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

Firefox 66.0.4 is out, fixes disabled add-ons

ftp.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 392 posts

Re: Firefox 66.0.4 is out, fixes disabled add-ons

#161

Post by adjagu »

gruez wrote: post #97
foofoo55 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just export the key from a current version and import it into the old version. Worked for me.

How do you do this?

From an updated Firefox navigate to

Preferences -> Privacy & Security -> Security -> Certificates -> View Certificates

Now find:

  Mozilla Corporation
    signingca1.addons.mozilla.org
Select signingca1.addons.mozilla.org and then choose export. This is what you would import into the older version of Firefox.

Re: Firefox 66.0.4 is out, fixes disabled add-ons

#162

Post by Perceptes »

Did this issue cause all add-on data to be wiped? After updating to 66.0.4, all of the containers I'd created with the multi-account containers add-on were gone and replaced with what appeared to be a default set of containers. I spent a lot of time setting that up—is there no way to get it all back if I don't have some sort of manual backup? And if not, what files do I need to manually back up to make sure I don't lose my data next time?

Edit: To be clear, at no point did I delete the add-ons I had installed.

Re: Firefox 66.0.4 is out, fixes disabled add-ons

#163

Post by SquareWheel »

commoner wrote: post #89
SquareWheel wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When has Chrome used A/B testing for ad targeting in the past? Can you link to an example?

Google Chrome uses the RLZ tracking identifier for some installations. "RLZ gives us the ability to accurately measure the success of marketing promotions and distribution partnerships in order to meet our contractual and financial obligations." https://blog.chromium.org/2010/06/in-open-for-rlz.html

While not exactly A/B testing as discussed above, that's still a relevant link. Thank you for sharing.

Re: Firefox 66.0.4 is out, fixes disabled add-ons

#164

Post by stesch »

enriquto wrote: post #3

A good outcome of this certificate fiasco is that many firefox users learned about the "studies" and "Normandy" brain-damage and promptly disabled them.

I enabled it for the bugfix and it made some additional changes to the config that weren't related to the bug fix and not mentioned on about:studies. Changed the behavior of the browser.

Very strange and unsettling.

Re: Firefox 66.0.4 is out, fixes disabled add-ons

#165

Post by detaro »

Perceptes wrote: post #162

Did this issue cause all add-on data to be wiped? After updating to 66.0.4, all of the containers I'd created with the multi-account containers add-on were gone and replaced with what appeared to be a default set of containers. I spent a lot of time setting that up—is there no way to get it all back if I don't have some sort of manual backup? And if not, what files do I need to manually back up to make sure I don't l…

My Add-ons kept their settings as far as I can tell, but maybe there's something special about the container logic...

Re: Firefox 66.0.4 is out, fixes disabled add-ons

#166

Post by Aardwolf »

floatingatoll wrote: post #75
Aardwolf wrote: post #29

What about older versions? Does this mean that older versions of firefox can never be used with addons (even matching older versions) anymore?

Which older versions, specifically?

I don't have any particular in mind, but also future versions when they are old: will every version of firefox have a certificate that expires at some point in it?

Re: Firefox 66.0.4 is out, fixes disabled add-ons

#167

Post by aerique »

chii wrote: post #149
bo1024 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I installed Opera yesterday. So far so good. Hope others will chime in with more alternatives

opera is now just the chrome engine. I don't think there's any alternative to chrome but firefox now-a-days, as even microsoft gave in and started using chrome's blink engine.

Safari or any Webkit browser maybe? I don't know how far Blink has diverged from Webkit.

Re: Firefox 66.0.4 is out, fixes disabled add-ons

#168

Post by noyeusuyye »

Perceptes wrote: post #162

Did this issue cause all add-on data to be wiped? After updating to 66.0.4, all of the containers I'd created with the multi-account containers add-on were gone and replaced with what appeared to be a default set of containers. I spent a lot of time setting that up—is there no way to get it all back if I don't have some sort of manual backup? And if not, what files do I need to manually back up to make sure I don't l…

If you edit your post within 2 minutes from posting it, there's no reason declaring a Edit cos nobody would have had time to read your post even if you was famous

Re: Firefox 66.0.4 is out, fixes disabled add-ons

#169

Post by contravariant »

onli wrote: post #153
wdr1 wrote: post #90

This is pretty bad for Firefox. I wonder how much people straight up & left for Chrome as a result of it.

Probably many, but don't forget that there are many firefox users that never install a single addon.

Which ironically means that the people most affected by this debacle have the most to lose by switching.

Although that also means that firefox managed to piss off it's most loyal group of users. Again.

Re: Firefox 66.0.4 is out, fixes disabled add-ons

#170

Post by rgrieselhuber »

saagarjha wrote: post #148
rgrieselhuber wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the HN guidelines on this, I’ll lay off on the specific type of comment I made. (Although it’s quite a normal thing to notice and point out in other communities). However, precisely because of the importance projects like Mozilla and browser technology in general, I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect the highest standard of behavior. I personally have concerns about certain aspects of their activities (…

You are well within your rights to express your criticisms of the project, but claiming bad faith with no evidence to back it isn't.

What I observed would not be an instance of bad faith.
Post reply on HN