3 ms·

I asked this in the other thread but I guess there's too many comments there: Is there a project for Firefox that is analogous to Chromium for Chrome? I need a

I asked this in the other thread but I guess there's too many comments there: Is there a project for Firefox that is analogous to Chromium for Chrome? I need a Firefox build with all the Mozilla shit ripped out. I don't trust the org that decided their certificate expiration was more important than giving users the choice to run what they want.

Karunamon 7y ago
Librefox isn't exactly what you described, but it's close. It's a set of configs that disable a bunch of telemetry and other unauthorized mothership connectivity and settings pushing. https://github.com/intika/Librefox https://github.com/intika/Librefox However, Librefox is only Firefox with some configuration changes. It is not a whole new build, and it wouldn't have protected you from this problem since the problematic addon cert checking is still there. Note that this would have happened even if the browser never communicated back home - this problem was triggered via an unwitting time bomb of sorts, not because Mozilla actively took an action that inadvertently broke something.
- dingo_bat 7y ago
  > Note that this would have happened even if the browser never communicated back home - this problem was triggered via an unwitting time bomb of sorts, not because Mozilla actively took an action that inadvertently broke something. I was never worried about Mozilla's telemetry. I happily enabled all feedback/telemetry options because I genuinely wanted them to fix any problems. I understand that this problem is not caused due to phoning home. The decision process that led them to make it impossible to load an extension without it being signed by them is problematic. It means that I don't trust them with all my debugging data. I don't know what other time bombs are hiding inside the code. What would happen if Mozilla ceased to exist tomorrow? Will existing firefox installs get bricked after some time? Even big bad Microsoft allows you to install unsigned hardware drivers if you dismiss the scary warning.
lugg 7y ago
Upvoting because this is a really good question, why the hell can't I get a warning and click a button to enable the thing anyway?
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  Is Firefox Developer Edition so bad?
javagram 7y ago
It seems like Mozilla distributes a special version that allows this. https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing > The Nightly and Developer Edition versions of Firefox have a preference to disable signature enforcement. There are also be special unbranded versions of Release and Beta that have this preference, so that add-on developers can work on their add-ons without having to sign every build. To disable signature checks, you will need to set the xpinstall.signatures.required preference to "false". Otherwise I guess there’s also IceWeasel if you’re on Linux?
- the8472 7y ago
  The unbranded builds are useless for anything but internal addon testing on stable because they do not receive updates. Custom firefox builds offered by some linux distros are a better choice, yes.
tokai 7y ago
Waterfox?

Karunamon 7y ago

Librefox isn't exactly what you described, but it's close. It's a set of configs that disable a bunch of telemetry and other unauthorized mothership connectivity and settings pushing. https://github.com/intika/Librefox https://github.com/intika/Librefox However, Librefox is only Firefox with some configuration changes. It is not a whole new build, and it wouldn't have protected you from this problem since the problematic addon cert checking is still there. Note that this would have happened even if the browser never communicated back home - this problem was triggered via an unwitting time bomb of sorts, not because Mozilla actively took an action that inadvertently broke something.

dingo_bat 7y ago
> Note that this would have happened even if the browser never communicated back home - this problem was triggered via an unwitting time bomb of sorts, not because Mozilla actively took an action that inadvertently broke something. I was never worried about Mozilla's telemetry. I happily enabled all feedback/telemetry options because I genuinely wanted them to fix any problems. I understand that this problem is not caused due to phoning home. The decision process that led them to make it impossible to load an extension without it being signed by them is problematic. It means that I don't trust them with all my debugging data. I don't know what other time bombs are hiding inside the code. What would happen if Mozilla ceased to exist tomorrow? Will existing firefox installs get bricked after some time? Even big bad Microsoft allows you to install unsigned hardware drivers if you dismiss the scary warning.

lugg 7y ago

Upvoting because this is a really good question, why the hell can't I get a warning and click a button to enable the thing anyway?

Dylan16807 7y ago
Is Firefox Developer Edition so bad?

javagram 7y ago

It seems like Mozilla distributes a special version that allows this. https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing > The Nightly and Developer Edition versions of Firefox have a preference to disable signature enforcement. There are also be special unbranded versions of Release and Beta that have this preference, so that add-on developers can work on their add-ons without having to sign every build. To disable signature checks, you will need to set the xpinstall.signatures.required preference to "false". Otherwise I guess there’s also IceWeasel if you’re on Linux?

the8472 7y ago
The unbranded builds are useless for anything but internal addon testing on stable because they do not receive updates. Custom firefox builds offered by some linux distros are a better choice, yes.

tokai 7y ago

Waterfox?