5 ms·

Firefox prevents me from installing webextensions from sources and even forces me to send the code of my own extensions for my own usage to their webservices in

Firefox prevents me from installing webextensions from sources and even forces me to send the code of my own extensions for my own usage to their webservices in order to use them. This is certainly not a browser that "gives you control over your data", when you're a hacker.

paulryanrogers 6y ago
You can load local extensions from about:debugging. They just won't be permanently installed. (Developer edition may be different.) And Chrome's local loading comes with a disable modal at every startup. So I'm curious what browser you consider worthy. Edit: forgot to mention you can install from 3p sources as I've done from my own site in the past. They just need to be signed by Mozilla first.
- nix23 6y ago
  >They just need to be signed by Mozilla first No they don't, xpinstall.signatures.required to false
  - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
    Doesn't work on "normal" Firefox, does it? Only dev builds or the unbranded version without automatic updates.
    - nix23 6y ago
      Sorry true, should have mentioned that, just works on dev build's and some version from distributions.
- yaiNua9o 6y ago
  Yes, you can temporarily load extensions in firefox, but I certainly won't reload all my extensions manually at every startup :) I don't think there's really a good browser for both privacy and hacking. I use chromium when I have no choice (not sure what you're referring to concerning the disable modal ; if it's an issue with chromium too, I haven't hit it, and I have 11 extensions loaded from sources). But my "main browser until it's not enough" is elinks (slightly modified by me to fix ruby support and offer a few more api methods to extensions). I can write extensions as simple ruby scripts, doing things like adding native markdown support, allowing to edit local files, adding proper indentation to HN comments, etc. It's the perfect browser for me (and with cookies disabled and js, css and images not fetch nor executed, it's a good privacy browser as well). But of course, you won't be able to use that to buy something on the web. Still, it's surprising how much I can accomplish with just that.
  - nix23 6y ago
    Try mothra, the browser for the real 'hackers' ;) http://man.9front.org/1/mothra http://man.9front.org/1/mothra
    - yaiNua9o 6y ago
      Thanks, never heard about it, I'll have a look.
      - nix23 6y ago
        OK now i feel bad, you have to install 9front (it's a plan9 fork) first, then you can use mothra
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    Disable modal may only impact unpacked extensions then. My apologies for the confusion. Forking a text browser is impressive. Though to be honest the older I get the less energy and time I have to be picky. (And building Firefox was so painful I vowed to only make changes via extensions.)
    - yaiNua9o 6y ago
      It's not that a big deal to modify elinks, because it's a codebase way simpler than full blown browsers. But yes, it still a handful of hours of work, like modifying any software, so you have to actually find it fun to tinker with free software :) Actually, my first attempt to fix my problem was to try to find in firefox codebase where it deletes the extensions loaded from sources, either at the end or the start of the session, I supposed, to shunt that "feature". But after a week a free time spent on it, I made no progress. The codebase and the architecture are just too gargantuan to be tinkered with - at least for me.
nix23 6y ago
As a hacker, you should start to learn howto use google ;) 'about:config' set 'xpinstall.signatures.required' to 'false'
- nvr219 6y ago
  Yeah, as a hacker,
erichocean 6y ago
Wow, that sucks. We use Chrome extensions (from source) to automate aspects of our customer service work, and we can't distribute these extensions on a hosted store. So Firefox prevents this perfectly reasonable thing? WTF.
- dblohm7 6y ago
  > So Firefox prevents this perfectly reasonable thing? WTF. Not true. You can get them signed without publicly redistributing them.
  - erichocean 6y ago
    Do I need permission from Mozilla to sign things? Or are there self-signed certificates? Does that means source distribution works, or do I have to use their "store"?

paulryanrogers 6y ago

You can load local extensions from about:debugging. They just won't be permanently installed. (Developer edition may be different.) And Chrome's local loading comes with a disable modal at every startup. So I'm curious what browser you consider worthy. Edit: forgot to mention you can install from 3p sources as I've done from my own site in the past. They just need to be signed by Mozilla first.

nix23 6y ago
>They just need to be signed by Mozilla first No they don't, xpinstall.signatures.required to false
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
  Doesn't work on "normal" Firefox, does it? Only dev builds or the unbranded version without automatic updates.
  - nix23 6y ago
    Sorry true, should have mentioned that, just works on dev build's and some version from distributions.
yaiNua9o 6y ago
Yes, you can temporarily load extensions in firefox, but I certainly won't reload all my extensions manually at every startup :) I don't think there's really a good browser for both privacy and hacking. I use chromium when I have no choice (not sure what you're referring to concerning the disable modal ; if it's an issue with chromium too, I haven't hit it, and I have 11 extensions loaded from sources). But my "main browser until it's not enough" is elinks (slightly modified by me to fix ruby support and offer a few more api methods to extensions). I can write extensions as simple ruby scripts, doing things like adding native markdown support, allowing to edit local files, adding proper indentation to HN comments, etc. It's the perfect browser for me (and with cookies disabled and js, css and images not fetch nor executed, it's a good privacy browser as well). But of course, you won't be able to use that to buy something on the web. Still, it's surprising how much I can accomplish with just that.
- nix23 6y ago
  Try mothra, the browser for the real 'hackers' ;) http://man.9front.org/1/mothra http://man.9front.org/1/mothra
  - yaiNua9o 6y ago
    Thanks, never heard about it, I'll have a look.
    - nix23 6y ago
      OK now i feel bad, you have to install 9front (it's a plan9 fork) first, then you can use mothra
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  Disable modal may only impact unpacked extensions then. My apologies for the confusion. Forking a text browser is impressive. Though to be honest the older I get the less energy and time I have to be picky. (And building Firefox was so painful I vowed to only make changes via extensions.)
  - yaiNua9o 6y ago
    It's not that a big deal to modify elinks, because it's a codebase way simpler than full blown browsers. But yes, it still a handful of hours of work, like modifying any software, so you have to actually find it fun to tinker with free software :) Actually, my first attempt to fix my problem was to try to find in firefox codebase where it deletes the extensions loaded from sources, either at the end or the start of the session, I supposed, to shunt that "feature". But after a week a free time spent on it, I made no progress. The codebase and the architecture are just too gargantuan to be tinkered with - at least for me.

nix23 6y ago

As a hacker, you should start to learn howto use google ;) 'about:config' set 'xpinstall.signatures.required' to 'false'

nvr219 6y ago
Yeah, as a hacker,

erichocean 6y ago

Wow, that sucks. We use Chrome extensions (from source) to automate aspects of our customer service work, and we can't distribute these extensions on a hosted store. So Firefox prevents this perfectly reasonable thing? WTF.

dblohm7 6y ago
> So Firefox prevents this perfectly reasonable thing? WTF. Not true. You can get them signed without publicly redistributing them.
- erichocean 6y ago
  Do I need permission from Mozilla to sign things? Or are there self-signed certificates? Does that means source distribution works, or do I have to use their "store"?