3 ms·

>Recently, they artificially limited the extensions available in Firefox mobile. I uninstalled Firefox immediately on all my machines. They did not "artificial

>Recently, they artificially limited the extensions available in Firefox mobile. I uninstalled Firefox immediately on all my machines. They did not "artificially limit" the extensions available, you are misinformed. They rewrote the engine of their mobile browser, and swapped the old engine for the new one before the new one had 100% support for all of the extension APIs. They have been working on this, and over the past few months I've seen several of my extensions which were previously disabled start re-enabling themselves as support for those APIs has been added. The eventual goal is to support all of the extensions that were supported before. You can track that progress here: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Browser_support_for_JavaScript_APIs https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web... It sucks that, for the span of a couple months, I lost a couple of my addons, but as someone whose team has struggled for years supporting two very different versions of a piece of software simultaneously, I understand why they did it. And the new browser is so much faster and more responsive that my annoyance about the addons was tempered somewhat. >Now they're firing the Rust team? Are these people stupid? Rust is pretty much the only thing Mozilla has going for it. I guess it's time for Thunderbird to go as well. They did not fire the Rust team. They laid off a few of the people who had been working primarily on Rust, and retained several others. But significant components of Firefox are written in Rust, and the people who are working on those components are still employed. And significant amounts of new code is being written in Rust - but essentially they can't swapping out hundreds of thousands of lines of code at a time anymore.

betwixthewires 6y ago
I am going to quote directly from the following blog post from Mozilla.org https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/firefox-recommended-extensions/ https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/firefox-recommended-extensi... "Extensions can add powerful customization features to Firefox. However, we have noticed that the number of add-ons available for Firefox today can be overwhelming for some users. And even though our policy provides clear guidelines for the behavior of add-ons, they sometimes find it difficult to decide which tools and developers they consider most trustworthy. That's why we established the ‘recommended extensions’ program: a collection of curated extensions that meet our highest standards for security, functionality and usability, which we are now bringing to another platform with the new Firefox for Android." If what you're saying is true, it is backtracking. They made a deliberate decision, as I have demonstrated with the link above, to restricted access to extensions on their mobile browser. And in the quote, they provide what I consider to be a phony bologna excuse plainly evident on its face. I don't trust Mozilla anymore and I do not want to use their products because of if this, and any time the topic comes up I will continue to talk about it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
iggldiggl 6y ago
> They did not "artificially limit" the extensions available, you are misinformed. They certainly did – https://github.com/mozilla/video-bg-play https://github.com/mozilla/video-bg-play for example is a very simply content script which doesn't use any special extension APIs at all and so would have worked right from the start, yet it still took several months until it was eventually added to the list of officially "blessed" add-ons.

betwixthewires 6y ago

I am going to quote directly from the following blog post from Mozilla.org https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/firefox-recommended-extensions/ https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/firefox-recommended-extensi... "Extensions can add powerful customization features to Firefox. However, we have noticed that the number of add-ons available for Firefox today can be overwhelming for some users. And even though our policy provides clear guidelines for the behavior of add-ons, they sometimes find it difficult to decide which tools and developers they consider most trustworthy. That's why we established the ‘recommended extensions’ program: a collection of curated extensions that meet our highest standards for security, functionality and usability, which we are now bringing to another platform with the new Firefox for Android." If what you're saying is true, it is backtracking. They made a deliberate decision, as I have demonstrated with the link above, to restricted access to extensions on their mobile browser. And in the quote, they provide what I consider to be a phony bologna excuse plainly evident on its face. I don't trust Mozilla anymore and I do not want to use their products because of if this, and any time the topic comes up I will continue to talk about it.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

iggldiggl 6y ago

> They did not "artificially limit" the extensions available, you are misinformed. They certainly did – https://github.com/mozilla/video-bg-play https://github.com/mozilla/video-bg-play for example is a very simply content script which doesn't use any special extension APIs at all and so would have worked right from the start, yet it still took several months until it was eventually added to the list of officially "blessed" add-ons.