> So, the best solution is to disallow other sources by default
No, it's not. It's the best solution you can come up with at the time, and one that likely presents the least amount of effort. Doesn't mean it's not a piss-poor solution. It also doesn't mean it's not going to cause additional problems.
Now if we want to distribute a plugin, we effectively have to bow to the whim of Google. And when I read stories like this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4092080, I'm not comforted.
> I'm also surprised Firefox hasn't proposed something similar
Maybe because this isn't the only solution?
Let me put this in simple terms: this is the easy way out. The simple way out. This is the low hanging fruit. It's a solution that is, in effect, the worst possible solution. It's the lazy solution. If you can't admit to that much, you're blind.
I'm sorry you're unhappy with the change. We spent quite a while considering this, and it's the best solution we could come up with for the safety of our users. As has already been mentioned, it's still very easy to install extensions. It's just a few extra steps per install, or some additional configuration by the user or administrator. However, we're always open to better proposals.
As for how the WebStore is handled, the story you linked to seems to show a positive resolution. The extension was improperly flagged, but the developer appealed and his extension was quickly re-listed.
It is absolutely not "still very easy to install extensions" outside of the webstore. If it were then how would this be a solution at all? The reason you're calling it a solution is because you're making it so much harder that it will happen far less frequently.
I don't think anyone would claim it's hard to drag and drop a file into the extension manager window. Yes, it creates enough friction to stop the typical drive-by download attack, but it's not a difficult operation.
The change adds support for configuring off-store installs, in addition to changing the default configuration. So, an enterprise can add a list of trusted install sources and distribute it through global policy, Puppet, etc.
No, it's not. It's the best solution you can come up with at the time, and one that likely presents the least amount of effort. Doesn't mean it's not a piss-poor solution. It also doesn't mean it's not going to cause additional problems.
Now if we want to distribute a plugin, we effectively have to bow to the whim of Google. And when I read stories like this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4092080, I'm not comforted.
> I'm also surprised Firefox hasn't proposed something similar
Maybe because this isn't the only solution?
Let me put this in simple terms: this is the easy way out. The simple way out. This is the low hanging fruit. It's a solution that is, in effect, the worst possible solution. It's the lazy solution. If you can't admit to that much, you're blind.
Time to go donate again to Mozilla.