Firefox addon signing

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 27 August 2015 at 08:26, Zdenek Kabelac <zkabelac at redhat.com> wrote:
> Dne 27.8.2015 v 16:09 Dennis Gilmore napsal(a):
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 03:13:08 PM Richard Z wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 03:12:25PM +0300, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Their FAQ is constantly updated:
>>>>
>>>> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Addons/Extension_Signing#FAQ
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure if there is a valid practical reason to refuse submitting
>>>> the
>>>> addons that we ship to their signing service or if it is against our
>>>> policies; at least mozilla-https-everywhere has been signed.
>>>
>>>
>>> that would work for Fedora - if it can be guaranteed that they sign new
>>> versions quickly. Immagine if one of our plugins had a security hole and
>>> mozilla would need days or weeks to sign it. As far as I can see Fedora
>>> specific extensions would have to be listed which means they would go
>>> through manual code review at mozilla.
>>
>> We have no real practical way to do this other than package up the addon
>> and
>> build it as a -unsigned package, then making a separate package that has
>> the
>> precompiled binary and signed by mozilla and put into the add on package.
>>
>> It sounds like the path mozilla is taking will likely prevent us shipping
>> addons in Fedora.  That of course is their right to pursue that.
>>
>
>
> I'm wondering what is good replacement option - since the amount of troubles
> with Firefox seems to be just scaling up.
>
> The memory usage - is the story for it self - displaying a tab with just our
> bugzilla pages  eats like 6-8M of RAM  - I used to be running full OS with
> this amount of RAM - now it's not enough to render couple lines and color
> boxes and 'couple' KB of text....
>
> Keyboard and mouse has weird focus - so often I type in one windows, but
> keyboard input magically work in another window (i.e. Ctrl+T opens new tab
> in second window)
>
> I've no chance to control what is downloaded - I could partially limit thing
> by using plugins - but they eats possibly more RAM, slows FF down (at least
> by FF reporting messages)  and will likely be sooner or later banned.
>
> Lot's of things are hardly reportable.
>
> Chrome is not an option for me - it eats even more RAM and slows my machine
> even more then FF.
>
> So what are the option - if the person want to view Web with all modern
> technologies being supported ?
>
>

You can't have that last part with the first parts. If you require the
'modern' technologies then you have to put up with their RAM/CPU
eating glory.

Or start from scratch and see if you can build a toolkit that does it better.





-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.