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

271–280 of 442 posts

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#271

Post by aaronmdjones »

solarkraft wrote: post #100

It‘s not only that, Firefox also forces you to use the Developer edition (which updates about daily, FORCING you to restart it) if you want to install extensions that aren’t signed by Mozilla (e.g. your own). This behavior reminds of Apple. They say it‘s for security (where have I heard that before), yet Chrome doesn’t seem to need such a restriction. To me it seems like another step in many of Mozilla‘s enshittifica…

You don't have to use the developer edition to run unsigned addons; you can use the ESR version or nightly as well.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#272

Post by aaronmdjones »

ForHackernews wrote: post #47

So Mozilla goofed, apologised of their own accord and corrected the mistake? And in response this dev is throwing his toys out of the pram? Do I read this right?

You do not read this right. Mozilla goofed, then goofed again, then again, then again, then again, then the developer got fed up of having every single version reviewed incorrectly and pulled it, then Mozilla apologised.

I'd do exactly the same thing.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#273

Post by heraldgeezer »

01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #256
saulrh wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I hear about the review processes for browser extensions I'm shocked that the it involves humans having to read your README and manually plumb together the build process. Sometimes I hear that reviewers are even reusing VMs when doing reviews, or even not using VMs at all. I'd have expected the review form to have a textbox where you paste your git link and a well-documented automated pipeline that stands…

Browser extensions really seem like they're slowly failing and just not supported. Kinda like PWAs. I want to write a chat program, but it has to work on phones, and the DevEx for native phone frameworks compared to desktop apps looks like hell, and PWAs seem to be barely supported. It's easier than ever to make a CLI or desktop app, but phones seem like the worst of all Microsoft dev history - Learn these arcane lif…

>Browser extensions really seem like they're slowly failing and just not supported. Kinda like PWAs.

Ya, totally!

lmao

ublock origin has 8mil users on Firefox alone.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#274

Post by medstrom »

xnx wrote: post #234
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.…

Firefox is a thick wrapper around the core functionality of uBlock on Android. Without uBlock, the case for using Firefox is very weak.

This isn't about uBlock though. Just uBlock Origin Lite.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#275

Post by manquer »

heraldgeezer wrote: post #273
01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Browser extensions really seem like they're slowly failing and just not supported. Kinda like PWAs. I want to write a chat program, but it has to work on phones, and the DevEx for native phone frameworks compared to desktop apps looks like hell, and PWAs seem to be barely supported. It's easier than ever to make a CLI or desktop app, but phones seem like the worst of all Microsoft dev history - Learn these arcane lif…

>Browser extensions really seem like they're slowly failing and just not supported. Kinda like PWAs. Ya, totally! lmao ublock origin has 8mil users on Firefox alone.

I don't think OP means for the lack of need or popularity, more so because vendors and platforms do not want them to be.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#276

Post by fsckboy »

medstrom wrote: post #274
xnx wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox is a thick wrapper around the core functionality of uBlock on Android. Without uBlock, the case for using Firefox is very weak.

This isn't about uBlock though. Just uBlock Origin Lite.

you mean, this isn't about uBlock Origin though. Just uBlock Origin Lite.

plain old uBlock is another add-on which may no longer exist. (uBlock was the original original, but the same developer, gorhill, mistakenly let it slip into the wrong hands and it became a pay-to-play leaky ad blocker)

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#277

Post by tatersolid »

Lerc wrote: post #216

It seems to me that any platform with a review gateway should treat failing a review erroneously as a critical failure. In fact it does literally constitute denial-of-service. When a failure like this occurs, it needs more than an apology, it should have an incident report to show that the failure was understood and steps were taken to prevent future failures.

From a security standpoint the opposite is true: false negatives are to be avoided at all costs, even when that posture increases false positives. There’s always a trade-off.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#278

Post by fastest963 »

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…

> Imagine you would need approval from Microsoft to distribute software.

You mean like how you need permission to distribute software on MacOS/iOS? More and more platforms are moving in this direction and I wouldn't be surprised if Windows goes the same way in the future.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#279

Post by [deleted] »

kevingadd wrote: post #215
mort96 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you can't. Extensions must be signed by Mozilla for Firefox to let you install them.

This is simply not true. I've been using unsigned extensions for years. You drag-drop a zip file into the extensions window and it will let you install it.

[deleted]

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#280

Post by Zak »

burnte wrote: post #162
bytebolt wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can no longer package extensions yourself and if you try using "Load add on from file" you get that extension loaded but it's gone after a restart. All extensions have to be signed first to be permanent and Mozilla denied to fix that on their bug tracker.

Signing is such a low bar to pass I agree that not offering that as an option is reasonable. It takes seconds to do.

We're talking about signing by Mozilla to indicate the extension has passed some sort of review process, not signing by the author. It isn't a low bar because it gives Mozilla veto power over what extensions users can install.
Post reply on HN