9 ms·

Firefox for Android will soon support extensions

279 points by cpeterso 3y ago

mook 3y ago
Article seems to be relaying https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2023/11/01/is-your-extension-ready-for-firefox-for-android/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2023/11/01/is-your-extension... with lots of context added.
bjackman 3y ago
Looking forward to this. Firefox is great on Android, but ad-block alone isn't quite enough to make the mobile web usable. Hopefully I can find an extension to auto dismiss cookie/signup popups once this rolls out!
- hedora 3y ago
  The orion browser from kagi supports chrome and firefox extensions on iOS. It works well in practice. I have to kill/restart the app every once in a while though.
  - RedComet 3y ago
    Is ublock origin supported on their iOS offering yet? Last I checked, it could be installed, but it didn't actually work.
    - idle_zealot 3y ago
      I've been using it for a while and it seems to work.
      - herrvogel- 3y ago
        Can confirm! I just installed orion + unlock origin + sponsor block and it works!
- 0xedb 3y ago
  Kiwi Browser allows extensions on mobile devices
- p1mrx 3y ago
  Have you tried the "Annoyances" filters in uBlock Origin?
  - throwaway914 3y ago
    Thank you. When something works well you never look at its Settings/Options page again. Just took a gander and enabled. Best to your health ~
  - bjackman 3y ago
    Yeah I have it enabled but don't find it super effective, do you? I just assumed it is under-developed but maybe it's just not working on my device...
    - p1mrx 3y ago
      I primarily use the desktop version of Firefox, though I notice very few cookie/signup banners. > I have it enabled There are 16 different "Annoyances" filters, but you used a singular pronoun.
      - bjackman 3y ago
        Ah yep I was just referring to the group, there's an umbrella checkbox to enable the whole thing. I also don't get much popup pain on desktop but I have always assume it's because I visit very different sites. Will be interesting to keep an eye out and see, maybe it's broken on Android.
nologic01 3y ago
Could this become an alternative way to publish webview type apps?
- mormegil 3y ago
  I don't really know much about it, but there is already GeckoView, allowing you to package a better browser in your app: https://mozilla.github.io/geckoview/ https://mozilla.github.io/geckoview/ I have noticed it in Allan Wang experimental/toy repo https://github.com/AllanWang/GeckoView-Playground https://github.com/AllanWang/GeckoView-Playground and with a few changes, I created a trivial "app" for Facebook Messenger (wrapping its web version to a mobile app).
tgv 3y ago
What's the difference with desk/laptop plugins? The article mentions payment and personal details, but why isn't that a consideration for desktop? Different user base?
- creatonez 3y ago
  > What's the difference with desk/laptop plugins? As I understand, the codebase is quite different. It's an Android app that wraps around GeckoView, with most of the UI is custom code written in Android-specific Kotlin code. This includes a lot (but not all) of the code used to implement WebExtensions. I don't think this has any specific unique security implications other than that of introducing a lot of new code and an extensions runtime that a lot more people will suddenly be writing code for. The article mentions in the next sentence that malware extensions also plague the desktop browsers.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- g-b-r 3y ago
  I think that the only serious problem is that Android kills apps all the time, so that's something that add-ons would have to handle. But in reality most add-ons worked despite that (by going through insane hoops you could still install other non-supported add-ons).
creatonez 3y ago
One important thing is that they finally fixed Manifest v3 support on Android. Host permission prompts are working in the new 120 beta! Manually editing permissions is still not available, but now that permission prompts are working, this is no longer a showstopper. There are still some other Android MV3 showstoppers, like lack of history and bookmarks API, as well as a few differences from Chrome that affect both desktop and mobile. Anyways, the real headline here is that they are giving away free t-shirts to the first 200 people to submit a well-tested extension and enable Android support in their AMO listing. Hopefully the free t-shirts leads to great extensions rather than sloppy jobs. I was able to qualify for it pretty easily, but I nit picked the quality of my extension's experience myself before submitting it, and didn't end up getting any feedback other than "looks great" -- so not actually sure what the quality assurance would have been like if it were a crappier extension.
causi 3y ago
Return to mobile, to be more accurate. This isn't a few feature users are being given. This is a feature that was taken away from users, then promised to be returned, then Mozilla did nothing for years, and now finally we're getting back some of the functionality we had before. Not all, but some.
- slig 3y ago
  Half a billion a year from Google and all we get is this clown show.
  - g-b-r 3y ago
    The clown show is exactly what Google is paying for, by all indications
- creatonez 3y ago
  Should be clarified that it was taken away in a complete rewrite of all of the Android-specific code. They believed ripping off the bandaid would help with security issues and legacy cruft. So they didn't just cut out add-ons without any improvements. It did take far too long to return, though. Given that it's Firefox, the browser known for its add-ons, I would have heavily prioritized shipping addons with the initial launch of the rewritten Firefox. It's not some optional feature.
the_gipsy 3y ago
Should be "go android". All iOS browsers sadly are just WebView shells.
- riedel 3y ago
  And sadly all android webviews are Chrome (and with a lot of additional effort at least Chromium based). Mozilla should release a webview and fight for signature inclusion.
  - ris58h 3y ago
    I'm not an Android expert but when I click a link in an email it opens the preview via Firefox (I've set it as the default browser). Is it another thing?
    - Daedren 3y ago
      That's a feature called Custom Tabs. It's essentially a small barebones Firefox app and yes it is using Gecko. The parent poster is talking about system webviews. They're used when any app wants to show web content embedded inside their apps, and yeah there's no Firefox option for those.
      - d3w4s9 3y ago
        For security reasons I'm happy to accept that compromise. Google is doing a good job of keeping WebView updated.
      - yunohn 3y ago
        Android allows for Gecko web views (1) and Firefox Custom Tabs. It’s just that the Chrome Webview is available by default and does not need to be embedded, thus reducing app size and load times. (1) https://mozilla.github.io/geckoview/ https://mozilla.github.io/geckoview/
      - ElectricalUnion 3y ago
        Not strictly related to the current thread but I used apps (now uninstalled for that specific reason) that insisted on trying to open Chrome's Custom Tabs and just crashed if that wasn't possible; never found a way to redirect those that didn't require rooting.
tjpnz 3y ago
uBlock Origin with Firefox for Android is the only way to fly when it comes to having a fast and secure browsing experience on mobile. Looking forward to even more extensions coming in future.
- rpdillon 3y ago
  I'm also a fan of DivestOS' Mull browser, which is a Firefox fork that's privacy-hardened and supports extensions. https://divestos.org/pages/our_apps#mull https://divestos.org/pages/our_apps#mull I ended up switching to it after Bromite stopped being maintained, and the experience has been great.
- morjom 3y ago
  Isn't Firefox still behind on the whole container/secutity thing or is that past winters snow?
keepamovin 3y ago
If you're interested in browser extensions on mobile, we're building a way to deliver any extension to any mobile device, without any download. The way it works is the extension runs on a browser on the server, which is then streamed to the device, and usable through any regular mobile browser, such as Safari, Chrome, Brave, Firefox, etc. This browser technology removes the restriction on extensions on mobile, as well as limits some (but not even close to all) of the security risks of extensions. In a real sense it enables: cross-browser extensions. While it sounds promising, it suffers from at least four major drawbacks. 1. We still need to build a shim of the Chrome extensions API: https://github.com/BrowserBox/BrowserBox/issues/242 https://github.com/BrowserBox/BrowserBox/issues/242 2. Rather than having many extensions on a single browser, this effectively serves a single extension from a given web endpoint, but crucially permits you to browse anywhere from there with that extension loaded. 3. While he have future plans for a "store", there is currently no store. This means there is no central place to discover extensions, and also no central authority to vet and restrict them regarding security. 4. You have to consider infrastructure, at least for now before we launch a managed service for this. While the application is easy to set up, maintaining a large fleet could bring additional workload that may limit your distribution, or increase your costs. If you believe there is something worthwhile in exploring these avenues beyond existing browser technologies, and pushing the applications of the browser and the web further than they have been pushed before (at least in this meta sense), I encourage you to come get involved. We're open source and happily accept contributions that align with the project's goals: https://github.com/BrowserBox/BrowserBox https://github.com/BrowserBox/BrowserBox But it's good to see Firefox is finally implementing their long held goal to do this! This will probably cause other vendors to do the same, I imagine? What would be the reasons that vendors would resist bringing extensions to mobile?
- remram 3y ago
  Maybe this should be its own Show HN, a little long for a "comment" on another mobile browser.
  - keepamovin 3y ago
    You're suggesting that it's made as a comment dishonestly, and that you can decide what's too long or where it should be placed? Well, luckily you can't. But, anyway, it's not a little long, it's perfect! Hahaha :) I get if you feel that way about it, but it's not how it is. So, it's good that you don't get to decide that for me! Hahahaha :) In other words: "Should" may be that way for you, but not for me. More generally, you could consider that the comment you're replying to adds value to the discussion, but yours doesn't. I mean, I get if you don't like promotion and that's ok -- but this is less that and more exploring some technical possibilities that are highly relevant to the OP. But anyway, if you dislike it, that's not about me at all, that's just about you. You don't need to pretend it's "should" about somebody else, now do you, right? :)
pharmakom 3y ago
Is there a timeline for real Firefox on iOS? Is the EU actually going to push this through?
- thevagrant 3y ago
  I don't know why apple can't just make an exception for Mozilla and call it a day.
  - fyokdrigd 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - szundi 3y ago
      Not having 200 solutions for the same problem has its benefits as well. By the way I think the so-called freedom on Android stumps more on its users via its privacy sucking
      - wtp1saac 3y ago
        this is the false choice we get presented by these evil companies: we have a duopoly where you choose between surveillance but having control (Android), or having no control but no surveillance (Apple). Both are horrible in their own right, but there’s no open alternative that’s viable for mobile at the moment. For my part, I bought a Linux phone recently. Hopefully at some point I can find the chance to find places to contribute and make some contributions, although first impressions are… unideal. I would’ve hoped it would move past Android 2.x era performance - but then again it’s in need of people to contribute and improve it, so I oughta do that. As should others interested in carving out a better mobile option!
        marak830 3y ago
        Hey OT, what did you get and how is it working for you? I'm keen to move but life has been insane and I just don't.have.time
aussieguy1234 3y ago
My favourite YouTube client on mobile is Firefox, with uBlock origin installed. I know they've been trying to block it, but so far its worked well. I also have DNS66 (available on F-Droid) running continuously in the background, which takes care of most ads and trackers in any other apps.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
  How is it better than NewPipe https://newpipe.net/ https://newpipe.net/? No ads either, but also - support for subscriptions (without being logged in) - watch history (no login required either) - picture-in-picture mode with control for speed, subtitles… - offline support (download sound and/or video) - granular cadence control (up to x3) - skip silence feature - support for other websites including soundcloud and peertube instances - and more
  - gg82 3y ago
    Another one to look at is GrayJay https://grayjay.app/ https://grayjay.app/
  - aembleton 3y ago
    If you don't need those features, then its another app to install and take space up on your phone. Firefox is useful anyway for other sites so you'd still have it installed whether you install new pipe or not.
  - aussieguy1234 3y ago
    Had not heard about Newpipe before but it looks good, so I installed it. Looks useful for watching specific channels and certain videos I watch repeatedly, so I'll probably start using it for that purpose. What it seems to be missing is YouTubes algorithmic recommendations, which I find useful for discovering new content to watch. For some people however, this might be a good or bad thing.
- rmbyrro 3y ago
  My favorite is YouTube Red, the paid version. I also don't like ads. And I understand everyone needs to eat. I value some content on YouTube and I respect their right to receive revenue for their good work. I think changing me money straightforward is the most respectful and honest way for everyone.
Sakos 3y ago
If you have nightly, you can go on the normal Firefox addon site and install any addons that have already added mobile support. You used to have to manually make a collection and add addons to it, then add that collection to Firefox. But now you can just install addons directly from the usual addons site (instead of the limited mobile Firefox one).
- Sakos 3y ago
  Apparently the "Add to Firefox" button is clickable on FF 119, but it just downloads the xpi and you can't do anything with it. On nightly it installs directly.
g-b-r 3y ago
THIS CAN'T BE TRUE
- g-b-r 3y ago
  Since Fenix's first release they've been saying that the absurd limitations on add-ons support were only temporary, and they would have quickly increased the number of supported ones. And instead absolutely nothing changed for three years. Furthermore the insane bugs from which Fenix suffers from its release (https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/12731 https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/12731) (and make it unbearable) have been left hanging, focusing the few resources on dumb ui experiments. So everything suggested that Mozilla did not care of its Android browser, or actually that they were deliberately sabotaging it. This news instead represents a huge improvement, hence my bewilderment. I don't know what people who downvoted my message thought I meant.
MrStonedOne 3y ago
[dead]
guilhas 3y ago
Been using extensions for 2 years with Iceraven/Mull. Don't understand why Firefox is always "almost"

279 points by cpeterso 3y ago

mook 3y ago

Article seems to be relaying https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2023/11/01/is-your-extension-ready-for-firefox-for-android/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2023/11/01/is-your-extension... with lots of context added.

bjackman 3y ago

Looking forward to this. Firefox is great on Android, but ad-block alone isn't quite enough to make the mobile web usable. Hopefully I can find an extension to auto dismiss cookie/signup popups once this rolls out!

hedora 3y ago
The orion browser from kagi supports chrome and firefox extensions on iOS. It works well in practice. I have to kill/restart the app every once in a while though.
- RedComet 3y ago
  Is ublock origin supported on their iOS offering yet? Last I checked, it could be installed, but it didn't actually work.
  - idle_zealot 3y ago
    I've been using it for a while and it seems to work.
    - herrvogel- 3y ago
      Can confirm! I just installed orion + unlock origin + sponsor block and it works!
0xedb 3y ago
Kiwi Browser allows extensions on mobile devices
p1mrx 3y ago
Have you tried the "Annoyances" filters in uBlock Origin?
- throwaway914 3y ago
  Thank you. When something works well you never look at its Settings/Options page again. Just took a gander and enabled. Best to your health ~
- bjackman 3y ago
  Yeah I have it enabled but don't find it super effective, do you? I just assumed it is under-developed but maybe it's just not working on my device...
  - p1mrx 3y ago
    I primarily use the desktop version of Firefox, though I notice very few cookie/signup banners. > I have it enabled There are 16 different "Annoyances" filters, but you used a singular pronoun.
    - bjackman 3y ago
      Ah yep I was just referring to the group, there's an umbrella checkbox to enable the whole thing. I also don't get much popup pain on desktop but I have always assume it's because I visit very different sites. Will be interesting to keep an eye out and see, maybe it's broken on Android.

nologic01 3y ago

Could this become an alternative way to publish webview type apps?

mormegil 3y ago
I don't really know much about it, but there is already GeckoView, allowing you to package a better browser in your app: https://mozilla.github.io/geckoview/ https://mozilla.github.io/geckoview/ I have noticed it in Allan Wang experimental/toy repo https://github.com/AllanWang/GeckoView-Playground https://github.com/AllanWang/GeckoView-Playground and with a few changes, I created a trivial "app" for Facebook Messenger (wrapping its web version to a mobile app).

tgv 3y ago

What's the difference with desk/laptop plugins? The article mentions payment and personal details, but why isn't that a consideration for desktop? Different user base?

creatonez 3y ago
> What's the difference with desk/laptop plugins? As I understand, the codebase is quite different. It's an Android app that wraps around GeckoView, with most of the UI is custom code written in Android-specific Kotlin code. This includes a lot (but not all) of the code used to implement WebExtensions. I don't think this has any specific unique security implications other than that of introducing a lot of new code and an extensions runtime that a lot more people will suddenly be writing code for. The article mentions in the next sentence that malware extensions also plague the desktop browsers.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
g-b-r 3y ago
I think that the only serious problem is that Android kills apps all the time, so that's something that add-ons would have to handle. But in reality most add-ons worked despite that (by going through insane hoops you could still install other non-supported add-ons).

creatonez 3y ago

One important thing is that they finally fixed Manifest v3 support on Android. Host permission prompts are working in the new 120 beta! Manually editing permissions is still not available, but now that permission prompts are working, this is no longer a showstopper. There are still some other Android MV3 showstoppers, like lack of history and bookmarks API, as well as a few differences from Chrome that affect both desktop and mobile. Anyways, the real headline here is that they are giving away free t-shirts to the first 200 people to submit a well-tested extension and enable Android support in their AMO listing. Hopefully the free t-shirts leads to great extensions rather than sloppy jobs. I was able to qualify for it pretty easily, but I nit picked the quality of my extension's experience myself before submitting it, and didn't end up getting any feedback other than "looks great" -- so not actually sure what the quality assurance would have been like if it were a crappier extension.

causi 3y ago

Return to mobile, to be more accurate. This isn't a few feature users are being given. This is a feature that was taken away from users, then promised to be returned, then Mozilla did nothing for years, and now finally we're getting back some of the functionality we had before. Not all, but some.

slig 3y ago
Half a billion a year from Google and all we get is this clown show.
- g-b-r 3y ago
  The clown show is exactly what Google is paying for, by all indications
creatonez 3y ago
Should be clarified that it was taken away in a complete rewrite of all of the Android-specific code. They believed ripping off the bandaid would help with security issues and legacy cruft. So they didn't just cut out add-ons without any improvements. It did take far too long to return, though. Given that it's Firefox, the browser known for its add-ons, I would have heavily prioritized shipping addons with the initial launch of the rewritten Firefox. It's not some optional feature.

the_gipsy 3y ago

Should be "go android". All iOS browsers sadly are just WebView shells.

riedel 3y ago
And sadly all android webviews are Chrome (and with a lot of additional effort at least Chromium based). Mozilla should release a webview and fight for signature inclusion.
- ris58h 3y ago
  I'm not an Android expert but when I click a link in an email it opens the preview via Firefox (I've set it as the default browser). Is it another thing?
  - Daedren 3y ago
    That's a feature called Custom Tabs. It's essentially a small barebones Firefox app and yes it is using Gecko. The parent poster is talking about system webviews. They're used when any app wants to show web content embedded inside their apps, and yeah there's no Firefox option for those.
    - d3w4s9 3y ago
      For security reasons I'm happy to accept that compromise. Google is doing a good job of keeping WebView updated.
    - yunohn 3y ago
      Android allows for Gecko web views (1) and Firefox Custom Tabs. It’s just that the Chrome Webview is available by default and does not need to be embedded, thus reducing app size and load times. (1) https://mozilla.github.io/geckoview/ https://mozilla.github.io/geckoview/
    - ElectricalUnion 3y ago
      Not strictly related to the current thread but I used apps (now uninstalled for that specific reason) that insisted on trying to open Chrome's Custom Tabs and just crashed if that wasn't possible; never found a way to redirect those that didn't require rooting.

tjpnz 3y ago

uBlock Origin with Firefox for Android is the only way to fly when it comes to having a fast and secure browsing experience on mobile. Looking forward to even more extensions coming in future.

rpdillon 3y ago
I'm also a fan of DivestOS' Mull browser, which is a Firefox fork that's privacy-hardened and supports extensions. https://divestos.org/pages/our_apps#mull https://divestos.org/pages/our_apps#mull I ended up switching to it after Bromite stopped being maintained, and the experience has been great.
morjom 3y ago
Isn't Firefox still behind on the whole container/secutity thing or is that past winters snow?

keepamovin 3y ago

If you're interested in browser extensions on mobile, we're building a way to deliver any extension to any mobile device, without any download. The way it works is the extension runs on a browser on the server, which is then streamed to the device, and usable through any regular mobile browser, such as Safari, Chrome, Brave, Firefox, etc. This browser technology removes the restriction on extensions on mobile, as well as limits some (but not even close to all) of the security risks of extensions. In a real sense it enables: cross-browser extensions. While it sounds promising, it suffers from at least four major drawbacks. 1. We still need to build a shim of the Chrome extensions API: https://github.com/BrowserBox/BrowserBox/issues/242 https://github.com/BrowserBox/BrowserBox/issues/242 2. Rather than having many extensions on a single browser, this effectively serves a single extension from a given web endpoint, but crucially permits you to browse anywhere from there with that extension loaded. 3. While he have future plans for a "store", there is currently no store. This means there is no central place to discover extensions, and also no central authority to vet and restrict them regarding security. 4. You have to consider infrastructure, at least for now before we launch a managed service for this. While the application is easy to set up, maintaining a large fleet could bring additional workload that may limit your distribution, or increase your costs. If you believe there is something worthwhile in exploring these avenues beyond existing browser technologies, and pushing the applications of the browser and the web further than they have been pushed before (at least in this meta sense), I encourage you to come get involved. We're open source and happily accept contributions that align with the project's goals: https://github.com/BrowserBox/BrowserBox https://github.com/BrowserBox/BrowserBox But it's good to see Firefox is finally implementing their long held goal to do this! This will probably cause other vendors to do the same, I imagine? What would be the reasons that vendors would resist bringing extensions to mobile?

remram 3y ago
Maybe this should be its own Show HN, a little long for a "comment" on another mobile browser.
- keepamovin 3y ago
  You're suggesting that it's made as a comment dishonestly, and that you can decide what's too long or where it should be placed? Well, luckily you can't. But, anyway, it's not a little long, it's perfect! Hahaha :) I get if you feel that way about it, but it's not how it is. So, it's good that you don't get to decide that for me! Hahahaha :) In other words: "Should" may be that way for you, but not for me. More generally, you could consider that the comment you're replying to adds value to the discussion, but yours doesn't. I mean, I get if you don't like promotion and that's ok -- but this is less that and more exploring some technical possibilities that are highly relevant to the OP. But anyway, if you dislike it, that's not about me at all, that's just about you. You don't need to pretend it's "should" about somebody else, now do you, right? :)

pharmakom 3y ago

Is there a timeline for real Firefox on iOS? Is the EU actually going to push this through?

thevagrant 3y ago
I don't know why apple can't just make an exception for Mozilla and call it a day.
- fyokdrigd 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - szundi 3y ago
    Not having 200 solutions for the same problem has its benefits as well. By the way I think the so-called freedom on Android stumps more on its users via its privacy sucking
    - wtp1saac 3y ago
      this is the false choice we get presented by these evil companies: we have a duopoly where you choose between surveillance but having control (Android), or having no control but no surveillance (Apple). Both are horrible in their own right, but there’s no open alternative that’s viable for mobile at the moment. For my part, I bought a Linux phone recently. Hopefully at some point I can find the chance to find places to contribute and make some contributions, although first impressions are… unideal. I would’ve hoped it would move past Android 2.x era performance - but then again it’s in need of people to contribute and improve it, so I oughta do that. As should others interested in carving out a better mobile option!
      - marak830 3y ago
        Hey OT, what did you get and how is it working for you? I'm keen to move but life has been insane and I just don't.have.time

aussieguy1234 3y ago

My favourite YouTube client on mobile is Firefox, with uBlock origin installed. I know they've been trying to block it, but so far its worked well. I also have DNS66 (available on F-Droid) running continuously in the background, which takes care of most ads and trackers in any other apps.

rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
How is it better than NewPipe https://newpipe.net/ https://newpipe.net/? No ads either, but also - support for subscriptions (without being logged in) - watch history (no login required either) - picture-in-picture mode with control for speed, subtitles… - offline support (download sound and/or video) - granular cadence control (up to x3) - skip silence feature - support for other websites including soundcloud and peertube instances - and more
- gg82 3y ago
  Another one to look at is GrayJay https://grayjay.app/ https://grayjay.app/
- aembleton 3y ago
  If you don't need those features, then its another app to install and take space up on your phone. Firefox is useful anyway for other sites so you'd still have it installed whether you install new pipe or not.
- aussieguy1234 3y ago
  Had not heard about Newpipe before but it looks good, so I installed it. Looks useful for watching specific channels and certain videos I watch repeatedly, so I'll probably start using it for that purpose. What it seems to be missing is YouTubes algorithmic recommendations, which I find useful for discovering new content to watch. For some people however, this might be a good or bad thing.
rmbyrro 3y ago
My favorite is YouTube Red, the paid version. I also don't like ads. And I understand everyone needs to eat. I value some content on YouTube and I respect their right to receive revenue for their good work. I think changing me money straightforward is the most respectful and honest way for everyone.

Sakos 3y ago

If you have nightly, you can go on the normal Firefox addon site and install any addons that have already added mobile support. You used to have to manually make a collection and add addons to it, then add that collection to Firefox. But now you can just install addons directly from the usual addons site (instead of the limited mobile Firefox one).

Sakos 3y ago
Apparently the "Add to Firefox" button is clickable on FF 119, but it just downloads the xpi and you can't do anything with it. On nightly it installs directly.

g-b-r 3y ago

THIS CAN'T BE TRUE

g-b-r 3y ago
Since Fenix's first release they've been saying that the absurd limitations on add-ons support were only temporary, and they would have quickly increased the number of supported ones. And instead absolutely nothing changed for three years. Furthermore the insane bugs from which Fenix suffers from its release (https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/12731 https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/12731) (and make it unbearable) have been left hanging, focusing the few resources on dumb ui experiments. So everything suggested that Mozilla did not care of its Android browser, or actually that they were deliberately sabotaging it. This news instead represents a huge improvement, hence my bewilderment. I don't know what people who downvoted my message thought I meant.

MrStonedOne 3y ago

[dead]

guilhas 3y ago

Been using extensions for 2 years with Iceraven/Mull. Don't understand why Firefox is always "almost"