Frank Lion wrote:I think we need a clear statement from SeaMonkey as to whether they intend to disable signing in SM or not.
I'll add a link to this thread to the agenda for next week's status meeting (2/17, 13:00 UTC).
Frank Lion wrote:I think we need a clear statement from SeaMonkey as to whether they intend to disable signing in SM or not.
Lemon Juice wrote:To me this sounds like a pretty clear statement!
rsx11m wrote:Frank Lion wrote:I think we need a clear statement from SeaMonkey as to whether they intend to disable signing in SM or not.
I'll add a link to this thread to the agenda for next week's status meeting (2/17, 13:00 UTC).
> Then use a popup like Chrome does (that can't be bypassed). It would be much less annoying than this.
For an add-on that requires a Firefox restart to install there's nothing we can do that can't be bypassed. Chrome benefits from never having allowed extensions to be as invasive/integrated as Mozilla's.
patrickjdempsey wrote:I wonder what web browser they plan on using then?
patrickjdempsey wrote:I do think it's funny the comments that say "Goodbye Firefox" and then complain that Mozilla wants to be the next Apple/Google/Microsoft..
cyrix007 wrote:What does all this mean for an average user like me? Am I in danger of losing a good many of my beloved extensions? Are the extensions available on Mozilla's official Add-ons site safe from extinction? If I already have an extension installed which isn't digitally signed, will it vanish from my profile when the blocking takes effect?