I’m not sure. There are newsgroups/email lists (we port between the two) for development and I’m sure there are ones for Add On developers but I don’t know them.
That said, this is a made decision and I doubt it is likely to change. Firefox can’t have electrolysis and other enhancements to do with multi-process support and sandboxing if this work isn’t done and that work is a real priority.
You expect us to believe an article that uses a red panda photo for a firefox?
A “firefox” is the nickname of the red panda, which isn’t technically a panda at all…
…but you probably already knew that. 
hi, the logo is clearly depicting a fox - however the red panda (common name: firefox) is also a cute mascot for our browser
Ha, I see your point. Whenever they are asked the official answer is red panda though…
http://www-archive.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/firefox-name-faq.html
Maybe they just need to update the logo?
Let’s agree to “teach the controversy”! 
lol…
Okay, @otherdevelopers here, FFS.
Brush your teeth, don’t eat tubs of ice cream, wear a seatbelt, and Sign Your Code.
Anyone that doesn’t sign their code gets a free Krampus delivered daily courtesy of Japhroaig.
Good. This is important work and has shown to be very robust. There shall be No Whinging.
hasn’t that been available in the developer edition since long before code signing? I though I opted to enable that months ago…
optional code signing shouldn’t affect any of those developments, the other changes are necessary though, code signing is just a security precaution, it doesn’t affect those things.
Parts of it. If it was done, it would be shipped.
That’s true. That’s being done for the public good. You can debate that but that is the rationale.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on all of this. Much appreciated.
I’m like “OMG, reasonable discourse on the Internet” and just blown away.
I drop faves when I see that. I think it’s a good use.
You are doing important work. Keep it up. Many don’t appreciate your kind of role. I do. (Makes my life easier :D)
I’m all a-tingly now.
Yes, but… isn’t this like Microsoft not allowing software installs unless the software has been pre-approved, or you’re running a special build of Windows?
With Windows, the administrator can set it up so users in an enterprise (or home, or location) can’t install things willy-nilly. But that’s far away from the OS itself refusing all installs of non-Redmond-approved software.
Is this a poor comparison?
I know this isn’t your area - but I also knew you were a Mozillan, and so had irons in the fire without them being your special irons, if you know what I mean?
Google requires Chrome extensions to be signed and installed via the
Chrome store. Microsoft will do the same for Edge; its extensions will
be digitally signed and distributed through the Windows store. Mozilla
has similar plans for its new extensions.
Ugh.
Me too, but its usually a potassium deficiency.
Wouldn’t providing a whitelist ability for individual extensions or even individual developers (domains) reduce the bad effect of this choice, and add some grey into the all-or-nothing security picture?
…or just sign your code, accept that you don’t have access to undocumented features, and distribute it responsibly.
Oh, and if you need a new method or api call, file a bug.
Honest question because all I have had on my own computers recently is Linux: How good are the other current desktop operating systems at separating applications? I ask because you definitely don’t want an application running outside Firefox’ control whitelisting applications.
