3 ms·

why? why can't they let people install addons from the store and see what breaks and only fix those things? by this rate and how nightly can run addons, why not

why? why can't they let people install addons from the store and see what breaks and only fix those things? by this rate and how nightly can run addons, why not the regular folk? why are they making this difficult?

wasmitnetzen 4y ago
There are rumours that Google told them running arbitrary code in Firefox is forbidden, because they can't audit that. I have never been able to find a confirmation for that though. Which is a ridiculous opinion, of course, since the whole point of a browser is to run arbitrary code.
- tssva 4y ago
  It also doesn't make sense because Google allows other browsers which run arbitrary extensions such as the chromium based Kiwi Browser.
- donatzsky 4y ago
  Never heard that before. Sure you're not thinking of iOS, where that is indeed the (stated) reason for not allowing alternative browser engines and requiring the use of the system webkit.
- dblohm7 4y ago
  (I used to work on the Android port of Gecko for Firefox) That was never a thing.
pluc 4y ago
WordPress has entered the chat
Semaphor 4y ago
My understanding: Because normal people would be confused if some addon doesn’t work, or worse causes others bugs. Though I’m not quite sure if there are normal people on mobile who use anything but the default browsers.
- reuben364 4y ago
  If that's the reasoning, then hiding add-ons not ratified for mobile behind a flag that normal users won't ever touch should be an acceptable solution.
  - Semaphor 4y ago
    I agree, but luckily I’m also not affected, I live on Desktop, so uBo is all I really need for my little mobile browsing ;)
arriu 4y ago
Probably because popular ad-ons are too good at blocking revenue channels for well connected decision makers
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  Indeed and they can get away with it "because mobile platforms are more restrictive for security/performance reasons". :(
throw10920 4y ago
Because (1) add-ons are known to have performance and compatibility issues (e.g. breaking websites - I recall hearing that the vast majority of website breakage reports for FF were just due to addons) on desktop, (2) these problems would almost certainly be worse on mobile, (3) even though it'll be the addon's fault that'll still result in a bad reputation for Firefox, and (4) Mozilla cares more about the reputation of Firefox than user freedom. I think that #4 is bad, but I believe it to be true, with moderate certainty. I believe 1-3 to be true with high certainty.
- nisa 4y ago
  But this could have been "solved" by a flag in some advanced settings dialogue or about:config - the collection workaround is terrible.
  - throw10920 4y ago
    I believe bureaucratic organizations to be incapable of this in general. See the Signal Foundation and its recent braindead decision to remove SMS from Signal instead of putting it behind an advanced setting or using a warning message.
- solarkraft 4y ago
  This shit hurts their reputation more than anything.
  - throw10920 4y ago
    Definitely among the tech-savvy - but, unfortunately, I believe that it still ends up being a net positive for them for the average non-tech savvy users. Think of how many people switched from Firefox to Chrome when Chrome started being faster and more stable - despite how much less customizable it was, and how many fewer addons it had. I believe that this is a problem that should be fixed with tech education - but until then, the above hold, as sucky as it is.
    - 4y ago

wasmitnetzen 4y ago

There are rumours that Google told them running arbitrary code in Firefox is forbidden, because they can't audit that. I have never been able to find a confirmation for that though. Which is a ridiculous opinion, of course, since the whole point of a browser is to run arbitrary code.

tssva 4y ago
It also doesn't make sense because Google allows other browsers which run arbitrary extensions such as the chromium based Kiwi Browser.
donatzsky 4y ago
Never heard that before. Sure you're not thinking of iOS, where that is indeed the (stated) reason for not allowing alternative browser engines and requiring the use of the system webkit.
dblohm7 4y ago
(I used to work on the Android port of Gecko for Firefox) That was never a thing.

pluc 4y ago

WordPress has entered the chat

Semaphor 4y ago

My understanding: Because normal people would be confused if some addon doesn’t work, or worse causes others bugs. Though I’m not quite sure if there are normal people on mobile who use anything but the default browsers.

reuben364 4y ago
If that's the reasoning, then hiding add-ons not ratified for mobile behind a flag that normal users won't ever touch should be an acceptable solution.
- Semaphor 4y ago
  I agree, but luckily I’m also not affected, I live on Desktop, so uBo is all I really need for my little mobile browsing ;)

arriu 4y ago

Probably because popular ad-ons are too good at blocking revenue channels for well connected decision makers

GekkePrutser 4y ago
Indeed and they can get away with it "because mobile platforms are more restrictive for security/performance reasons". :(

throw10920 4y ago

Because (1) add-ons are known to have performance and compatibility issues (e.g. breaking websites - I recall hearing that the vast majority of website breakage reports for FF were just due to addons) on desktop, (2) these problems would almost certainly be worse on mobile, (3) even though it'll be the addon's fault that'll still result in a bad reputation for Firefox, and (4) Mozilla cares more about the reputation of Firefox than user freedom. I think that #4 is bad, but I believe it to be true, with moderate certainty. I believe 1-3 to be true with high certainty.

nisa 4y ago
But this could have been "solved" by a flag in some advanced settings dialogue or about:config - the collection workaround is terrible.
- throw10920 4y ago
  I believe bureaucratic organizations to be incapable of this in general. See the Signal Foundation and its recent braindead decision to remove SMS from Signal instead of putting it behind an advanced setting or using a warning message.
solarkraft 4y ago
This shit hurts their reputation more than anything.
- throw10920 4y ago
  Definitely among the tech-savvy - but, unfortunately, I believe that it still ends up being a net positive for them for the average non-tech savvy users. Think of how many people switched from Firefox to Chrome when Chrome started being faster and more stable - despite how much less customizable it was, and how many fewer addons it had. I believe that this is a problem that should be fixed with tech education - but until then, the above hold, as sucky as it is.
  - 4y ago