28 ms·

If you're making extensions and distributing them by hand to your friends you're so far outside the mainstream of Firefox users that you might as well not exist

If you're making extensions and distributing them by hand to your friends you're so far outside the mainstream of Firefox users that you might as well not exist and they shouldn't be making decisions based on your usage patterns. This is aimed at Joe Average User who maybe downloaded a program from sourceforge and suddenly every user on the computer has Myway Search installed, or something with serious privacy problems that's injecting itself into every web page they visit.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
What about Joe Average User who downloaded an extension from me? I can understand wanting to prevent third-party software from injecting extensions behind users' backs, but can these users still install extensions directly, from a file, regardless of how that file found its way to their hard drives?
- throwanem 7y ago
  Yes.
- roblabla 7y ago
  They can drag and drop it on the firefox window and it will install it just fine still. The only change that is happening is auto-installation of extensions found in a specific folder, which is how a lot of crapware extensions find their way into people's firefox installation, but almost no legit extensions get installed this way.
  - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
    That doesn't appear to be correct. All unsigned extensions will be blocked in all release versions. Without a developer/unbranded/nightly version, you're not allowed to install anything that didn't come from Mozilla's add-ons site. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21418604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21418604
    - ripdog 7y ago
      Yes, but you can sign your xpi via a command line tool (which calls the AMO API) and then distribute that however you want. It can be installed by dragging into about:addons.
- kick 7y ago
  While what you want can still be achieved (as Mozilla has gone to great lengths to explain), what makes you think that "Joe Average User" would be best off downloading extensions from every you that tells them they can get a browser toolbar with whatever software install they're using?
t0astbread 7y ago
So this means Firefox doesn't want power users who maybe just wanna write a quick hack for a website without distributing it?
- jasonlotito 7y ago
  Incorrect. As has been made clear previously, you can still install unsigned extensions if you're using Beta, Nightly, or Developer Edition, which are intended for power users. The discussion here is around the vanilla, mainstream version of Firefox. They still support power users.
  - catalogia 7y ago
    What are my options if I want don't want to be a guinea pig running bugging prerelease software, and I want automatic updates because I don't want to accidentally be a chump running outdated software? As far as I know, unbranded doesn't autoupdate while beta, nightly, and developer are all buggy software for guinea pigs. Edit: Why are both the responses I've received worded rudely? Did I say something wrong?
    - nicky0 7y ago
      Sucks to be you I guess.
    - exolymph 7y ago
      You are not entitled to having your edge case supported in whatever specific manner you desire.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        They're entitled to complain, though; that's a proper, by-the-rules way to signal preferences to the market. FWIW, I agree. Having the choice only between casual user version and unstable dev version is missing a power user option in the middle. I'm personally not going to abandon Firefox over this, but I'm that less interested in embracing web as a platform for productive work.
anoncake 7y ago
> This is aimed at Joe Average User It's not important who this is aimed at but who it hits.
apostacy 7y ago
> If you're making extensions and distributing them by hand to your friends you're so far outside the mainstream of Firefox users that you might as well not exist and they shouldn't be making decisions based on your usage patterns. They should just release a Firefox preskool edition for Joe Average User. But this is a great example of the rot in Mozilla. When Apple or Google sacrifice functionality to appeal to users that don't like computers, it is because they make more money by expanding their platform. When Mozilla sacrifices functionality to try to attract new users, then what? They aren't really making any money off of it. They are just getting new users for the sake of it. If Firefox has to remove so much functionality to become more popular, than why bother at all? It is like if everyone is eating McDonalds, and you are selling healthy produce, but only 20% of the population ever wants your healthy food. So you start coating your healthy food in sugar and deep frying it. Even if you win, you lose. > This is aimed at Joe Average User who maybe downloaded a program from sourceforge and suddenly every user on the computer has Myway Search installed, or something with serious privacy problems that's injecting itself into every web page they visit. I think this is a lie. I mean, yes it does mitigate a specific kind of malware injection, sure. But if someone already can write to your filesystem, then it is game over. If Firefox actually had any marketshare and was a big enough target to care about, malware could simply inject malicious extensions some other way. Having the web browser trying to secure itself on a compromised system is a fool's errand. And it is not a justification for such a massive regression in functionality. It is not a rational decision. I strongly suspect that it was a rational decision for Google to do this with Chrome; to put up roadblocks for users trying to have too much control of their browser, and justify it in the name of security. And then Mozilla irrationally copied them. Because they are a Google cargo cult.
- Faark 7y ago
  Healthy food doesn't nearly as much rely no network effect to not be pushed out of the market. "Only works on Chrome" is real problem and won't get better if they don't also pander to those longing for sugar. > They should just release a Firefox preskool edition for Joe Average User. Seems like that's Developer Edition. The Joe Average won't know the difference, so obviously the default has to be for him. And yeah, I also don't like were this is leading and wish they would have found a better way.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

What about Joe Average User who downloaded an extension from me? I can understand wanting to prevent third-party software from injecting extensions behind users' backs, but can these users still install extensions directly, from a file, regardless of how that file found its way to their hard drives?

throwanem 7y ago
Yes.
roblabla 7y ago
They can drag and drop it on the firefox window and it will install it just fine still. The only change that is happening is auto-installation of extensions found in a specific folder, which is how a lot of crapware extensions find their way into people's firefox installation, but almost no legit extensions get installed this way.
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago
  That doesn't appear to be correct. All unsigned extensions will be blocked in all release versions. Without a developer/unbranded/nightly version, you're not allowed to install anything that didn't come from Mozilla's add-ons site. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21418604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21418604
  - ripdog 7y ago
    Yes, but you can sign your xpi via a command line tool (which calls the AMO API) and then distribute that however you want. It can be installed by dragging into about:addons.
kick 7y ago
While what you want can still be achieved (as Mozilla has gone to great lengths to explain), what makes you think that "Joe Average User" would be best off downloading extensions from every you that tells them they can get a browser toolbar with whatever software install they're using?

t0astbread 7y ago

So this means Firefox doesn't want power users who maybe just wanna write a quick hack for a website without distributing it?

jasonlotito 7y ago
Incorrect. As has been made clear previously, you can still install unsigned extensions if you're using Beta, Nightly, or Developer Edition, which are intended for power users. The discussion here is around the vanilla, mainstream version of Firefox. They still support power users.
- catalogia 7y ago
  What are my options if I want don't want to be a guinea pig running bugging prerelease software, and I want automatic updates because I don't want to accidentally be a chump running outdated software? As far as I know, unbranded doesn't autoupdate while beta, nightly, and developer are all buggy software for guinea pigs. Edit: Why are both the responses I've received worded rudely? Did I say something wrong?
  - nicky0 7y ago
    Sucks to be you I guess.
  - exolymph 7y ago
    You are not entitled to having your edge case supported in whatever specific manner you desire.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      They're entitled to complain, though; that's a proper, by-the-rules way to signal preferences to the market. FWIW, I agree. Having the choice only between casual user version and unstable dev version is missing a power user option in the middle. I'm personally not going to abandon Firefox over this, but I'm that less interested in embracing web as a platform for productive work.

anoncake 7y ago

> This is aimed at Joe Average User It's not important who this is aimed at but who it hits.

apostacy 7y ago

> If you're making extensions and distributing them by hand to your friends you're so far outside the mainstream of Firefox users that you might as well not exist and they shouldn't be making decisions based on your usage patterns. They should just release a Firefox preskool edition for Joe Average User. But this is a great example of the rot in Mozilla. When Apple or Google sacrifice functionality to appeal to users that don't like computers, it is because they make more money by expanding their platform. When Mozilla sacrifices functionality to try to attract new users, then what? They aren't really making any money off of it. They are just getting new users for the sake of it. If Firefox has to remove so much functionality to become more popular, than why bother at all? It is like if everyone is eating McDonalds, and you are selling healthy produce, but only 20% of the population ever wants your healthy food. So you start coating your healthy food in sugar and deep frying it. Even if you win, you lose. > This is aimed at Joe Average User who maybe downloaded a program from sourceforge and suddenly every user on the computer has Myway Search installed, or something with serious privacy problems that's injecting itself into every web page they visit. I think this is a lie. I mean, yes it does mitigate a specific kind of malware injection, sure. But if someone already can write to your filesystem, then it is game over. If Firefox actually had any marketshare and was a big enough target to care about, malware could simply inject malicious extensions some other way. Having the web browser trying to secure itself on a compromised system is a fool's errand. And it is not a justification for such a massive regression in functionality. It is not a rational decision. I strongly suspect that it was a rational decision for Google to do this with Chrome; to put up roadblocks for users trying to have too much control of their browser, and justify it in the name of security. And then Mozilla irrationally copied them. Because they are a Google cargo cult.

Faark 7y ago
Healthy food doesn't nearly as much rely no network effect to not be pushed out of the market. "Only works on Chrome" is real problem and won't get better if they don't also pander to those longing for sugar. > They should just release a Firefox preskool edition for Joe Average User. Seems like that's Developer Edition. The Joe Average won't know the difference, so obviously the default has to be for him. And yeah, I also don't like were this is leading and wish they would have found a better way.