Ben Bucksch wrote:
>
> Mitchell Stoltz wrote:
>
> > I can tell you in no uncertain terms that you are wrong. The security
> > work that goes on for Mozilla is not often visible to the end user.
>
> Actually, all real security work is only "visible" through the absense
> of problems, not?
>
> > UI and customization features for security have taken a back seat to
> > improving the actual security mechanisms of the browser (keeping your
> > data private, preventing easy virus propagation, etc) and I believe
> > this was the right choice.
>
> me too.
>
> While I dislike cookies a lot, a browser which offers potential
> attackers access to all my files scares me orders of magnitudes more.
>
> That being said, what's up with bug 55237? /me hides
>
> In comparison to that, JS managment UI is "fluff", which *should* be put
> on the back-burner.
>
> I think, Ten wasn't critizing you, mstoltz, but the fact that "Mozilla"
> (which I can only assume means Netscape for him, since the "Mozilla"
> project is a conglomerat of many independant, often disagreeing,
> entities) doesn't assign enough programmers to security projects.
>
Just a note that you would be more accurate if you asked me what I meant.
--
Moon
2001-03-11 15:45:09.775 UTC (JD 2451980.156363)
X = -0.988056993, Y = 0.135053986, Z = 0.058940688 (au)
X' = -0.002773385, Y' = -0.016198097, Z' = -0.007024495 (au/d)
