-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
____/ Lusotec on Wednesday 07 Jul 2010 19:29 : \____
> Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>> I've been using Chrome quite a bit lately under Windoze and Linux. It's
>> definitely faster (to me anyhow) than Firefox. And the extensions library
>> is growing. A lot of them are somewhat primitive compared to those for
>> Firefox, but no doubt they'll catch up.
>
> Compared to Firefox extensions, Chrome extensions are very limited in what
> they can do. This has advantages and disadvantages.
>
> The main advantage for Chrome (and disadvantage for Firefox) is increased
> security. A Firefox extension can do what any other native program can. This
> gives Firefox extensions enormous potential but has security consequences.
> With Firefox extensions, the only limitation is the developers imagination.
> This as resulted in some very impressive extensions.
>
> Chrome extensions are far more limited in their access to the system. They
> are very much like regular web pages with some integration in to the
> browser. This increases security but greatly decreases the freedom developer
> have in creating extensions.
>
> Regards.
Mozilla audits extensions and sends them over https like a repo. That oughtn't be a problem.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
- From empirical experience, your Exchange admin needs to put down the
crack pipe and open a window to disperse the fumes. -- Joe Thompson
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
10:20:01 up 8 days, 18:22, 1 user, load average: 0.74, 0.71, 0.87
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkw26hAACgkQU4xAY3RXLo4rEACdHbWYIsNuCM+HjLhDmDlIpO6x
ps8AnRlMmJeYxyuZW/AGPnSmb3Bas92H
=/cyq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
