5 ms·

Chrome requires extensions to be both signed and distributed through Google's "Chrome Web Store". You can use the Firefox Developer Edition, which will continu

Chrome requires extensions to be both signed and distributed through Google's "Chrome Web Store". You can use the Firefox Developer Edition, which will continue to support the xpinstall.signatures.required preference allowing unsigned extensions.

superkuh 11y ago
"Chrome did it." isn't an excuse. It makes it worse, actually. Developer edition is "Aurora". Aurora is alpha. Alphas have more bugs. It's not reasonable to tell me to use an alpha.
- notnarb 11y ago
  Have you actually used Aurora? I can only speak to my own experience, but I have found it far more stable than any other 'alpha' software I've used.
  - superkuh 11y ago
    Yes. When Firefox first announced their plans for the walled garden back near FF37/38 I did as everyone said and tried Aurora. It crashed on me twice in as many hours. I'm pretty hard on browsers since I typically have 200+ tabs loaded. That never happens with final release versions.
- cpeterso 11y ago
  "Chrome did it" is not an excuse. I was pointing out that Chrome is even more restrictive. Google requires developers to distribute their add-ons through Google's store of approved add-ons.
- awalGarg 11y ago
  > Aurora is alpha Excuse my ignorance, but is this official? I use FF Dev edition as my primary browser and it is very stable for me. Context, if it helps: I am a web dev most of the time, and my browser usage is almost always >100 tabs or so. More than half of those have the devtools open all the time (each of which basically count as another instance of Firefox). My machine is pretty modest (i5, dual core, 8gigs RAM). I don't use many extensions though. Only a lightweight custom theme and greasemonkey + lots of custom userscripts. Reason I use dev edition is because it has more devtools goodies and ES6 features. Nothing related to extension development.
  - superkuh 11y ago
    It's official. Aurora is explicitly alpha. When they bump the version number Nightly turns into Aurora turns into Beta turns into Release.
    - awalGarg 11y ago
      Well I meant, do you happen to have a link stating that? :) > When they bump the version number Nightly turns into Aurora turns into Beta turns into Release. Not exactly. I guess you intentionally (over-)simplified that? Firefox actually follows trainspotting for their different release channels: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2015/04/trainspotting-firefox-37-developer-edition-and-more/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2015/04/trainspotting-firefox-37-d...
      - reubenmorais 11y ago
        They are right. Here's a link: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases#Upcoming_Releases https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases#Upcoming_Releases Aurora is alpha, but FWIW, I've been using Nightly as my main browser for over 4 years now without ever losing data, so Aurora should be more than fine.
tomjen3 11y ago
That isn't true, you can install Developer add-ons worth going through Google (otherwise how can you develop them). You might get an annoying pop-up though.

superkuh 11y ago

"Chrome did it." isn't an excuse. It makes it worse, actually. Developer edition is "Aurora". Aurora is alpha. Alphas have more bugs. It's not reasonable to tell me to use an alpha.

notnarb 11y ago
Have you actually used Aurora? I can only speak to my own experience, but I have found it far more stable than any other 'alpha' software I've used.
- superkuh 11y ago
  Yes. When Firefox first announced their plans for the walled garden back near FF37/38 I did as everyone said and tried Aurora. It crashed on me twice in as many hours. I'm pretty hard on browsers since I typically have 200+ tabs loaded. That never happens with final release versions.
cpeterso 11y ago
"Chrome did it" is not an excuse. I was pointing out that Chrome is even more restrictive. Google requires developers to distribute their add-ons through Google's store of approved add-ons.
awalGarg 11y ago
> Aurora is alpha Excuse my ignorance, but is this official? I use FF Dev edition as my primary browser and it is very stable for me. Context, if it helps: I am a web dev most of the time, and my browser usage is almost always >100 tabs or so. More than half of those have the devtools open all the time (each of which basically count as another instance of Firefox). My machine is pretty modest (i5, dual core, 8gigs RAM). I don't use many extensions though. Only a lightweight custom theme and greasemonkey + lots of custom userscripts. Reason I use dev edition is because it has more devtools goodies and ES6 features. Nothing related to extension development.
- superkuh 11y ago
  It's official. Aurora is explicitly alpha. When they bump the version number Nightly turns into Aurora turns into Beta turns into Release.
  - awalGarg 11y ago
    Well I meant, do you happen to have a link stating that? :) > When they bump the version number Nightly turns into Aurora turns into Beta turns into Release. Not exactly. I guess you intentionally (over-)simplified that? Firefox actually follows trainspotting for their different release channels: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2015/04/trainspotting-firefox-37-developer-edition-and-more/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2015/04/trainspotting-firefox-37-d...
    - reubenmorais 11y ago
      They are right. Here's a link: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases#Upcoming_Releases https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases#Upcoming_Releases Aurora is alpha, but FWIW, I've been using Nightly as my main browser for over 4 years now without ever losing data, so Aurora should be more than fine.

tomjen3 11y ago

That isn't true, you can install Developer add-ons worth going through Google (otherwise how can you develop them). You might get an annoying pop-up though.