11 ms·

It really is bizzare, old Firefox used to support all addons, then they shipped a new version and only allowed like 10 addons, and to this day they don't allow

by xPaw 4y ago

It really is bizzare, old Firefox used to support all addons, then they shipped a new version and only allowed like 10 addons, and to this day they don't allow any more. It's already been years. I know my addon works fine on mobile, but they provide no means of specifying that*. I tried to email them for it to become "recommended" but never heard back. The fact that they allow tampermonkey which allows any kind of script just adds insult to the injury. * when uploading a new version, it does ask to specify which Firefox desktop/android versions are supported, but this existed before the new Firefox and doesn't do anything.

MasterYoda 4y ago
As far as I know you can install any addons you want, you just have to create your own collection. Those default addons you see are only Mozillas standard collection. Even do I would like there were more addons to choose from as default I can understand Mozillas choice here. And that is that most addons are not design for android and they would not work or give a very bad UX. So for many non tech savvy standard users, that just would be frustrated and blame Firefox, this decision can make sense to select god and popular addons they know works well. But it would be great if more addons could be added ofcourse, and that Mozilla could have some design guidelines for new addons that they should work for both desktop and mobile (where it make sense). And mark in the addon store which addons that are design for both. Or maybe have a simple setting in Firefox for android that is for advanced users, there they could add any addon, but first they have to check a box that they understand that the addon may not work correctly on a smartphone.
- ashwagary 4y ago
  >As far as I know you can install any addons you want, you just have to create your own collection. I'm also very interested in bypassing the mobile limitation. Does creating a custom collection require an account? Ive never seen the option and have tried everything to back to 2019-2020 Firefox plugin capabilities. Update: For anyone in the same position, I just saw this solution in another comment. Its unfortunate that such basic functionality requires a whole user account. >For reference, to work around mozilla's artificial restrictions, you have to use nightly. Once you activate the debug menu (about firefox > tap logo 5 times) there's the option to set a "custom add-on collection". You can make a custom collection on addons.mozilla.org using a firefox account. The two fields are the last two parts of the URL on your custom collection.
  - gxvwb 4y ago
    You have to jump through several hoops, but it is worth it. https://gxvwb.dev/how-to-install-firefox-add-ons-on-android/ https://gxvwb.dev/how-to-install-firefox-add-ons-on-android/
neop1x 4y ago
I had to stop using Firefox mobile due to this (and removal of about:config). I switched to Kiwi browser and I have been using Violentmonkey for several years. It doesn't work perfectly but it has been good enough for me.
drtgh 4y ago
I remember that update, suddenly they disabled Cookie AutoDelete, what left me with a bad feeling. PS: Meanwhile I do not understand why is Ghostery included in that tinny allowed addons list (and now Tampermonkey).
- klondike_klive 4y ago
  Do you mean there's something wrong with Ghostery?
  - MallocVoidstar 4y ago
    For a while Ghostery was owned by an ad company, and for a while Ghostery would add ads to browsers (IIRC). The first is no longer the case, not sure about the second.
    - isaacfrond 4y ago
      Ghostery? I've been using it for years, with complete satisfaction. Hardly ever that I see adverts.
      - officeplant 4y ago
        As soon as it got bought up by an ad company it just felt like a poisoned well so I stopped using it / recommending it to friends. Their reputation suffered so I stopped paying attention to see if they got any better.
jkonline 4y ago
The Mozilla blog recently covered some of this IIRC: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/extensions-addons/heres-whats-going-on-in-the-world-of-extensions/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/extensions-addo...
Laaas 4y ago
Mozilla has been going down a bizarre path for a while. If only Brendan Eich could have stayed at Mozilla instead of getting excommunicated, then we'd have the best of Brave and Firefox. (What _really_ showed me Mozilla is going crazy is when they fired sunfishcode (IIRC) and the Servo team! Both were essential to their success. It makes little sense.)
- fnimick 4y ago
  [flagged]
- jraph 4y ago
  > If only Brendan Eich could have stayed at Mozilla instead of getting excommunicated Mozilla actually encouraged him to stay by giving him the role of CEO. He decided to step out. > First, though, there's a matter that we should all be clear about: Brendan Eich was not fired. After his appointment, there was backlash from the Mozilla Community. He came under pressure to resign and he did. The Mozilla Board that appointed him knew about his donation; they did not "remove him because of his views." If that alone was the issue, they simply wouldn't have given him the job in the first place https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/04/11/did-mozilla-ceo-brendan-eich-deserve-to-be-removed-from-his-position-due-to-his-support-for-proposition-8/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/04/11/did-mozilla-ce... I guess we could point out that the Mozilla Board should have seen this coming and not encouraged him to be the CEO, but they could also have been criticized for this. > then we'd have the best of Brave and Firefox I don't think so. Mozilla is tied to its agreement with Google and I believe they are limited in what they can do privacy wise. Unfortunately. The Brave browser is mostly a fancy Chromium and you can achieve similar results by taking an ungoogled chromium and adding uBlock Origin to it. But you are better off installing uBlock Origin on Firefox [1] [1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
  - tripleo1 4y ago
    > > then we'd have the best of Brave and Firefox > I don't think so. Mozilla is tied to its agreement with Google and I believe they are limited in what they can do privacy wise. Unfortunately. > The Brave browser is mostly a fancy Chromium and you can achieve similar results by taking an ungoogled chromium and adding uBlock Origin to it. But you are better off installing uBlock Origin on Firefox [1] And LibreWolf is pretty much Firefox with uBlock origin. But Brave is popular and Vivaldi is popular (among some). A successful mega project is supposed to have (gently) knockoffs.
jerryzh 4y ago
You can enable in about:config and install all plugin with Firefox Nightly
- bentcorner 4y ago
  This feature is also supported in beta, you don't need nightly anymore. https://www.ghacks.net/2022/10/20/firefox-beta-for-android-now-supports-custom-add-on-collections/ https://www.ghacks.net/2022/10/20/firefox-beta-for-android-n...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - superkuh 4y ago
    Asking people to run nightly (essentially modern alpha/aurora) or beta is asking people to use an insecure browser with bugs. Firefox not allowing people to control their own browser and install add-ons, enable features, etc without their permission was the end of Firefox for me (back in version 37). This move to trade freedom for "security" for the technologically ignorant ended up providing neither. Especially considering the security theater that is the automated signing portal. The only benefit to all this is the ability to revoke after the damage is done widescale enough to be known. There are the un-branded builds of Firefox that are not buggy and do not restrict your software freedoms for no purpose. Unfortunately Mozilla has disabled auto-updates in the unbranded builds so you have to manually install the a new full browser for every little update. https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing#Unbranded_Builds https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing#Unbranded...
    - benatkin 4y ago
      Yes, just like having people run Tampermonkey instead of Violentmonkey. Mozilla is making things less secure with this whole extension policy.
moralestapia 4y ago
Unfortunately, everything at Firefox has become political in nature and it's been downhill ever since. With an already low (and diminishing) market share, it's just a matter of time before Google cuts their search engine deal with them, then poof they're gone!
- no_wizard 4y ago
  I suspect this won't happen. They cut deals with even smaller browsers. Its about proportional revenue though, so dropping market share may net Mozilla less on the next contract negotiation. I also don't think its in Google's best interest to let Mozilla fall out, if anything, it gives them some lever against anti trust.
outadoc 4y ago
> It really is bizzare, old Firefox used to support all addons It never did though? In my recollection the old version had an Android-only extensions API, and only a few extensions ever supported it. At least now, in theory, any extension can run on Android, which is great.
- iggldiggl 4y ago
  > and only a few extensions ever supported it Compared to desktop certainly, but in absolute numbers it still weren't actually that few, and certainly much more than the mere 22 (!) add-ons (as of today) that can currently be installed. > At least now, in theory, any extension can run on Android, which is great. What good is that theory if in practice I actually can't make use of it? Besides, the transition to webextensions happened with Firefox 57, and support for webextensions was added to the old Fennec-based Android Firefox, too. True, not the full API available on Desktop was ported, but that's no different from the situation today, and yet at that time there were no artificial restrictions on what add-ons were able to be installed on Android. And even with the webextension API, to some extent extensions still need to be specifically designed to properly work on Android, too (especially if they need to display any sort of UI)…

by xPaw 4y ago

MasterYoda 4y ago

As far as I know you can install any addons you want, you just have to create your own collection. Those default addons you see are only Mozillas standard collection. Even do I would like there were more addons to choose from as default I can understand Mozillas choice here. And that is that most addons are not design for android and they would not work or give a very bad UX. So for many non tech savvy standard users, that just would be frustrated and blame Firefox, this decision can make sense to select god and popular addons they know works well. But it would be great if more addons could be added ofcourse, and that Mozilla could have some design guidelines for new addons that they should work for both desktop and mobile (where it make sense). And mark in the addon store which addons that are design for both. Or maybe have a simple setting in Firefox for android that is for advanced users, there they could add any addon, but first they have to check a box that they understand that the addon may not work correctly on a smartphone.

ashwagary 4y ago
>As far as I know you can install any addons you want, you just have to create your own collection. I'm also very interested in bypassing the mobile limitation. Does creating a custom collection require an account? Ive never seen the option and have tried everything to back to 2019-2020 Firefox plugin capabilities. Update: For anyone in the same position, I just saw this solution in another comment. Its unfortunate that such basic functionality requires a whole user account. >For reference, to work around mozilla's artificial restrictions, you have to use nightly. Once you activate the debug menu (about firefox > tap logo 5 times) there's the option to set a "custom add-on collection". You can make a custom collection on addons.mozilla.org using a firefox account. The two fields are the last two parts of the URL on your custom collection.
- gxvwb 4y ago
  You have to jump through several hoops, but it is worth it. https://gxvwb.dev/how-to-install-firefox-add-ons-on-android/ https://gxvwb.dev/how-to-install-firefox-add-ons-on-android/

neop1x 4y ago

I had to stop using Firefox mobile due to this (and removal of about:config). I switched to Kiwi browser and I have been using Violentmonkey for several years. It doesn't work perfectly but it has been good enough for me.

drtgh 4y ago

I remember that update, suddenly they disabled Cookie AutoDelete, what left me with a bad feeling. PS: Meanwhile I do not understand why is Ghostery included in that tinny allowed addons list (and now Tampermonkey).

klondike_klive 4y ago
Do you mean there's something wrong with Ghostery?
- MallocVoidstar 4y ago
  For a while Ghostery was owned by an ad company, and for a while Ghostery would add ads to browsers (IIRC). The first is no longer the case, not sure about the second.
  - isaacfrond 4y ago
    Ghostery? I've been using it for years, with complete satisfaction. Hardly ever that I see adverts.
    - officeplant 4y ago
      As soon as it got bought up by an ad company it just felt like a poisoned well so I stopped using it / recommending it to friends. Their reputation suffered so I stopped paying attention to see if they got any better.

jkonline 4y ago

The Mozilla blog recently covered some of this IIRC: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/extensions-addons/heres-whats-going-on-in-the-world-of-extensions/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/extensions-addo...

Laaas 4y ago

Mozilla has been going down a bizarre path for a while. If only Brendan Eich could have stayed at Mozilla instead of getting excommunicated, then we'd have the best of Brave and Firefox. (What _really_ showed me Mozilla is going crazy is when they fired sunfishcode (IIRC) and the Servo team! Both were essential to their success. It makes little sense.)

fnimick 4y ago
[flagged]
jraph 4y ago
> If only Brendan Eich could have stayed at Mozilla instead of getting excommunicated Mozilla actually encouraged him to stay by giving him the role of CEO. He decided to step out. > First, though, there's a matter that we should all be clear about: Brendan Eich was not fired. After his appointment, there was backlash from the Mozilla Community. He came under pressure to resign and he did. The Mozilla Board that appointed him knew about his donation; they did not "remove him because of his views." If that alone was the issue, they simply wouldn't have given him the job in the first place https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/04/11/did-mozilla-ceo-brendan-eich-deserve-to-be-removed-from-his-position-due-to-his-support-for-proposition-8/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/04/11/did-mozilla-ce... I guess we could point out that the Mozilla Board should have seen this coming and not encouraged him to be the CEO, but they could also have been criticized for this. > then we'd have the best of Brave and Firefox I don't think so. Mozilla is tied to its agreement with Google and I believe they are limited in what they can do privacy wise. Unfortunately. The Brave browser is mostly a fancy Chromium and you can achieve similar results by taking an ungoogled chromium and adding uBlock Origin to it. But you are better off installing uBlock Origin on Firefox [1] [1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
- tripleo1 4y ago
  > > then we'd have the best of Brave and Firefox > I don't think so. Mozilla is tied to its agreement with Google and I believe they are limited in what they can do privacy wise. Unfortunately. > The Brave browser is mostly a fancy Chromium and you can achieve similar results by taking an ungoogled chromium and adding uBlock Origin to it. But you are better off installing uBlock Origin on Firefox [1] And LibreWolf is pretty much Firefox with uBlock origin. But Brave is popular and Vivaldi is popular (among some). A successful mega project is supposed to have (gently) knockoffs.

jerryzh 4y ago

You can enable in about:config and install all plugin with Firefox Nightly

bentcorner 4y ago
This feature is also supported in beta, you don't need nightly anymore. https://www.ghacks.net/2022/10/20/firefox-beta-for-android-now-supports-custom-add-on-collections/ https://www.ghacks.net/2022/10/20/firefox-beta-for-android-n...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- superkuh 4y ago
  Asking people to run nightly (essentially modern alpha/aurora) or beta is asking people to use an insecure browser with bugs. Firefox not allowing people to control their own browser and install add-ons, enable features, etc without their permission was the end of Firefox for me (back in version 37). This move to trade freedom for "security" for the technologically ignorant ended up providing neither. Especially considering the security theater that is the automated signing portal. The only benefit to all this is the ability to revoke after the damage is done widescale enough to be known. There are the un-branded builds of Firefox that are not buggy and do not restrict your software freedoms for no purpose. Unfortunately Mozilla has disabled auto-updates in the unbranded builds so you have to manually install the a new full browser for every little update. https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing#Unbranded_Builds https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing#Unbranded...
  - benatkin 4y ago
    Yes, just like having people run Tampermonkey instead of Violentmonkey. Mozilla is making things less secure with this whole extension policy.

moralestapia 4y ago

Unfortunately, everything at Firefox has become political in nature and it's been downhill ever since. With an already low (and diminishing) market share, it's just a matter of time before Google cuts their search engine deal with them, then poof they're gone!

no_wizard 4y ago
I suspect this won't happen. They cut deals with even smaller browsers. Its about proportional revenue though, so dropping market share may net Mozilla less on the next contract negotiation. I also don't think its in Google's best interest to let Mozilla fall out, if anything, it gives them some lever against anti trust.

outadoc 4y ago

> It really is bizzare, old Firefox used to support all addons It never did though? In my recollection the old version had an Android-only extensions API, and only a few extensions ever supported it. At least now, in theory, any extension can run on Android, which is great.

iggldiggl 4y ago
> and only a few extensions ever supported it Compared to desktop certainly, but in absolute numbers it still weren't actually that few, and certainly much more than the mere 22 (!) add-ons (as of today) that can currently be installed. > At least now, in theory, any extension can run on Android, which is great. What good is that theory if in practice I actually can't make use of it? Besides, the transition to webextensions happened with Firefox 57, and support for webextensions was added to the old Fennec-based Android Firefox, too. True, not the full API available on Desktop was ported, but that's no different from the situation today, and yet at that time there were no artificial restrictions on what add-ons were able to be installed on Android. And even with the webextension API, to some extent extensions still need to be specifically designed to properly work on Android, too (especially if they need to display any sort of UI)…