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

Promoted Add-ons Pilot

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–138 of 138 posts

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#131

Post by AnthonyMouse »

laksdjfkasljdf wrote: post #130
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The part where there is only one party who can make the scary warning go away and doing so requires paying them.

you ignored my argument that the warning is valid, not scary.

It's scary independent of whether it's valid. And that's the problem.

It's like putting a sign in front of a retail store that says "make sure you trust the proprietor before patronizing this store" -- it's not saying anything that isn't true, but it's also going to be a direct cause of fewer people patronizing the store, even if the proprietor is trustworthy.

If the sign then only comes down by paying money to the party who put up the sign, well, now it's a racket.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#132

Post by 1024core »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #12
1024core wrote: post #9

Mozilla makes a gazillion dollars from Google for being the default search engine. They get free labor from volunteers all over the world, being OSS and all that. So what do they need extra money for??

Because a single source of income (Google) isn’t smart for anyone. And the more money is involved (in this case, a gazillion), the worse it is to do so. What if Google just one day decides to not renew their contract? Mozilla’ll be out a gazillion dollars a year.

That's a hypothetical scenario. I'm talking about the reality: Google was paying Mozilla close to a billion/year to be the default search agent. That is a shit-ton of money.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#133

Post by lukaa »

kiboke wrote: post #105
lukaa wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this addon looks like repackaging and selling someone others open source work. I'm really not sorry for that author.

I'm the author. I maintain both the "I don't care about cookies" and the premium "No, thanks" extension and the filter list. All by myself, for the last 8-9 years. Please don't write stuff you didn't recheck first. While the list is a cool addition for those who can't install the extension, it really can't do much when cookie policy needs to be accepted for the website to work properly. The extension accepts policies…

I confused names of uBlock lists and functionality with your extension. I sincerely apologize.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#134

Post by anoncake »

jamienicol wrote: post #125
anoncake wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We aren't talking about hidden preferences but about add-ons. And if you don't want to support people who installed add-ons you didn't verify, don't support people who installed add-ons you didn't verify.

It's not a huge leap to see how the same could apply to add-ons too, it frequently does even on desktop. It would be many times more likely for the new android Firefox, hence the existence of the allowlist. Not to mention that some of the restrictions aren't artificial at all. As for support, a) we'd like to support all of our users, and b) it often takes a lot of support time until you establish that an add-on or hi…

> Not to mention that some of the restrictions aren't artificial at all.

Such as?

> a) we'd like to support all of our users

Only what the users would like matters. Giving them the choice between being installing what they want and getting support is strictly better than a forced whitelist.

> b) it often takes a lot of support time until you establish that an add-on or hidden preference is responsible.

Then check for that first.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#135

Post by cassepipe »

Animats wrote: post #111
cassepipe wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the Mozilla add-on website maybe isn't the only way to distribute webextensions. Mozilla already hosts and lists the add-ons for free. It seems only normal it warns users that no verification has been made as they might assume since it's on an official website. Extensions may be hosted elsewhere and reviewed by online communities too. For example, the Krabby extension that add Kakoune keybindings to web navigati…

Well the Mozilla add-on website maybe isn't the only way to distribute webextensions. It is now. All add-ons must be signed by Mozilla. There's a development mode, but test add-ons disappear when the browser exits.

Thanks for the precision. I did not know it was the case. Indeed you have to use Firefox Nightly to use Krabby... But if no verification is made on add-ons, does it mean it is easy to have them signed? It seems rather contradictory that a add-on has to be signed only to end up with a banner that warns it might be harmful but still can't be distributed elsewhere. It's like you want a store like everyone else but you don't have the perks of a store. What's the point then?

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#136

Post by jamienicol »

anoncake wrote: post #134
jamienicol wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a huge leap to see how the same could apply to add-ons too, it frequently does even on desktop. It would be many times more likely for the new android Firefox, hence the existence of the allowlist. Not to mention that some of the restrictions aren't artificial at all. As for support, a) we'd like to support all of our users, and b) it often takes a lot of support time until you establish that an add-on or hi…

> Not to mention that some of the restrictions aren't artificial at all. Such as? > a) we'd like to support all of our users Only what the users would like matters. Giving them the choice between being installing what they want and getting support is strictly better than a forced whitelist. > b) it often takes a lot of support time until you establish that an add-on or hidden preference is responsible. Then check for…

> Such as?

For extensions, as I understand it not all the APIs are implemented yet for geckoview. Not my area though so can't provide more details. For about:config, again lots of the preferences don't make sense for geckoview, or can even break it completely.

> Giving them the choice between being installing what they want and getting support is strictly better than a forced whitelist.

For you perhaps. But for many users having a working browser is more important. Users don't deliberately break their browsers, yet it happens all of the time. I believe (and I'm speaking for just myself here, not Mozilla) that finding a balance between allowing users to install/tweak many things whilst ensuring a usable browser is better.

> Then check for that first.

Sure we could immediately check if users have any addons or prefs set, and just ignore them if so. But that would let many genuine bugs slip through, not to mention not be very nice to those people.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#137

Post by kiboke »

nicbou wrote: post #110
kiboke wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm the author. I maintain both the "I don't care about cookies" and the premium "No, thanks" extension and the filter list. All by myself, for the last 8-9 years. Please don't write stuff you didn't recheck first. While the list is a cool addition for those who can't install the extension, it really can't do much when cookie policy needs to be accepted for the website to work properly. The extension accepts policies…

I love your extension Daniel. Installing Firefox Mobile, then this was a revelation. Unfortunately, it was killed by the Firefox update two weeks later.

They'll fix that. I think they realized they will lose so many users without extension support.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#138

Post by kiboke »

lukaa wrote: post #133
kiboke wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm the author. I maintain both the "I don't care about cookies" and the premium "No, thanks" extension and the filter list. All by myself, for the last 8-9 years. Please don't write stuff you didn't recheck first. While the list is a cool addition for those who can't install the extension, it really can't do much when cookie policy needs to be accepted for the website to work properly. The extension accepts policies…

I confused names of uBlock lists and functionality with your extension. I sincerely apologize.

Apology accepted :)
Post reply on HN