8 ms·

> Release and Beta versions of Firefox do not allow unsigned extensions to be installed I'm really disappointed at Mozilla regarding this. I recently wanted to

by avian 8y ago

> Release and Beta versions of Firefox do not allow unsigned extensions to be installed I'm really disappointed at Mozilla regarding this. I recently wanted to do some Firefox customization for my own private use (not even an extension, I just wanted to have some visual indication of which Firefox windows belong to which profile). I was surprised to find out that even just a header .png in a theme can't be loaded locally but must be on-line and vetted by Mozilla. Utter craziness.

Vinnl 8y ago
Why must it be online? Can't you package it with the theme? (I have no experience creating themes, but I can package images with an extension. I only have to upload it for Mozilla to sign them, but after that I can download the signed package and load that locally.)
myfonj 8y ago
You can use `<profile folder>\chrome\userChrome.css` for that, perhaps. https://www.userchrome.org/ https://www.userchrome.org/
giancarlostoro 8y ago
Have you thought about just using Firefox containers? You can maintain containers that have completely separate login sessions with their own icons and colors. I use it to develop and test out 5 different user roles (or whatever) for different web applications, it's very useful. If interested check this plugin out: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/multi-account...
AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
Is for your own good comrade! If Mozilla let you make your own decisions, you might make wrong ones, so is better this way.
zaarn 8y ago
IIRC you can install unsigned extensions in the dev and nightly as well as unbranded versions of firefox (usually the last option means compiling it yourself). Mozilla is, to some extend understandably, concerned with the image of Firefox and patrolling what Addons are available in the store is part of that. Apple does the very same thing.
- funklebunkle 8y ago
  > Apple does the very same thing. I understand that Apple does everything in its power to make the life of developers miserable (such as requiring a Mac to be used for iOS development), but Mozilla were supposed to be the good guys on the web.
  - mkirklions 8y ago
    Can we be friends? As a Dev, Apple has been my biggest obstacle for a mainstream app. I'm not sure if HN has lots of Apple fans, or Apple marketing patrols HN, but these comments are describing real problems but are constantly downvoted. EDIT: We have been found. These Apple accounts don't even respond to legitimate points.
    - sctb 8y ago
      Please stop breaking the guidelines: > Please don't impute astroturfing or shillage. That degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about it, email us and we'll look at the data. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - zaarn 8y ago
    I think you misunderstood there. Apple's primary aim by limiting the access to the store isn't to make devs miserable, it's to have users trust the app store. Mozilla's aim is (likely) the same. If a user finds an addon in Mozilla's addon store, then Mozilla wants the user to fully trust that this addon will not violate their privacy in unexpected ways or install malware on their computer or otherwise interfere with them. Similarly, Apple spends a lot of money on making sure the PR image of the app store is clean. People should be able to fully trust Apple's app store, in Apple's opinion. That doesn't mean there won't be addons you don't like, it just means that malicious behavior is not allowed. If the user doesn't like it they can remove it without consequence.
    - mkirklions 8y ago
thrower123 8y ago
You could potentially grab the source and comment out said bullshit and build it yourself, right ;-) That's the promise of free software no?
otter-in-a-suit 8y ago
Waterfox should be able to do it: https://www.waterfoxproject.org/en-US/ https://www.waterfoxproject.org/en-US/
- smt88 8y ago
  Cursory reminder that using Waterfox is very risky[1] because it takes a huge amount of labor (more than Waterfox has) to secure a browser and because forks tend to be behind the latest patches. 1. https://www.howtogeek.com/335712/update-why-you-shouldnt-use-waterfox-pale-moon-or-basilisk/ https://www.howtogeek.com/335712/update-why-you-shouldnt-use...
modzu 8y ago
don't worry, that is not true! you absolutely can load local unsigned extensions! that's how they are developed ;(
SilasX 8y ago
Yes, I was livid when they did this because there was an extension (Pentadactyl) where I had to maintain compatibility myself by recompiling it. I wrote this Hitler parody about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taGARf8K5J8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taGARf8K5J8 Text version: officers tell Hitler that he has to upgrade FF because of bugs but warn it breaks his extension again. He dismisses the importance until they break the news he can't install the recompiled extension even if he says it's okay in about::config. Hitler goes ballistic about how that defeats FF's mission to give control back to users. Climax: "If every tweak must be personally approved by Mozilla employees, why not just shrink-wrap the browser and make me buy it from Microsoft at Best Buy?" Epilogue (real-life): Mozilla has now broken extensions so badly that you can't recover some of Pentadactyl's functionality, like customizing key commands. (At least, they won't take effect while on a tab until that tab's JS has loaded. Seriously?) But hey, at least I get Looking Glass forced on me with a cryptic message that makes me think I've been hacked. That's worth the tradeoff, right?
brobdingnagians 8y ago
I'm currently developing a browser extension, and was a bit shocked that I couldn't just load it on Firefox like on Chromium. It seems like such a basic thing, maybe that's because I'm a dev and expect that they will cater to development, but it was one of the first usability things where I preferred Chrome. I ditched iPhone for Android for similar reasons, and it seems that one thing Google does really well is make the developer workflow easy.
- jamesgeck0 8y ago
  Any version of Firefox can load unpackaged addons for the current session. IIRC, with the CLI tool you can even auto-reload it as you make changes to source.
- gildas 8y ago
  You can load it like on Chromium. Go to about:debugging#addons, click the "Load temporary Addons" button and select your manifest.json file.
  - brobdingnagians 8y ago
    Aaah, thank you! That will help tremendously. The third-party resources I was looking at neglected that point.
- dartf 8y ago
  You can use web-ext[1] to simplify development process [1] https://github.com/mozilla/web-ext https://github.com/mozilla/web-ext
Sylos 8y ago
You can use the Developer Edition, Nightly or Unbranded Builds: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing#Unbranded_Builds https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing#Unbranded...

by avian 8y ago

Vinnl 8y ago

Why must it be online? Can't you package it with the theme? (I have no experience creating themes, but I can package images with an extension. I only have to upload it for Mozilla to sign them, but after that I can download the signed package and load that locally.)

myfonj 8y ago

You can use `<profile folder>\chrome\userChrome.css` for that, perhaps. https://www.userchrome.org/ https://www.userchrome.org/

giancarlostoro 8y ago

Have you thought about just using Firefox containers? You can maintain containers that have completely separate login sessions with their own icons and colors. I use it to develop and test out 5 different user roles (or whatever) for different web applications, it's very useful. If interested check this plugin out: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/multi-account...

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago

Is for your own good comrade! If Mozilla let you make your own decisions, you might make wrong ones, so is better this way.

zaarn 8y ago

IIRC you can install unsigned extensions in the dev and nightly as well as unbranded versions of firefox (usually the last option means compiling it yourself). Mozilla is, to some extend understandably, concerned with the image of Firefox and patrolling what Addons are available in the store is part of that. Apple does the very same thing.

funklebunkle 8y ago
> Apple does the very same thing. I understand that Apple does everything in its power to make the life of developers miserable (such as requiring a Mac to be used for iOS development), but Mozilla were supposed to be the good guys on the web.
- mkirklions 8y ago
  Can we be friends? As a Dev, Apple has been my biggest obstacle for a mainstream app. I'm not sure if HN has lots of Apple fans, or Apple marketing patrols HN, but these comments are describing real problems but are constantly downvoted. EDIT: We have been found. These Apple accounts don't even respond to legitimate points.
  - sctb 8y ago
    Please stop breaking the guidelines: > Please don't impute astroturfing or shillage. That degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about it, email us and we'll look at the data. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- zaarn 8y ago
  I think you misunderstood there. Apple's primary aim by limiting the access to the store isn't to make devs miserable, it's to have users trust the app store. Mozilla's aim is (likely) the same. If a user finds an addon in Mozilla's addon store, then Mozilla wants the user to fully trust that this addon will not violate their privacy in unexpected ways or install malware on their computer or otherwise interfere with them. Similarly, Apple spends a lot of money on making sure the PR image of the app store is clean. People should be able to fully trust Apple's app store, in Apple's opinion. That doesn't mean there won't be addons you don't like, it just means that malicious behavior is not allowed. If the user doesn't like it they can remove it without consequence.
  - mkirklions 8y ago

thrower123 8y ago

You could potentially grab the source and comment out said bullshit and build it yourself, right ;-) That's the promise of free software no?

otter-in-a-suit 8y ago

Waterfox should be able to do it: https://www.waterfoxproject.org/en-US/ https://www.waterfoxproject.org/en-US/

smt88 8y ago
Cursory reminder that using Waterfox is very risky[1] because it takes a huge amount of labor (more than Waterfox has) to secure a browser and because forks tend to be behind the latest patches. 1. https://www.howtogeek.com/335712/update-why-you-shouldnt-use-waterfox-pale-moon-or-basilisk/ https://www.howtogeek.com/335712/update-why-you-shouldnt-use...

modzu 8y ago

don't worry, that is not true! you absolutely can load local unsigned extensions! that's how they are developed ;(

SilasX 8y ago

Yes, I was livid when they did this because there was an extension (Pentadactyl) where I had to maintain compatibility myself by recompiling it. I wrote this Hitler parody about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taGARf8K5J8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taGARf8K5J8 Text version: officers tell Hitler that he has to upgrade FF because of bugs but warn it breaks his extension again. He dismisses the importance until they break the news he can't install the recompiled extension even if he says it's okay in about::config. Hitler goes ballistic about how that defeats FF's mission to give control back to users. Climax: "If every tweak must be personally approved by Mozilla employees, why not just shrink-wrap the browser and make me buy it from Microsoft at Best Buy?" Epilogue (real-life): Mozilla has now broken extensions so badly that you can't recover some of Pentadactyl's functionality, like customizing key commands. (At least, they won't take effect while on a tab until that tab's JS has loaded. Seriously?) But hey, at least I get Looking Glass forced on me with a cryptic message that makes me think I've been hacked. That's worth the tradeoff, right?

brobdingnagians 8y ago

I'm currently developing a browser extension, and was a bit shocked that I couldn't just load it on Firefox like on Chromium. It seems like such a basic thing, maybe that's because I'm a dev and expect that they will cater to development, but it was one of the first usability things where I preferred Chrome. I ditched iPhone for Android for similar reasons, and it seems that one thing Google does really well is make the developer workflow easy.

jamesgeck0 8y ago
Any version of Firefox can load unpackaged addons for the current session. IIRC, with the CLI tool you can even auto-reload it as you make changes to source.
gildas 8y ago
You can load it like on Chromium. Go to about:debugging#addons, click the "Load temporary Addons" button and select your manifest.json file.
- brobdingnagians 8y ago
  Aaah, thank you! That will help tremendously. The third-party resources I was looking at neglected that point.
dartf 8y ago
You can use web-ext[1] to simplify development process [1] https://github.com/mozilla/web-ext https://github.com/mozilla/web-ext

Sylos 8y ago

You can use the Developer Edition, Nightly or Unbranded Builds: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing#Unbranded_Builds https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing#Unbranded...