←back to thread

Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions

(wiki.mozilla.org)
288 points fernandotakai | 3 comments | 11 Aug 15 03:51 UTC | HN request time: 0.645s | source
Show context
tenfingers ◴[11 Aug 15 10:12 UTC] No.10039997[source]▶
So much for beta-testing your extension prior to release. It's already hard to get users involved, now they just can't.

Or using any other channel to get your extension.

!Thanks Mozilla, really.

replies(1): >>10040054 #
1. wsha ◴[11 Aug 15 10:32 UTC] No.10040054[source]▶
If your extension has been fully reviewed by AMO, you can upload beta versions that only have to pass the automated signing review to be posted to AMO.
replies(1): >>10042206 #
2. tenfingers ◴[11 Aug 15 16:17 UTC] No.10042206[source]▶
Please don't assume all extensions have a reason to be on AMO. There are plenty of extensions which are developed in-house for in-house use only.

Also, as a developer, I never cared to run the "nighties": I don't want an unstable browser, and I don't want fancy new features. I always ran the stock version, also to ensure compatibility with the user base, and never needed anything else.

Maybe Mozilla should also remove the developer tools from the stock version, because clearly it's too dangerous in the hand of people that could cut&paste code with full privileges into it, and it's only a keystroke away!

This is a giant slap in the face, frankly.

I don't see a difference between a walled garden such as google play and this.

replies(1): >>10042233 #
3. tired_man ◴[11 Aug 15 16:19 UTC] No.10042233[source]▶
I gave Mozilla money back in the day when they asked for donations in the beginning to be on that full-page NY Times ad.

I wonder if I can have a refund? I'm very disappointed in how Firefox has aged.