5 ms·

The title is rather diplomatic. I guess: "Firefox for Android voluntary broke add-on support in 2020 and has now fixed it after 3 years of users and developer

The title is rather diplomatic. I guess: "Firefox for Android voluntary broke add-on support in 2020 and has now fixed it after 3 years of users and developers complaining about it" Doesn't quite have the same ring to it. I mean as a user I get the rationale for the rewrite and one step back two steps forward but it genuinely feels like Mozilla has prioritized just about everything else instead of this.

cedilla 3y ago
You should really ask for your money back.
- IshKebab 3y ago
  You mean switch to Chrome? Yeah lots of people have so Mozilla isn't doing too well.
  - AdmiralAsshat 3y ago
    That'll teach them! Show your contempt for the browser vendor who is staggering add-on support by switching to a browser with no add-on support.
    - Zuiii 3y ago
      I've switched to kiwi on android ever since mozila dropped the ball. It's chrome with all addons. No complaints whatsoever :-) It's not about teaching anyone anything. All I want is a browser that supports any addons I want. Mozilla decided they didn't want to provide what I want when they blacklisted most addons and required their wierd signing requirements, so I simply switched to a browser that does.
      - joak 3y ago
        I moved to kiwi as well. Same reasons.
      - starttoaster 3y ago
        > Mozilla decided they didn't want to provide what I want when they blacklisted most addons and required their wierd signing requirements, so I simply switched to a browser that does. You're free, of course, to be a patron of whatever software you want. However, they only instituted "weird" signing requirements to help dramatically slow down or stop the influx of addons that were maliciously changing browser settings among other hazards. If that doesn't sound like some good utility to you, then I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Online security has never been a priority for a large subset of internet users.
        Zuiii 3y ago
        I don't see chrome having that problem and it doesn't enforce similar signing requirements. Mozilla's decision was either ill thought out or was not motivated by "online security". In any case, most people tend choose functionality over security if they have to choose and, in this case, it seems like we did. Cheers.
        starttoaster 3y ago
        Security researchers literally wrote a PoC extension for Chrome, which was in tech news just a few months ago, where the extension was able to steal passwords and form data. So Chrome definitely has a problem with malicious browser extensions, because I can guarantee you that malicious internet users haven't just overlooked that avenue into your computer, and it just goes unaddressed or under-addressed.
        Zuiii 3y ago
        Assuming no other chrome-specific vulnerabilities, the same PoC can also be implemented for Firefox because it allows temporary installation of unsigned addons. Besides, I'm not arguing that extensions can't be malicious. Also, I fail to see how the existence of a malicious extension PoC translates "Chrome definitely has a problem with malicious browser extensions". I'm sure you're right about malicious actors not overlooking extensions, yet here we are with virtually everyone using chrome and no wide-spread security issues to speak of. Proofs and pudding.
  - heavyset_go 3y ago
    Chrome, the browser with no mobile extensions at all.
- switch007 3y ago
  You know they’ve accepted donations for quite a while now? For all you know they could have donated considerable amounts
  - jdiff 3y ago
    Sure, they could also secretly be the Mozilla CEO.
    - SpaceManNabs 3y ago
      Your comment is incredibly dismissive, especially given that the "OP" is in fact a donor.
  - DoingIsLearning 3y ago
    I actually was a donor until 2020. Not because of add-ons obviously but because of the Mozilla foundation mass layoffs with the MDN, Servo, Rust team, etc. The contrast of C-levels (of an open-source _foundation_) like Mitchell raking in +3M a year and the layoffs felt too hypocritical. The suits have taken over and they lost their mission. I will not be donating to them until there is a clear way to make donations specifically for Developer payroll only.
dugite-code 3y ago
In fairness Firefox for android got essentially a full re-write so it wasn't JUST add-on support that was changing
- k8svet 3y ago
  Huh? Firefox for Android's big rewrite landed like 1, 2 years ago.
  - DoingIsLearning 3y ago
    No, the change to Phoenix happened with the 2020 stable release which is what intentionally broke add ons.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

cedilla 3y ago

You should really ask for your money back.

IshKebab 3y ago
You mean switch to Chrome? Yeah lots of people have so Mozilla isn't doing too well.
- AdmiralAsshat 3y ago
  That'll teach them! Show your contempt for the browser vendor who is staggering add-on support by switching to a browser with no add-on support.
  - Zuiii 3y ago
    I've switched to kiwi on android ever since mozila dropped the ball. It's chrome with all addons. No complaints whatsoever :-) It's not about teaching anyone anything. All I want is a browser that supports any addons I want. Mozilla decided they didn't want to provide what I want when they blacklisted most addons and required their wierd signing requirements, so I simply switched to a browser that does.
    - joak 3y ago
      I moved to kiwi as well. Same reasons.
    - starttoaster 3y ago
      > Mozilla decided they didn't want to provide what I want when they blacklisted most addons and required their wierd signing requirements, so I simply switched to a browser that does. You're free, of course, to be a patron of whatever software you want. However, they only instituted "weird" signing requirements to help dramatically slow down or stop the influx of addons that were maliciously changing browser settings among other hazards. If that doesn't sound like some good utility to you, then I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Online security has never been a priority for a large subset of internet users.
      - Zuiii 3y ago
        I don't see chrome having that problem and it doesn't enforce similar signing requirements. Mozilla's decision was either ill thought out or was not motivated by "online security". In any case, most people tend choose functionality over security if they have to choose and, in this case, it seems like we did. Cheers.
        starttoaster 3y ago
        Security researchers literally wrote a PoC extension for Chrome, which was in tech news just a few months ago, where the extension was able to steal passwords and form data. So Chrome definitely has a problem with malicious browser extensions, because I can guarantee you that malicious internet users haven't just overlooked that avenue into your computer, and it just goes unaddressed or under-addressed.
        Zuiii 3y ago
        Assuming no other chrome-specific vulnerabilities, the same PoC can also be implemented for Firefox because it allows temporary installation of unsigned addons. Besides, I'm not arguing that extensions can't be malicious. Also, I fail to see how the existence of a malicious extension PoC translates "Chrome definitely has a problem with malicious browser extensions". I'm sure you're right about malicious actors not overlooking extensions, yet here we are with virtually everyone using chrome and no wide-spread security issues to speak of. Proofs and pudding.
- heavyset_go 3y ago
  Chrome, the browser with no mobile extensions at all.
switch007 3y ago
You know they’ve accepted donations for quite a while now? For all you know they could have donated considerable amounts
- jdiff 3y ago
  Sure, they could also secretly be the Mozilla CEO.
  - SpaceManNabs 3y ago
    Your comment is incredibly dismissive, especially given that the "OP" is in fact a donor.
- DoingIsLearning 3y ago
  I actually was a donor until 2020. Not because of add-ons obviously but because of the Mozilla foundation mass layoffs with the MDN, Servo, Rust team, etc. The contrast of C-levels (of an open-source _foundation_) like Mitchell raking in +3M a year and the layoffs felt too hypocritical. The suits have taken over and they lost their mission. I will not be donating to them until there is a clear way to make donations specifically for Developer payroll only.

dugite-code 3y ago

In fairness Firefox for android got essentially a full re-write so it wasn't JUST add-on support that was changing

k8svet 3y ago
Huh? Firefox for Android's big rewrite landed like 1, 2 years ago.
- DoingIsLearning 3y ago
  No, the change to Phoenix happened with the 2020 stable release which is what intentionally broke add ons.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]