3 ms·

Firefox android extension support went from "all" to like "5 chosen ones, but we'll enable all of them very soon" in mid 2019. How and why those were handpicked

Firefox android extension support went from "all" to like "5 chosen ones, but we'll enable all of them very soon" in mid 2019. How and why those were handpicked, who knows, clearly extensions weren't enabled by supported functions at the time. In the usual mozilla fashion that "very soon" turned out to be multiple years.

Groxx 3y ago
Importantly, during this entire multi-year gap, nearly all of them worked just fine but it was gated behind an AMO account for... I don't know what reason. If it was just an experience issue because like 5% failed weirdly or had bad performance but they couldn't validate them all: that's basically fine! Hide it behind an about:config flag! The AMO requirement was a privacy-invading piece of nonsense that had no business existing.
- KennyBlanken 3y ago
  Privacy-invading requirements that delay implementation of plugins that would enable plugins providing better privacy and ad-blocking functionality? Hmmmmmmm, now what major Mozilla sugar daddy would be interested in that /s
  - account42 3y ago
    Why the sarcasm tag?
wolverine876 3y ago
Again, it's easy to imagine answers to these questions and to grasp what is happening. Instead people choose to play the sport of tearing things down, no matter the effect on the people involved, Mozilla, the open web, etc.
- account42 3y ago
  Again, Mozilla had a long time to answer these questions (if they had a good answer). If you leave people to imagine things then don't be surprised if they don't follow your PR-sanitized version of events. If mozilla cared about the open web they would immediately distance themselves from Google and reallocate funding from their CEO's family to things that actually matter for their mission.
  - coldpie 3y ago
    You may find some clues as to why they don't want to interact with people like you in your very own post!
shiroiuma 3y ago
It's not just that; their other "unstable" release, "Firefox Nightly", didn't have this limitation.

Groxx 3y ago

Importantly, during this entire multi-year gap, nearly all of them worked just fine but it was gated behind an AMO account for... I don't know what reason. If it was just an experience issue because like 5% failed weirdly or had bad performance but they couldn't validate them all: that's basically fine! Hide it behind an about:config flag! The AMO requirement was a privacy-invading piece of nonsense that had no business existing.

KennyBlanken 3y ago
Privacy-invading requirements that delay implementation of plugins that would enable plugins providing better privacy and ad-blocking functionality? Hmmmmmmm, now what major Mozilla sugar daddy would be interested in that /s
- account42 3y ago
  Why the sarcasm tag?

wolverine876 3y ago

Again, it's easy to imagine answers to these questions and to grasp what is happening. Instead people choose to play the sport of tearing things down, no matter the effect on the people involved, Mozilla, the open web, etc.

account42 3y ago
Again, Mozilla had a long time to answer these questions (if they had a good answer). If you leave people to imagine things then don't be surprised if they don't follow your PR-sanitized version of events. If mozilla cared about the open web they would immediately distance themselves from Google and reallocate funding from their CEO's family to things that actually matter for their mission.
- coldpie 3y ago
  You may find some clues as to why they don't want to interact with people like you in your very own post!

shiroiuma 3y ago

It's not just that; their other "unstable" release, "Firefox Nightly", didn't have this limitation.