Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions

wiki.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 315 posts

Re: Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions

#51

Post by mahouse »

alfapla wrote: post #47

It's little more than a year ago that Brendan Eich was ousted from Mozilla by an ugly orchestrated cabal. When I read Mitchell Baker's vapid blog post [1] on the decision, filled with polite backstabbing and politically correct buzzwordery I understood that Mozilla has been taken over by politicians and that its decline is just a matter of time. [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/03/brendan-eich-steps-...

I can't think of many OSS projects that aren't being manipulated by a strong community of liberals.

Re: Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions

#52

Post by imakesnowflakes »

Animats wrote: post #20
brighteyes wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There can be a decent turnaround lag (sometimes on the order of a few days) Actually, the link says > Files submitted for signing will go through an automated review process. If they pass this review, they are automatically signed and sent back to the developer. This process should normally take seconds You may be thinking of a different type of review process, the signing one sounds almost instantaneous.

That's for non-public add-ons. If you submit a public add-on, even a minor update, it has to go through the AMO bureaucracy. I currently have an update that was uploaded on July 10, 2015, and is at queue position of 64 of 137. There are no code changes; it's just being updated because Mozilla changed their build system. This seems to be part of Mozilla's effort to be more like the Apple and Google stores. Mozila AMO…

I have one uploaded on Mar 12, 2015, it is at position 25 right now. And it has been at around that position for quite a while.

Re: Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions

#54

Post by _yy »

scintill76 wrote: post #24

Ah, feels like they're following Chrome's example, which decreed that it should be exceedingly difficult for Windows Chrome users to install extensions from somewhere other than https://chrome.google.com/webstore/ . This basically killed an internal app we had at work (a fork of a "REST client", with some added request-signing features specific to our internal APIs.) There was no strong reason to keep it secret, but…

You can still install custom extensions in Chrome for Windows using - among others - group policy: https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/188453

Re: Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions

#55

Post by a3_nm »

ekianjo wrote: post #28

It should still possible to fork Firefox and remove this requirement, right ?

It's not really a full fork, but I'm fairly confident that Iceweasel, the patched and no-branding Firefox that ships with Debian, will not have this problem.

(So as I Debian user I don't really care, but it worries me slightly for the future of Mozilla.)

Re: Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions

#56

Post by andybak »

mahouse wrote: post #51
alfapla wrote: post #47

It's little more than a year ago that Brendan Eich was ousted from Mozilla by an ugly orchestrated cabal. When I read Mitchell Baker's vapid blog post [1] on the decision, filled with polite backstabbing and politically correct buzzwordery I understood that Mozilla has been taken over by politicians and that its decline is just a matter of time. [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/03/brendan-eich-steps-...

I can't think of many OSS projects that aren't being manipulated by a strong community of liberals.

Is that the US definition of 'liberal'? i.e. the one that would apply to most center-right parties in the rest of the world?

Re: Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions

#57

Post by sergimansilla »

I recently made an update my own Firefox extension, called Tab Grenade. It took them 4 months to review. 4 months. And that's for a (very) minor update.

Because of that, I was definitely considering to start releasing it on my own, instead of through Mozilla's add-on website. It looks like I will be able to do that, but I'll have to use the signed extension process.

I'll believe this system works when I see it. After my experience with add-on reviewing, I am very skeptical.

Re: Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions

#58

Post by lexicality »

yAnonymous wrote: post #45
nathanb wrote: post #11

It's the "no override" part that concerns me. I created and maintain an extension that is used by visually-impaired people around the world (it has been translated by volunteers into Dutch and Chinese, for example). Occasionally a Firefox update breaks this extension. OK, fine, that's the cost of doing business. Of course, the automated compatibility report that Firefox creates is utterly useless; it almost never cat…

We need a signed extension that allows unsigned extensions.

You mean like Greasemonkey?

Re: Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions

#59

Post by aembleton »

kragen wrote: post #30

This is deeply disappointing. Two details: the extensions need to be signed by Mozilla , and only US English speakers will be allowed to disable this requirement. The point of free software is that users, individually and collectively, are free to modify it as they wish, without requiring approval from third parties. (And of course to use, copy, and redistribute.) This is a sharp turn away from the free-software etho…

Perhaps we need to fork it. Call it Firedog

Re: Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions

#60

Post by LeoNatan25 »

andybak wrote: post #56
mahouse wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't think of many OSS projects that aren't being manipulated by a strong community of liberals.

Is that the US definition of 'liberal'? i.e. the one that would apply to most center-right parties in the rest of the world?

"Liberals" in the US - democrats - are indeed center-right of the rest of the world. Look at Obama, Clinton, Biden. They are very center on some issues and quite right on others.
Post reply on HN