<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>amo on Oxymoronical</title>
    <link>https://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/tag/amo/</link>
    <description>Recent content in amo on Oxymoronical</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:09:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/tag/amo/feed/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Should AMO allow adverts for pay-for add-ons?</title>
      <link>https://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2008/06/Should-AMO-allow-adverts-for-pay-for-add-ons/</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:09:03 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2008/06/Should-AMO-allow-adverts-for-pay-for-add-ons/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Assuming you agree that paying for some add-ons is ok then you have to ask what we do about people using AMO as a marketing platform. This is a tough question since we risk devaluing AMO as a website if it just gets filled up with adverts. I don’t believe that there is an official policy on this. It is such a rare issue right now that maybe one isn’t necessary, but here are are my thoughts on what such a policy might say.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Meet the New Website, Same as the Old Website, Roughly</title>
      <link>https://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2008/02/meet-the-new-website-same-as-the-old-website-roughly/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:04:47 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2008/02/meet-the-new-website-same-as-the-old-website-roughly/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;I’ve finally taken the plunge and switched my website to a more modern blogging software (&lt;a href=&#34;http://wordpress.org/&#34;&gt;WordPress&lt;/a&gt;) and a dedicated media gallery (&lt;a href=&#34;http://www.gallery2.org/&#34;&gt;Gallery 2&lt;/a&gt;). Hopefully through the magic of redirects most shouldn’t notice much difference. I just hope planet hasn’t decided to dump all my posts onto the front page, if it has then I apologise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I’ve also taken this opportunity to move all my extensions to &lt;a href=&#34;https://addons.mozilla.org&#34;&gt;addons.mozilla.org&lt;/a&gt;. Most are currently still in the sandbox, hopefully they will come public soon. I’m also using the nice new AMO API service to populate details on the add-on homepages, means there is only one place I need to make most changes to.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Add-on Security Restrictions Landed</title>
      <link>https://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2007/09/Add-on-Security-Restrictions-Landed/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Sep 2007 23:49:14 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2007/09/Add-on-Security-Restrictions-Landed/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;I have just checked in &lt;a href=&#34;https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=378216&#34; title=&#34;Disable insecure extension updates by default&#34;&gt;Bug 378216&lt;/a&gt;, and wanted to give a quick heads up on it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What this means is that we are now enforcing a security restriction on all add-ons. To be specific, if an add-on does not provide a secure method of auto-updating then by default Firefox will refuse to install the add-on. If you have add-ons already installed that are insecure in this way then they will be automatically disabled.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
