Reform plugin policies to reduce browser issues

[nc008]

Since plugins cause so many problems in Firefox, should mozilla not have a different system of requirements in place before developers can offer plugins? They shouldn't consume so much memory - and there should be clear metrics that shows which plugin consumes how much memory, cpu and so on.

I think a new requirements to approve plugins would improve on the browser experience with Mozilla since plugins are sometimes quite necessary.

Also, it would be better if, like tabs, plugins should only be active when they are in use, not constantly running in the background and taking up massive memory/CPU.

[jscher2000]

Unfortunately, the add-ons review team is limited in what they can do. Already, it is only the Recommended Extensions that get detailed/ongoing testing.

Perhaps users can help report performance issues that arise in real world use? Of course, the add-on developer is in the best position to fix the problem.

If you haven't already found it, check out the about:performance page (type or paste that into the address bar and press Enter/Return to open it).

[nc008]

There should be some kind of performance chart accessible within the plugin pages, and performance information before one adds the plugin.... this will help to avoid plugins that cause too many issues.

[rw460]

Another aspect of the plug-ins policy requirements to reform is the information provided on the identity of the developer. To whom are consumers allowing access to their data and trusting to be competent? Currently most plugin developers are nearly untraceable with only screen names and essentially no information at all. The consumer then has no way to make an informed choice.

[jscher2000]

---

@rw460 wrote:

Another aspect of the plug-ins policy requirements to reform is the information provided on the identity of the developer. To whom are consumers allowing access to their data and trusting to be competent? Currently most plugin developers are nearly untraceable with only screen names and essentially no information at all. The consumer then has no way to make an informed choice.

---

Yes, you're right. It is optional for developers to provide a link to a related website or even their contact information. Some developers are not willing to put that on a public website, but even if they did, how do you decide who to trust? It's a very difficult problem, especially for add-ons that require invasive permissions. Next year when more add-ons will allow being turned on/off on a site-by-site basis, it will be easier to justify taking a chance.