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

151–160 of 315 posts

Re: Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions

#151

Post by [deleted] »

rc4algorithm wrote: post #141
SkatAndRap wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

You're being pretty grim. Hello is fucking awesome, and while I don't use Pocket it isn't the end of the world. Firefox isn't Lynx, but even as a Unix guy I enjoy and appreciate it. I also appreciate that they're trying to be more attractive to the masses, which is societally beneficial.

[deleted]

Re: Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions

#152

Post by TheLoneWolfling »

shdon wrote: post #145
TheLoneWolfling wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2-3x the memory use and lower performance due to the additional overhead of talking between processes. There are advantages, but it is not without its disadvantages.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis/Firefox "Goals There are number of things we believe the e10s project will give us: ... 2. Improved performance, especially on multi-core machines. 3. Better memory core stats." That seems to directly contradict your concerns. However, these are stated goals and may not align with practical reality. I'd be surprised if, when these are numbers 2 and 3 on their list of priorities,…

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9558745 (and actually the rest of that submission also)

Now, mind you, that was nearly 3 months ago. But the concerns there are still very relevant.

Re: Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions

#153

Post by twelvechairs »

SkatAndRap wrote: post #120
userbinator wrote: post #103

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…

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 b…

Im a firefox user on all devices and am fine with the ui and dont know what Hello or Pocket are. It has gone through periods of bad choices and bloat before but has been cleaned up over time. I fully expect this to happen again with more annoyances greater than this one. And i still prefer to use it because i support its aims and it supports mine.

Re: Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions

#155

Post by toxican »

ikeboy wrote: post #133
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla hasn't fired anyone for their views. And caring about users' security is to be commended.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/mozillas...

Fired for his views, or fired because of the bad press as a result of his views? I think there's enough of a difference to warrant the distinction.

Re: Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions

#157

Post by userbinator »

rc4algorithm wrote: post #135
jsingleton wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't use many extensions but I'm finding I have to use more as Mozilla remove features from Firefox. For example you can no longer set the User Agent string on a per site basis natively in Firefox preferences [0]. This would be very handy to force HTML5 video on BBC News when you don't want to install flash [1]. I only discovered this setting was deprecated by finding that bug report whilst researching the blog po…

> For example you can no longer set the User Agent string on a per site basis natively in Firefox preferences [0]. This seems like a uselessly fine-grained control. I was surprised to hear that they ever supported it.

Opera had this feature before it became yet-another-WebKit-clone. A lot of other settings were per-site too.

It's very useful for sites that complain or even block you from visiting depending on your browser, which you'll undoubtedly find if you venture far enough on the Internet.

Re: Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions

#158

Post by debacle »

SkatAndRap wrote: post #120
userbinator wrote: post #103

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…

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 b…

I don't understand why Mozilla is trying to control the ecosystem. It's an open source product. Why does it need to be locked down like this? Who do they think they are protecting, or even helping, with this?

Re: Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions

#159

Post by TheLoneWolfling »

debacle wrote: post #156

Is there a good open Firefox fork that are relatively well maintained? This is getting out of control.

Pale Moon is decent. Or would be, except for the frustrations with addon compatibility. (Suffice to say, the Australis update pushed breaking changes to add-ons, in such a way that you cannot easily support both pre-Australis and post-Australis)

Re: Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions

#160

Post by malka »

schrodinger wrote: post #146
gerv wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because bad guys can just keep getting new certs when their old ones are revoked, unless you do identity validation (which costs money as it requires actual humans, so the certs can't be cheap or free).

Reviewing plugins costs somewhere around the same amount of human time/money, no?

If their review are as thorough as Android app's one, they cost about nothing.
Post reply on HN