6 ms·

Firefox is building MV3 and while they are coy with deprecating MV2, we all know, c'mon, they won't keep MV2 even a day after their minimum year promised. Thei

Firefox is building MV3 and while they are coy with deprecating MV2, we all know, c'mon, they won't keep MV2 even a day after their minimum year promised. Their track record speaks against them. XPCOM extensions? Killed, but don't worry, we will re-implement all the needed APIs as WebExtensions (didn't happen). Fennec to Fenix mobile extensions? Killed, you get these 10 blessed ones, don't worry, we will eventually re-enable all of the webextensions on mobile, any day now, (didn't happen, you have to do hacky hacks involving nightly version to do un-blessed extensions). This will likely be their third strike. UPDATE: Or it's not nearly as bad as I expected. Per [1], while Firefox will be eventually deprecating MV2, the Firefox MV3 is much less 'evil' than the Chrome MV3, in that Firefox will continue to enable the WebRequest API without all the lock-down restrictions. This makes a competitive advantage for Firefox in terms of adblocking power, if anything. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32648925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32648925

soulofmischief 4y ago
Now that uMatrix development is inactive, this third strike could be their last for me.
- Dwedit 4y ago
  UMatrix is not only out of development, it is also broken on current Firefox. Sometimes you randomly lose session cookies, which is not acceptable.
syrgian 4y ago
Thanks for the summary. I had perceived the betrayal but I had never organized the thoughts nor verified the claims. What do you think is the future (+2 years) for people with hatred for ads? For now I am using Firefox on computer + Kiwi in Android, but I also expect those two to go awry in the mid term. * I see that after the edit, it doesn't look as bleak for Firefox PC. But what about Android?
- groovybits 4y ago
  > What do you think is the future (+2 years) for people with hatred for ads? DNS-based blocking
  - Multicomp 4y ago
    I don't know. I'm using it now in the form of pihole, but DoT/DoH with ESNI are coming, and we don't have a good way to ID and block them by their very nature, which is the bad edge of the double-edged sword that they enable. The good edge is keeping ISPs etc. from messing with your DNS requests, but that sword cuts both ways as it also can lock your own home network out.
  - chrisweekly 4y ago
    I think a hosted browser might be key to solving this. Something like Mighty (https://mightyapp.com https://mightyapp.com) if it were self-hosted or somehow run by an org you could trust (or be run in some verifiably zero-trust way).
  - resoluteteeth 4y ago
    > DNS-based blocking Google cracks down on VPN based adblockers https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32636412 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32636412
    - pdappollonio 4y ago
      DNS based ad blocking is slightly different than VPN based blocking. VPN is there for people running environments where DoH is not yet supported. Newer versions of iOS, Android and Windows support it already.
  - aqfamnzc 4y ago
    Until DoH becomes standard/required?
  - AshamedCaptain 4y ago
    I don't understand what is it with DNS-based blocking people that they seem to be some of the most annoying proselytizers. Anyone remembers the "HOSTS file guy" from Slashdot ? DNS-based blocking is as much a "future-proof" technology as "just don't look at the adverts". DNS-based blocking is old, easily workaroundable by anyone (just use the same domain name for everything, or interchangeable domain names, or just don't rely on system DNS), and significantly less featureful than even the simplest DOM/JS-based blocking (e.g. good luck collapsing ad elements from the view, getting Youtube not to play ads, etc.).
webmobdev 4y ago
The only thing keeping Firefox alive and relevant is uBlock Origin and its ad-blocking features. If Mozilla cripples it in any manner, Firefox will die. But I don't have high hopes and lost all trust in them when they built a backdoor in their browser to run any code through it on their users browser, as they please, and have even used it to violate their users privacy and trust - Mozilla ships Cliqz experiment in Germany for ~1% of new installs, collects surf data, including URLs - https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/74n0b2/mozilla_ships_cliqz_experiment_in_germany_for_1/ https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/74n0b2/mozilla_shi... ... Unless Firefox is released from the clutches of Mozilla, Firefox will never be a serious competitor in the browser wars.
gnomewascool 4y ago
I also was and still am disappointed about both changes, but I don't think you're being at all fair to Mozilla. In both transitions, Mozilla made sure to support the needs of both uBlock origin and NoScript, extending the webextension API (such that uBlock origin on Firefox is more capable than on current Chromium) and working with uBlock to make its interface more mobile-friendly. They also extended the webextension API to allow for extensions such as Treestyle tabs and Panorama-reimplementations (so not remotely all XUL use-cases, but still most of the popular ones). Hence, they've proven that they will go considerably beyond what Google/Chromium are doing, and that they won't harm "content-blockers", which is what we care about in this case.
- Multicomp 4y ago
  > I don't think you're being at all fair to Mozilla > In both transitions, Mozilla made sure [to keep top popular addons mostly happy and ensure adblockers are happy] Those are all fair points, and yes, I was probably too harsh with my language overall, that post written before I was corrected that Mozilla was not developing MV3 the same as Google was. I stand by my strikes that Mozilla did kill XPCOM, and failed to deliver their promise to release all addons to Fenix on shipping stable versions. They don't even enable about:config on stable Fenix to enable power users to workaround that limitation. In short, I believe I was 60% fair in my opinion.
  - tialaramex 4y ago
    "Mozilla did kill XPCOM" isn't a deviation from their stated intent. XPCOM was a magnet for Hyrum's Law problems, because obviously XPCOM plugins are going to depend on the inner workings of the browser, that's just how XPCOM is designed - so now if you touch these internals it breaks third party stuff. There were operating systems which took the approach XPCOM has to extensibility, they're not doing so great: Classic Mac OS, the Amiga Workbench, MS DOS... That's just not a sustainable situation, Mozilla had to kill XPCOM. So to the extent Mozilla failed to deliver here it's on the replacement APIs. But how much is enough? I would like lots of things to have APIs that don't. For example I'd like a way to do some basic queries on the built-in Public Suffix List for Firefox instead of needing to either bake the PSL into each plugin (and keep it up to date) or call out to a web API (ugh) or just guess that TLDs are "enough" and make everybody who needs other suffixes mad. But in that particular case there are two reasons we don't have such APIs. #1 Nobody did the work. I didn't do the work, you didn't do the work, the work didn't get done. #2 In many cases (I think not mine but it's always arguable) the PSL is the Wrong Thing™ and so encouraging more use of the PSL makes things worse.
svnpenn 4y ago
> Fennec to Fenix mobile extensions? Killed, you get these 10 blessed ones, don't worry, we will eventually re-enable all of the webextensions on mobile, any day now, (didn't happen, you have to do hacky hacks involving nightly version to do un-blessed extensions). Yep: https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/20647 https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/20647
CameronNemo 4y ago
If Firefox even deprecates WebRequest, LibreWolf will probably announce their intention to patch it back in and people will switch en masse.
wasmitnetzen 4y ago
> Fennec to Fenix mobile extensions? Killed, you get these 10 blessed ones, don't worry, we will eventually re-enable all of the webextensions on mobile, any day now I harbor the (conspiracy?) theory is that Google told Mozilla based on their "No arbitrary code"-rule that they are not allowed to run arbitrary extensions anymore. And made Mozilla promise to never tell anyone.

soulofmischief 4y ago

Now that uMatrix development is inactive, this third strike could be their last for me.

Dwedit 4y ago
UMatrix is not only out of development, it is also broken on current Firefox. Sometimes you randomly lose session cookies, which is not acceptable.

syrgian 4y ago

Thanks for the summary. I had perceived the betrayal but I had never organized the thoughts nor verified the claims. What do you think is the future (+2 years) for people with hatred for ads? For now I am using Firefox on computer + Kiwi in Android, but I also expect those two to go awry in the mid term. * I see that after the edit, it doesn't look as bleak for Firefox PC. But what about Android?

groovybits 4y ago
> What do you think is the future (+2 years) for people with hatred for ads? DNS-based blocking
- Multicomp 4y ago
  I don't know. I'm using it now in the form of pihole, but DoT/DoH with ESNI are coming, and we don't have a good way to ID and block them by their very nature, which is the bad edge of the double-edged sword that they enable. The good edge is keeping ISPs etc. from messing with your DNS requests, but that sword cuts both ways as it also can lock your own home network out.
- chrisweekly 4y ago
  I think a hosted browser might be key to solving this. Something like Mighty (https://mightyapp.com https://mightyapp.com) if it were self-hosted or somehow run by an org you could trust (or be run in some verifiably zero-trust way).
- resoluteteeth 4y ago
  > DNS-based blocking Google cracks down on VPN based adblockers https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32636412 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32636412
  - pdappollonio 4y ago
    DNS based ad blocking is slightly different than VPN based blocking. VPN is there for people running environments where DoH is not yet supported. Newer versions of iOS, Android and Windows support it already.
- aqfamnzc 4y ago
  Until DoH becomes standard/required?
- AshamedCaptain 4y ago
  I don't understand what is it with DNS-based blocking people that they seem to be some of the most annoying proselytizers. Anyone remembers the "HOSTS file guy" from Slashdot ? DNS-based blocking is as much a "future-proof" technology as "just don't look at the adverts". DNS-based blocking is old, easily workaroundable by anyone (just use the same domain name for everything, or interchangeable domain names, or just don't rely on system DNS), and significantly less featureful than even the simplest DOM/JS-based blocking (e.g. good luck collapsing ad elements from the view, getting Youtube not to play ads, etc.).

webmobdev 4y ago

The only thing keeping Firefox alive and relevant is uBlock Origin and its ad-blocking features. If Mozilla cripples it in any manner, Firefox will die. But I don't have high hopes and lost all trust in them when they built a backdoor in their browser to run any code through it on their users browser, as they please, and have even used it to violate their users privacy and trust - Mozilla ships Cliqz experiment in Germany for ~1% of new installs, collects surf data, including URLs - https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/74n0b2/mozilla_ships_cliqz_experiment_in_germany_for_1/ https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/74n0b2/mozilla_shi... ... Unless Firefox is released from the clutches of Mozilla, Firefox will never be a serious competitor in the browser wars.

gnomewascool 4y ago

I also was and still am disappointed about both changes, but I don't think you're being at all fair to Mozilla. In both transitions, Mozilla made sure to support the needs of both uBlock origin and NoScript, extending the webextension API (such that uBlock origin on Firefox is more capable than on current Chromium) and working with uBlock to make its interface more mobile-friendly. They also extended the webextension API to allow for extensions such as Treestyle tabs and Panorama-reimplementations (so not remotely all XUL use-cases, but still most of the popular ones). Hence, they've proven that they will go considerably beyond what Google/Chromium are doing, and that they won't harm "content-blockers", which is what we care about in this case.

Multicomp 4y ago
> I don't think you're being at all fair to Mozilla > In both transitions, Mozilla made sure [to keep top popular addons mostly happy and ensure adblockers are happy] Those are all fair points, and yes, I was probably too harsh with my language overall, that post written before I was corrected that Mozilla was not developing MV3 the same as Google was. I stand by my strikes that Mozilla did kill XPCOM, and failed to deliver their promise to release all addons to Fenix on shipping stable versions. They don't even enable about:config on stable Fenix to enable power users to workaround that limitation. In short, I believe I was 60% fair in my opinion.
- tialaramex 4y ago
  "Mozilla did kill XPCOM" isn't a deviation from their stated intent. XPCOM was a magnet for Hyrum's Law problems, because obviously XPCOM plugins are going to depend on the inner workings of the browser, that's just how XPCOM is designed - so now if you touch these internals it breaks third party stuff. There were operating systems which took the approach XPCOM has to extensibility, they're not doing so great: Classic Mac OS, the Amiga Workbench, MS DOS... That's just not a sustainable situation, Mozilla had to kill XPCOM. So to the extent Mozilla failed to deliver here it's on the replacement APIs. But how much is enough? I would like lots of things to have APIs that don't. For example I'd like a way to do some basic queries on the built-in Public Suffix List for Firefox instead of needing to either bake the PSL into each plugin (and keep it up to date) or call out to a web API (ugh) or just guess that TLDs are "enough" and make everybody who needs other suffixes mad. But in that particular case there are two reasons we don't have such APIs. #1 Nobody did the work. I didn't do the work, you didn't do the work, the work didn't get done. #2 In many cases (I think not mine but it's always arguable) the PSL is the Wrong Thing™ and so encouraging more use of the PSL makes things worse.

svnpenn 4y ago

> Fennec to Fenix mobile extensions? Killed, you get these 10 blessed ones, don't worry, we will eventually re-enable all of the webextensions on mobile, any day now, (didn't happen, you have to do hacky hacks involving nightly version to do un-blessed extensions). Yep: https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/20647 https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/20647

CameronNemo 4y ago

If Firefox even deprecates WebRequest, LibreWolf will probably announce their intention to patch it back in and people will switch en masse.

wasmitnetzen 4y ago

> Fennec to Fenix mobile extensions? Killed, you get these 10 blessed ones, don't worry, we will eventually re-enable all of the webextensions on mobile, any day now I harbor the (conspiracy?) theory is that Google told Mozilla based on their "No arbitrary code"-rule that they are not allowed to run arbitrary extensions anymore. And made Mozilla promise to never tell anyone.