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

Firefox 68.0

mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 282 posts

Re: Firefox 68.0

#251

Post by mook »

callahad wrote: post #142
kevin_b_er wrote: post #47

This marks the last Android release with extensions/add-on support. There will not be a 69 release of this edition of Firefox for Android ("Fennec"). The new remake of the mobile browser ("Fenix") does not have extensions support and it is on an indefinite and easily ignorable backlog. It is explicitly not being worked on this quarter. At the end of this quarter is the scheduled release of Firefox 69. Unless there's…

Hi. I work for Mozilla. Firefox for Android is not dead. You are free to continue using it. It will continue to support add-ons, and it will receive regular security updates and bugfixes for at least the next year. We are focusing all new feature development in Firefox Preview, but we're continuing to support Firefox for Android as an Extended Support Release while we build Preview. And, for what it's worth, we do un…

Unfortunately, Firefox for Android _beta_ is dead (it makes no sense to do ESR for beta), and the profiles are not shared, so I'll be stuck with an old Firefox.

My bad for trying to help I guess.

Re: Firefox 68.0

#252

Post by mook »

callahad wrote: post #215
aflag wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if Firefox 69 is not coming to Android it means it has already EOLed, doesn't it?

Not exactly. I understand "EOL" to mean that all support has ended. An EOL'd project is dead, and if anything breaks no one is going to fix it for you. That is not the case for Firefox for Android. Instead, think of Firefox for Android as a Long-Term Support (LTS) release, like you might see with projects like Ubuntu, Node, or Django. There are no new features coming to Firefox for Android, but we will keep the 68 br…

Thank you (and the other Mozillians) for trying to engage the feedback! Please remember when planning that extensions need time to be fixed, which means there must be significant overlap between when extension support in Fenix shows up and when Fennec actually goes EOL.

Re: Firefox 68.0

#253

Post by tw04 »

JaimeThompson wrote: post #207
callahad wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi. I work for Mozilla. Firefox for Android is not dead. You are free to continue using it. It will continue to support add-ons, and it will receive regular security updates and bugfixes for at least the next year. We are focusing all new feature development in Firefox Preview, but we're continuing to support Firefox for Android as an Extended Support Release while we build Preview. And, for what it's worth, we do un…

To be honest that is one of the most Fortune 500 style responses I have ever read coming out of someone involved in Mozilla. I mean what does 'we are taking that into account in our planning." actually mean?

It's corporate speak for "we decided to pull the plug but don't want to admit to it until we can get enough people using the new browser who will hopefully like it enough to stay".

Re: Firefox 68.0

#254

Post by techntoke »

wtallis wrote: post #175
BiosElement wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

uBlock seems to work just fine, not sure why you're claiming they removed it.

He's not claiming that they removed it. He's referring to the fact that Google announced their intention to remove the APIs that uBlock relies on. They haven't followed through with the plan yet, but neither have they completely backtracked. See eg. https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/05/29/google-still-plans-... and reports that they'll continue to provide that functionality only to enterprise users: https://9to5goog…

Chrome devs made it clear that just because the API is changing that adblocking will still be supported and it will be faster. Sometimes APIs change.

Re: Firefox 68.0

#255

Post by sascha_sl »

techntoke wrote: post #254
wtallis wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's not claiming that they removed it. He's referring to the fact that Google announced their intention to remove the APIs that uBlock relies on. They haven't followed through with the plan yet, but neither have they completely backtracked. See eg. https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/05/29/google-still-plans-... and reports that they'll continue to provide that functionality only to enterprise users: https://9to5goog…

Chrome devs made it clear that just because the API is changing that adblocking will still be supported and it will be faster. Sometimes APIs change.

being able to decide for every request with code vs a limited number of patterns you can pre-populate is not an equally useful API replacement

Re: Firefox 68.0

#256

Post by fgonzag »

gorhill wrote: post #197
JadeNB wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most users use no add-ons Do you have the data for this? I know I live in a techie bubble, but it sure doesn't fit with my experience or the experiences of others I know who talk about it.

Firefox Public Data Report: https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/usage-behavior "Has Add-on" has been between 33-38% for the last two years.

And a very good chunk of those (most I'd say) is only running some form of ad blocking.

Re: Firefox 68.0

#257

Post by rvnx »

gruez wrote: post #239
_njyk wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way you share quotes sounds like you personally have a problem with the browser :D Kiwi was started as a fun+independent project, then more and more people asked access to some source to be able to develop their own hacks (new tab page, extensions, bottom toolbar, import/export bookmarks, AMP, etc) and they are shared when the devs ask politely. At the end of the day, if you use Samsung, Kiwi, Fennec or Yandex, w…

>unless you actually have reproducible builds (and only Fennec has them from all the mentioned browsers) you have to use your intuition. F-droid does independent builds. Even if it's not reproducible, I trust them more than over some random developer.

Well, that's what I say, Fennec is your only option. For now, there are no Chromium-based browsers on F-Droid (except the WebView-based browsers, which ironically, runs on proprietary software as well in the background). If you find one truly open-source and reproducible Chromium browser, I'm intrigued, but as far as I know, they all pretend to be on F-Droid (= fake external F-Droid repo) but are not done by F-Droid team (which is sad). The closest I found was https://gitlab.com/thermatk/Unobtainium but still depends on proprietary code as far as I know.

Re: Firefox 68.0

#258

Post by krageon »

callahad wrote: post #221
feanaro wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, it seems a bit weird to say that, on the one hand, you've made a statement to mostly that effect but then in another comment say that Mozilla can't commit to anything. Plainly speaking, is it a possibility that Firefox on Android will lose extension support for some time in the future?

Support for add-ons will not be removed from Firefox for Android ("Fennec"). However, Fennec will eventually get discontinued (but not in the next year), because its code is honestly a mess. So the question is whether or not Fennec's replacement will support add-ons when Fennec finally hits End of Life. And I know this sucks as an answer, but we're not yet ready to make public commitments on that front. That's not be…

So to summarise, firefox for android will stop existing and you will not commit to saying that whatever you replace it with will have addons.

You imply that this doesn't mean that it will not, but also not that it will. What you will say about it is that addons are hard.

Taken together, those statements don't exactly foreshadow good news.

Re: Firefox 68.0

#259

Post by krageon »

techntoke wrote: post #254
wtallis wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's not claiming that they removed it. He's referring to the fact that Google announced their intention to remove the APIs that uBlock relies on. They haven't followed through with the plan yet, but neither have they completely backtracked. See eg. https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/05/29/google-still-plans-... and reports that they'll continue to provide that functionality only to enterprise users: https://9to5goog…

Chrome devs made it clear that just because the API is changing that adblocking will still be supported and it will be faster. Sometimes APIs change.

The API was crippled, not changed. There is a fairly lengthy explanation of how it is bad and why by the author of uBlock Origin: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#iss...

Re: Firefox 68.0

#260

Post by krageon »

callahad wrote: post #177
kevin_b_er wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've made no commitment to extensions, but clearly are targeting this new replacement browser for version 69 in a few months. What they haven't done is given a clear statement. Nothing about if their replacement is going to drop extension support. But every response from Mozilla has been a sidestep and that I cannot overlook.

> clearly are targeting this new replacement browser for version 69 in a few months. That is incorrect, and stems from a misunderstanding of our release model. > What they haven't done is given a clear statement. The clearest statement is this dev-platform post from April, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform... , which includes a link to a much more detailed project planning document. > Nothi…

The fact that you won't commit to saying your core advantage on Android will stay has to mean to me, as a user, that I need to be finding an alternative that does have it.
Post reply on HN