. >> > > Right, you can't change the software and still call it "Firefox". If > you want to use "Firefox", you must only use the extensions permitted > by Mozilla. > > Let's take another example: iOS and Android. iOS is allows only signed > software to be run on it. All software run locally on this operating > system must be acquired only from the iTunes store. Android operates > similarly by default, allowing only carrier-installed software and > content from the Google Play store, but it also offers an option in > the settings to allow users to install packages from elsewhere as well. > > Mozilla in this metaphor is striving to become iOS: you can only > install Mozilla-approved software. In order to retain control of your > own choices, you must switch browsers (either to Icecat or similar or > else to the nightly developer edition). RHEL provides a set of software that is curated for quality and functionality. It, by default, signs it's packages and only allows signed packages to be installed. In order to retain control of your own choices, you must acknowledge that you are installing a 3rd party package and explicitly disable this check. That in turn may invalidate your support subscription, which is the only reason you have RHEL to begin with. If you choose to rebuild the software that does this, you must remove Red Hat trademarks as you cannot use them. RHEL in your metaphor would also be striving to become iOS. I do not believe your metaphor is an accurate reflection of RHEL or Firefox. josh -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
