3 ms·

Mozilla is not a single person in a basement with a 20 year old second hand computer. They spend hundreds of millions $ per year. uBlock origin has 8+ million i

Mozilla is not a single person in a basement with a 20 year old second hand computer. They spend hundreds of millions $ per year. uBlock origin has 8+ million installs. The second extension by install count has 4 (four) times less. If if anything to do with gorhill and their extensions is not priority one in their review system, then something is really wrong at Mozilla.

seba_dos1 2y ago
...and the extension this article is about had about 5000 (five thousand) installs before being taken down. That doesn't really scream "priority" to me.
- witrak 2y ago
  It may be true, but your point of view isn't the sole possible. Many people have to use more than one browser and for them, the Google decision (effectively forcing the creation of uBOL) was really painful so Hill's new product is of big value. Also, there are people who don't know anything about uBO since they never used Firefox but they probably will start to use uBOL as other blockers for Chromium-based browsers are incomparable to it. Thus 5k downloads of uBOL are no measure of its importance.
  - seba_dos1 2y ago
    How is that relevant to hosting on AMO?
bitfilped 2y ago
This was for uBlock lite, a much lesser used plugin
- chimeracoder 2y ago
  > This was for uBlock lite, a much lesser used plugin Sure, but it's published by the same developer and has existed for a while. It's not a brand new extension under his account, or published on a different developer account. I've built review systems before, and you typically have safeguards in place to prevent mistakes that impact your biggest users. No matter how you cut it, this isn't a good look for Mozilla.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  And behind the scenes is one human being maintaining both. If you make maintaining one of them more stressful than the other, the maintainer dropping one to focus on the other is a predictable consequence.
- pmontra 2y ago
  If they piss off a dev they risk losing all the plugins of that dev. So they must not look at uBOL, the subject of the review, but at uBO, the most popular plugin of that dev. And it turns out that it's Firefox's most popular plugin among all its plugins. They should immediately escalate the review even if gorhill submitted a plugin to log Hello World in the console.
squarefoot 2y ago
> They spend hundreds of millions $ per year Most of which coming from Google, whose web enshittification created the need for Ublock Origin and later Ublock Origin Lite. If Mozilla, which takes boatloads of money from Google, does something absurd that would please nobody else but Google, how could one not assume something fishy is going on? https://archive.ph/jQPTt https://archive.ph/jQPTt ( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-05-05/why-google-keeps-paying-mozilla-s-firefox-even-as-chrome-dominates https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-05-05/why-go... )

seba_dos1 2y ago

...and the extension this article is about had about 5000 (five thousand) installs before being taken down. That doesn't really scream "priority" to me.

witrak 2y ago
It may be true, but your point of view isn't the sole possible. Many people have to use more than one browser and for them, the Google decision (effectively forcing the creation of uBOL) was really painful so Hill's new product is of big value. Also, there are people who don't know anything about uBO since they never used Firefox but they probably will start to use uBOL as other blockers for Chromium-based browsers are incomparable to it. Thus 5k downloads of uBOL are no measure of its importance.
- seba_dos1 2y ago
  How is that relevant to hosting on AMO?

bitfilped 2y ago

This was for uBlock lite, a much lesser used plugin

chimeracoder 2y ago
> This was for uBlock lite, a much lesser used plugin Sure, but it's published by the same developer and has existed for a while. It's not a brand new extension under his account, or published on a different developer account. I've built review systems before, and you typically have safeguards in place to prevent mistakes that impact your biggest users. No matter how you cut it, this isn't a good look for Mozilla.
shadowgovt 2y ago
And behind the scenes is one human being maintaining both. If you make maintaining one of them more stressful than the other, the maintainer dropping one to focus on the other is a predictable consequence.
pmontra 2y ago
If they piss off a dev they risk losing all the plugins of that dev. So they must not look at uBOL, the subject of the review, but at uBO, the most popular plugin of that dev. And it turns out that it's Firefox's most popular plugin among all its plugins. They should immediately escalate the review even if gorhill submitted a plugin to log Hello World in the console.

squarefoot 2y ago

> They spend hundreds of millions $ per year Most of which coming from Google, whose web enshittification created the need for Ublock Origin and later Ublock Origin Lite. If Mozilla, which takes boatloads of money from Google, does something absurd that would please nobody else but Google, how could one not assume something fishy is going on? https://archive.ph/jQPTt https://archive.ph/jQPTt ( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-05-05/why-google-keeps-paying-mozilla-s-firefox-even-as-chrome-dominates https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-05-05/why-go... )