Don't browser extensions essentially represent the failure of the browser to provide features that users want/need? I find Firefox unusable out of the box due to their failure to implement vertical tabs (in fact, it seems that Mozilla actively hates vertical tabs because they make it so hard to turn off horizontal tabs) and so I am stuck with using Sidebery, which, like most of the very useful extensions, requires "Access your data for all websites."
The best Mozilla can say about the security of their browser when using extensions (even ones that they recommend) is:
"While there is an element of risk to installing any third-party software, there are a few simple best practices you can follow to reduce it. Is the extension made by a reputable developer? Are the user ratings high?"
From: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2018/02/01/understanding-ext...
I don't want to rely on reputation and user ratings as these are ephemeral and easily faked. I want a browser to include necessary features out of the box and I want their code to be independently audited.
If this chaotic mess is simply because of the need to monetize I would gladly pay for a trustworthy, feature rich browser.
I mean, this seems like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" complaint for the browser makers. Hacker News is constantly bitching that browsers are too slow, too complicated, use too much memory, the attack surface is too big, etc. Imagine how much worse that would be if they also had to support every possible use case instead of shunting a lot of that off into extensions.
Simple answer is for Firefox to come with a full set of their own extensions from which you can choose which to install at any time. No external developers.
Yeh, I don't trust Mozilla as much as I trust gorhill to deliver on a good adblocking experience, or to provide me a robust CSS edit tool like Stylus, or to add Bypass Paywall Clean which allows me to bypass most paywalled news sites. And yes, Firefox is my default and I wouldn't change that for a Chromium skin.
I don't know how to balance that conflict, but I wonder if it would be possible to have a web configurator that lets you pick the features you want and then compiles the executable.
Don't browser extensions essentially represent the failure of the browser to provide features that users want/need?
Browser extensions can exist to fill needs which are specific to one web site (e.g. "Clickbait Remover for Youtube"), or which are so esoteric and/or ridiculous that they shouldn't be a core component of a web browser (e.g. "Cloud to Butt").
Comments
Don't browser extensions essentially represent the failure of the browser to provide features that users want/need? I find Firefox unusable out of the box due to their failure to implement vertical tabs (in fact, it seems that Mozilla actively hates vertical tabs because they make it so hard to turn off horizontal tabs) and so I am stuck with using Sidebery, which, like most of the very useful extensions, requires "Access your data for all websites."
The best Mozilla can say about the security of their browser when using extensions (even ones that they recommend) is: "While there is an element of risk to installing any third-party software, there are a few simple best practices you can follow to reduce it. Is the extension made by a reputable developer? Are the user ratings high?" From: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2018/02/01/understanding-ext...
I don't want to rely on reputation and user ratings as these are ephemeral and easily faked. I want a browser to include necessary features out of the box and I want their code to be independently audited.
If this chaotic mess is simply because of the need to monetize I would gladly pay for a trustworthy, feature rich browser.
I mean, this seems like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" complaint for the browser makers. Hacker News is constantly bitching that browsers are too slow, too complicated, use too much memory, the attack surface is too big, etc. Imagine how much worse that would be if they also had to support every possible use case instead of shunting a lot of that off into extensions.
Simple answer is for Firefox to come with a full set of their own extensions from which you can choose which to install at any time. No external developers.
Yeh, I don't trust Mozilla as much as I trust gorhill to deliver on a good adblocking experience, or to provide me a robust CSS edit tool like Stylus, or to add Bypass Paywall Clean which allows me to bypass most paywalled news sites. And yes, Firefox is my default and I wouldn't change that for a Chromium skin.
I don't know how to balance that conflict, but I wonder if it would be possible to have a web configurator that lets you pick the features you want and then compiles the executable.
Browser extensions can exist to fill needs which are specific to one web site (e.g. "Clickbait Remover for Youtube"), or which are so esoteric and/or ridiculous that they shouldn't be a core component of a web browser (e.g. "Cloud to Butt").
But those extensions don't require "Access your data for all websites."
The YouTube one doesn't, but Cloud to Butt does -- its purpose is altering text on any web site you visit, and that requires access to those sites.