| 28 Oct 2020 |
| *  J. Ryan Stinnett adds this to the list of why I may need to build my own browser, even though I really don't want to 😠| 16:41:00 |
 stoic | hah | 16:41:12 |
| stoic | should be easy enough tho, no longer than a weekend | 16:41:40 |
| J. Ryan Stinnett | In reply to @stoically:matrix.org
should be easy enough tho, no longer than a weekend 😜 That's like gamers on Reddit saying "just add multiplayer, should only take a day" | 16:43:33 |
| stoic | heh | 16:43:47 |
| stoic | just need an addressbar to enter website names | 16:44:07 |
| stoic | how hard can it be | 16:44:34 |
 TravisR | Might I introduce you to WebView in WinForms? | 16:44:47 |
| TravisR | sure, it's an embedded IE10, but it's a browser | 16:45:03 |
| stoic | consider it done | 16:45:23 |
| TravisR | it has programmatic support for back and forwards too | 16:46:19 |
| TravisR | even a reload button! | 16:46:23 |
| stoic | :D | 16:46:31 |
 @swedneck:feneas.org | so what's the best option now? | 17:04:59 |
| @swedneck:feneas.org | running from local files? | 17:05:04 |
 @dannycolin:mozilla.org | In reply to @jryans:matrix.org
My personal view is more fundamental than that, I guess: I do not want Mozilla or anyone telling me what add-ons I can install. Then use an unbranded build or Beta/Nightly. | 17:17:48 |
| @dannycolin:mozilla.org | The point of blocking it on the Release channel is that it's like giving a child a loaded gun. | 17:18:32 |
| J. Ryan Stinnett | In reply to @dannycolin:mozilla.org
The point of blocking it on the Release channel is that it's like giving a child a loaded gun. I understand their perspective, I just do not agree. 😇 | 17:19:59 |
| J. Ryan Stinnett | I want someone to rethink and reimagine the add-on permission model such that bad add-ons are clearly scary to most normal people and we can move away from the current model of some quixotic gatekeeper playing middleman and making arbitrary decisions. | 17:25:27 |
| J. Ryan Stinnett | If anyone knows any security UX experts, I would be interested in chatting with them to explore the problem space, so please send them my way. No one has really tried to have new thoughts this in a decade, so there's lots of room for new ideas that give users more freedom and control. | 17:28:28 |
| @swedneck:feneas.org | i don't see what's wrong with just having like 3 bright red warning dialogs before enabling an "unsafe" addon | 17:30:13 |
| @swedneck:feneas.org | if you still enable it, you're either confident you know what you're doing, or you'll probably climb into a power transformer soon enough anyways | 17:31:03 |
| J. Ryan Stinnett | It's definitely quite a complex and nuanced UX challenge... With any unsafe path, there's an increased chance that scammers will just make a video or screenshots telling uninformed people what to click to put themselves at risk. So, I fully understand that, but I just refuse to settle for the current model that blocks user freedom. We must find a better way than just letting vendors decide "we know better than you". | 17:34:32 |
| stoic | In reply to @swedneck:feneas.org
so what's the best option now? closest is probably running the docker container locally. can't just open the local files | 17:51:43 |
| @dannycolin:mozilla.org | Swedneck: People are bombarded with messages and learn to just click next. | 17:57:23 |
| @swedneck:feneas.org | In reply to @stoically:matrix.org
closest is probably running the docker container locally. can't just open the local files oh wow you're right, that sucks | 17:58:00 |
| @swedneck:feneas.org | guess i'll just have to revive my ipfs hosting then | 17:58:12 |
| J. Ryan Stinnett | In reply to @dannycolin:mozilla.org
Swedneck: People are bombarded with messages and learn to just click next. Right, we'd need something that defends against that. | 18:06:29 |
 kinghat | maybe implement something with the tauri project? | 20:15:54 |
| 29 Oct 2020 |
| stoic | that'd be nice | 06:54:08 |
