←back to thread

Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions

(wiki.mozilla.org)
288 points fernandotakai | 2 comments | 11 Aug 15 03:51 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
userbinator ◴[11 Aug 15 12:02 UTC] No.10040344[source]▶
Mozilla's hypocrisy is astounding:

https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2013/01/29/putting-users-i...

"Users should have the choice of what software and plugins run on their machine."

https://blog.mozilla.org/theden/2014/12/15/introducing-a-sma...

"Firefox is dedicated to putting users in control of their online experience"

More recently:

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/06/02/firefox-puts-you-in...

"Firefox Puts You in Control of Your Online Life".

The slogan, as found on https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/ , is now "Firefox is created by a global non-profit dedicated to putting individuals in control online." I believe it used to be "users" - see above - but was silently changed. I suppose these "individuals" are the people at Mozilla...?

replies(6): >>10040466 #>>10040472 #>>10040993 #>>10041265 #>>10041365 #>>10052169 #
SkatAndRap ◴[11 Aug 15 12:30 UTC] No.10040472[source]▶
Firefox users see through this feel-good marketing nonsense from Mozilla.

They've seen Firefox's UI change for the worse in so many ways, even in the face of wide opposition.

They've seen unwanted bloat, like Hello and Pocket, forced upon them, again in the face of wide opposition.

They've seen their requests for bug fixes and performance improvements go unheeded, sometimes for years.

The easy use of extensions has been the only thing keeping many of these people using Firefox. They've been using many extensions to undo, as much as is possible, the unwanted changes that Mozilla has made.

I use Firefox Nightly, and was recently surprised when, after an update, some custom extensions I had written myself were not loading, and could not be easily enabled. When I found out it was due to this, and I had to start adjusting about:config settings, it was nearly the last straw for me.

I don't want to use another browser, but it's like Mozilla is doing everything in its power to make using Firefox a bad experience for me. I know I'm not alone. We've already seen Firefox' share of the browser market drop from well over 30% to a level of around 10% today, if it isn't actually lower than that.

It's truly sad to see what's happening to what was once such a great browser.

replies(5): >>10040498 #>>10040631 #>>10040723 #>>10040764 #>>10041904 #
TazeTSchnitzel ◴[11 Aug 15 12:36 UTC] No.10040498[source]▶
Some people hate the UI changes. A lot of people are just fine with them.

Hello and Pocket are just two buttons in a toolbar which you can remove.

replies(2): >>10040704 #>>10041211 #
1. hobarrera ◴[11 Aug 15 14:18 UTC] No.10041211[source]▶
> Hello and Pocket are just two buttons in a toolbar which you can remove.

I would have preferred to see bugs fixed, rather than features that undeniably belong in extensions. Even if it'd been issues that don't even affect me.

replies(1): >>10042360 #
2. callahad ◴[11 Aug 15 16:33 UTC] No.10042360[source]▶
> features that undeniably belong in extensions

At least in the case of Pocket, the current browser marketplace seems to disagree: Chrome is the only major browser without a built-in reading list. When it came time to add similar functionality to Firefox, we could either build and maintain our own service and integrations, or we could partner with an established player with sane privacy and data access policies.

We chose the latter. Pocket is already integrated into literally hundreds of applications, and it started life as a Firefox add-on. Embracing that is a reasonable choice in terms of utility and sustainability, as Pocket themselves are already maintaining SDKs and applications on all major platforms.

(Why this is built into the code and not shipped as an add-on was, iirc, an architectural quirk that will hopefully be rectified.)