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

Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

neowin.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 442 posts

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#121

Post by mdaniel »

mmwelt wrote: post #91
SSLy wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's lighter on power usage, and that matters for firefox on android.

But now it's not even possible to use the add-on in Firefox for Android, as only add-ons from AMO can be installed.

I was curious if trying to load it via file:///storage/emulated/0/Download/... would work (as my recollection is that .xpi installation is content-type: sensitive) but insult-to-injury is that FF Nightly for Android searches for the string "file:///storage...", so they seemingly have nuked even the file: protocol handler for Android. Good times over there at Mozilla

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#122

Post by Semaphor »

Zak wrote: post #118
sunaookami wrote: post #75

It's very annoying you have to submit your extension to gatekeepers to even distribute them to normal users. As gorhill said on GitHub it took days for a self-hosted version to be approved - that's unacceptable. Imagine you would need approval from Microsoft to distribute software. Not even Android is this closed. Enforcing signatures and removing XUL were the worst things Mozilla has ever done. And yes, Google does…

On desktop Firefox, you can download an extension from anywhere and install it. All they're gatekeeping is their own repository, which I think most of us would like them to do. I think mobile requires using a nightly build to install extensions from outside Mozilla's repository, and that suggests their thinking is becoming contaminated by the rest of the mobile ecosystem.

No, the normal version blocks (at least permanent) installs. You need the developer version to install unsigned extensions.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#123

Post by adduc »

Zak wrote: post #118
sunaookami wrote: post #75

It's very annoying you have to submit your extension to gatekeepers to even distribute them to normal users. As gorhill said on GitHub it took days for a self-hosted version to be approved - that's unacceptable. Imagine you would need approval from Microsoft to distribute software. Not even Android is this closed. Enforcing signatures and removing XUL were the worst things Mozilla has ever done. And yes, Google does…

On desktop Firefox, you can download an extension from anywhere and install it. All they're gatekeeping is their own repository, which I think most of us would like them to do. I think mobile requires using a nightly build to install extensions from outside Mozilla's repository, and that suggests their thinking is becoming contaminated by the rest of the mobile ecosystem.

Are you certain extensions can be downloaded and installed from anywhere? Firefox's documentation[1] states "Extensions and themes need to be signed by Mozilla before they can be installed in release and beta versions of Firefox." If UBlock Lite was rejected through Mozilla's signing API, they'd have no ability to create an XPI that can be installed by release/beta version of Firefox.

[1]: https://extensionworkshop.com/documentation/publish/signing-...

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#124

Post by umbra07 »

munch117 wrote: post #114
yojo wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s reasonable to expect that one of Firefox’s most popular extension publishers gets a higher tier of review service. Gorhill (and other top extension devs) are providing real value to Firefox, and have demonstrated good behavior for years. This doesn’t mean they should get to publish whatever they want, but if a reviewer is about to reject a high profile plugin, they should get a second set of eyes on it.…

But this is not about a high profile plugin. The high profile plugin is "uBlock Origin", and this is about "uBlock Origin Lite", which is a big thing for Chrome, but not for Firefox. Why would anyone want to use uBOL, when they have the option to use uBO? Perhaps Mozilla does have a higher tier of review, but it's for specific plugins, not for specific authors.

From what I remember, there are noticeable efficiency gains when using uBOL on mobile browsers.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#125

Post by amiga386 »

There's nothing more frustrating than being gatekept by incompetent, lying idiots. Sad day for users but the right choice by Hill.

Mozilla wanted in on the $CURRENT_THING of being a "platform" where devs bow and scrape and they claim to be the great custodian of stuff, protector of users. Don't do this if you can't be competent at it. Devs _can_ leave, and they will if you fuck up often enough.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#128

Post by chimeracoder »

munch117 wrote: post #114
yojo wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s reasonable to expect that one of Firefox’s most popular extension publishers gets a higher tier of review service. Gorhill (and other top extension devs) are providing real value to Firefox, and have demonstrated good behavior for years. This doesn’t mean they should get to publish whatever they want, but if a reviewer is about to reject a high profile plugin, they should get a second set of eyes on it.…

But this is not about a high profile plugin. The high profile plugin is "uBlock Origin", and this is about "uBlock Origin Lite", which is a big thing for Chrome, but not for Firefox. Why would anyone want to use uBOL, when they have the option to use uBO? Perhaps Mozilla does have a higher tier of review, but it's for specific plugins, not for specific authors.

> But this is not about a high profile plugin. The high profile plugin is "uBlock Origin", and this is about "uBlock Origin Lite", which is a big thing for Chrome, but not for Firefox. Why would anyone want to use uBOL, when they have the option to use uBO?

uBlock Origin requires giving the extension full read and write permissions on every site you visit, which is a huge liability, security-wise.

uBlock Origin Lite uses Manifest V3, which doesn't require providing those permissions to the extension.

Perhaps you trust gorhill with that power, but it's pretty understandable why others might not want to give that power to a third party.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#129

Post by freedomben »

marssaxman wrote: post #112
poincaredisk wrote: post #8

>The last message from the developer in a now-closed GitHub issue shows an email from Mozilla admitting its fault and apologizing for the mistake. However, Raymond still pulled the extension from the Mozilla Add-ons Store, which means you can no longer find it on addons.mozilla.org. This seems pretty harsh. Mozilla made a mistake, Mozilla apologized, Mozilla fixed the mistake (maybe even improved their processes), an…

The author is a volunteer and the software is a labor of love: of course it's personal. Such projects thrive when the author feels like they are giving a valuable gift to a community which is receiving and appreciating it. Being required to submit your creation through an impersonal "review" process which rejects you in such a way that it's obvious nobody cared enough to even look is not just a buzzkill: it's an insu…

> when the author feels like they are giving a valuable gift to a community which is receiving and appreciating it.

Who is the "community" in this case? Mozilla? Or is it us users? If the former then fine, but if the latter, then who is being hurt by this, and how does Mozilla being annoying reflect ingratitude in the community?

Post reply on HN