4 ms·
My first response to this headline is "Just call it web extension starter kit, stop enabling the monoculture". But then I remembered how the last time I went t
by reificator 6y ago
My first response to this headline is "Just call it web extension starter kit, stop enabling the monoculture".
But then I remembered how the last time I went to build an internal web extension I couldn't even deploy to Firefox without uploading that internal extension to Mozilla. Left a really bad taste in my mouth.
Meanwhile deploying an internal web extension to Chrome was pretty straightforward, signing the extension was just another step in the CI process.
- w4bp00l 6y agoYeah that's where it becomes a bit difficult, I find. Although the kit focuses on Chrome Extensions, you can actually convert the result to a Firefox extension with some minor tweaks (and I'm hoping to add some tools to further simplify this). I had a similar experience with Firefox and I think for some, it's hard to justify that extra effort (from development all the way to publishing) given the current market share of Chrome in comparison.
- AlexITC 6y agoMy experience with https://github.com/wiringbits/cazadescuentos https://github.com/wiringbits/cazadescuentos is totally different, I have had lots of headaches dealing with Chrome, while pushing updates on Firefox has been a smooth process. On Firefox side of things, I prefer to upload my source code than to get blocked commonly with ambiguous or not clear reasons. Honestly, if you think about it, all browser extension could be open sourced, it can certainly improve trust, and, they run on the client side anyway. Just look on the hn posts this year, there has been lots of people complaining about the Chrome review process taking more than 3 weeks, and rejections without clear reasons.