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

291–300 of 442 posts

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#291

Post by spartanatreyu »

mod50ack wrote: post #214
mmwelt wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not true anymore. You have to press the Firefox logo on the about screen a few times, which will make the menu option appear in settings to install an extension from the local filesystem

Fixing this explanation:

You need to go Settings -> About Firefox -> Click the logo a bunch of times on this page specifically -> Press the back button

You will now see the Install extension from file option.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#292

Post by horsawlarway »

open-paren wrote: post #117

I manage a medium-sized browser extension at work. We also offer(ed) it on Firefox. But I have spent the past year struggling to get back into Mozilla store after a manual review. As far as I can tell, there are maybe two reviewers that are based in Europe (Romania?). The turn around time is long when I am in the US, and it has been rife with this same kind of "simple mistake" that takes 2 weeks to resolve. "You need…

Similar boat. I release an extension with about 1 million installs across Chrome/Firefox/Edge for work.

Firefox (despite being the smallest usage) is utterly insane with regards to process. They demand a reproducible build, but then can't do things like install the right version of yarn (no - npm install -g yarn is not correct, our readme says it in bold like 5 times and provides the exact correct command to install the right version), or follow basic setup steps like "Use this version of node (complete with exact steps to install it and a script to automate that for them)".

God fucking help you if you try to do something completely crazy as a private company like - checks notes - use a private NPM module. Despite providing them with access on a pre-configured account, or offering to give a review account access according to Mozilla "It's too hard to use external accounts during review".

Honestly - having to interact with the browser review team is a BIG reason I no longer recommend Firefox. They're incompetent at best, and I'm fairly convinced they're just milking the google search deal income for as a much as it's worth - I don't think they really want to provide an alternative and secure browser anymore.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#293

Post by ranger_danger »

horsawlarway wrote: post #292
open-paren wrote: post #117

I manage a medium-sized browser extension at work. We also offer(ed) it on Firefox. But I have spent the past year struggling to get back into Mozilla store after a manual review. As far as I can tell, there are maybe two reviewers that are based in Europe (Romania?). The turn around time is long when I am in the US, and it has been rife with this same kind of "simple mistake" that takes 2 weeks to resolve. "You need…

Similar boat. I release an extension with about 1 million installs across Chrome/Firefox/Edge for work. Firefox (despite being the smallest usage) is utterly insane with regards to process. They demand a reproducible build, but then can't do things like install the right version of yarn (no - npm install -g yarn is not correct, our readme says it in bold like 5 times and provides the exact correct command to install…

This is exactly what the review process for the Play Store is like, even worse for Google TV apps. Often times just re-submitting multiple times without changing anything at all will get it pushed through.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#294

Post by jshier »

chimeracoder wrote: post #147
zdragnar wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly why Apple implemented the precursor to Chrome's v3 manifest in Safari (not to mention the performance implications). It's a lot easier to just accuse Google of acting in bad faith, and Mozilla of being their lapdogs, and ignore any possible evidence to the contrary.

> It's a lot easier to just accuse Google of acting in bad faith, and Mozilla of being their lapdogs, and ignore any possible evidence to the contrary. There are two issues at play here. Manifest V3 is, undeniably, a security improvement over Manifest V2. Providing full read/write access to all websites is a huge security risk, and the fact that we're willing to do it is really a testament to how bad the state of the…

Safari allows extensions to offer multiple block lists, each at the maximum size allowed (65k entries I think). Does manifest v3 not do the same?

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#295

Post by latexr »

amiga386 wrote: post #281
latexr wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What could the email have said that would have made you believe they had apologised? If the literal string “we apologize” isn’t it, what is?

"Our review processes are not fit for purpose. We commit to replacing them with ones which acknowledge our entire ecosystem is built on the goodwill of unpaid volunteers, and we must not squander their time or resources. People like you are our lifeblood and we must not lose your trust." "We admit we used automated scanning here and tried to pass it off as human review. We got caught. Badly. All our future scans will…

Come on, be realistic. They’re not going to grovel and humiliate themselves over it, especially on a first apology contact. Expecting that kind of response would be ridiculous.

The other comment was much more plausible.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41711187

I’m interested in what the original commenter thought, though.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#296

Post by somerandom2407 »

sureIy wrote: post #151
Timshel wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can run with way less permission as opposed to UBO.

I don’t think people care about giving permissions to one of the most popular extensions ever. The advantages of giving that extension full access are quite clear and the dangers minimal.

I care. I'll probably just switch to Brave instead of either installing this manually (risky) or using the full-blown addon (risky). The value proposition for Firefox has just diminished.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#297

Post by somerandom2407 »

flyingpenguin wrote: post #55
bluGill wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That obvious mistakes can happen is itself a problem.

Have you never been at work being forced to do something because you need money but you just are not feeling it that day? Obvious mistakes will ALWAYS happen, regardless of rules, regulations, human involvement, process, etc. It's thoughts like this "How can we make sure this doesn't happen again" "Its unacceptable than an obvious mistake happened" that make corporations so full of random rules, because they think it…

And problems like this could still have been avoided if their system required review by a second party before blocking an addon by a developer of good standing who has addons with a huge number of users.

Sure, the individual doing the check might be incompetent, but that doesn't mean that Raymond needed to be bothered by Mozilla about it - they could have handled it internally instead.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#298

Post by hedora »

lenerdenator wrote: post #282
Rinzler89 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Google's review team all are in India and they cannot write clear English. Which is ironic considering the reason they went to India and not other countries with cheap labor is that English is an official language there.

The problem is that the set of "Indians who can speak fluent English" and the set of "Indians who will work for the absolute lowest bid" are exclusive. And I don't blame them, really. These execs mistake "English is an official language" for "English is a widespread first language". Only 0.02% of Indians speak English as their first language, while total speakers (of first, second, or third language) are 10.6% of the…

The last time I had realistic numbers, an outsourced engineer in India cost a bit more than a comparable one in the Midwestern US.

I’d guess they’re more expensive now, despite the obvious timezone problems.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#299

Post by hedora »

xnx wrote: post #264
Jalad wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

uBlock on Firefox pretty much is the only reason I haven't ditched Android yet

Same, though I've switched to uBlock in Kiwi Browser.

I switched to ublock in orion on iOS.

The remaining problem is that iOS has subpar podcast and Bluetooth support.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#300

Post by squarefoot »

TiredOfLife wrote: post #85
4bpp wrote: post #53

If I understand the timeline correctly here, it seems that gorhill overreacted, and I say that as someone who is usually harshly critical of everything Mozilla has done in the past 5+ years. It's hardly practical for Mozilla to manually review every add-on revision for safety in a timely manner, so they had the choice between automation and delays that would make add-on development a slog; automation though inevitabl…

Mozilla is not a single person in a basement with a 20 year old second hand computer. They spend hundreds of millions $ per year. uBlock origin has 8+ million installs. The second extension by install count has 4 (four) times less. If if anything to do with gorhill and their extensions is not priority one in their review system, then something is really wrong at Mozilla.

> They spend hundreds of millions $ per year

Most of which coming from Google, whose web enshittification created the need for Ublock Origin and later Ublock Origin Lite. If Mozilla, which takes boatloads of money from Google, does something absurd that would please nobody else but Google, how could one not assume something fishy is going on?

https://archive.ph/jQPTt

( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-05-05/why-go... )

Post reply on HN