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

311–320 of 442 posts

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#311

Post by squarefoot »

lez wrote: post #238
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #229

Is it even possible to connect to the public Internet in a way that isn’t completely compromised by a corporation or state? TOR is busted at this point DNS have been MITMed Almost all hosts are under the control of a few players who are compelled by their respective states for ubiquitous and server monitoring Any advertised IP has to have tons of routing info and local pointers so local hosting is just as risky if no…

Nostr.

Technically intriguing, but the people involved don't inspire the slightest trust.

https://archive.ph/TLwch

( https://www.businessinsider.com/jack-dorsey-fiatjaf-nostr-do... )

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#312

Post by Timber-6539 »

I fully agree with Gorhill's decision to pull the addon. Any downgrade of user experience on Firefox is solely due to their addons review team.

Maybe if more developers refuse to put up with such bullshit in the name of gatekeeping the extensions store, browser vendors will start acting properly.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#313

Post by healsdata »

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…

Mozilla sent a template email and you're acting like they did anything beyond that. They didn't even assure the author that their add-on wouldn't be removed without prior two-way communication ever again.

Mozilla has a press page -- they could issue a clear, open press release talking about what went wrong, how they're changing going forward, etc. They could even acknowledge that this extension is awesome and contribute capital to making it available to their users.

But, instead, they did the minimum amount possible to save face after one of their reviewers royally messed up. The things the reviewer cited in the first review are plainly wrong and a junior JS developer could tell you that.

Heck, an AI reviewer would have done better (ChatGPT 4o mini):

"No, this file does not appear to contain minified code. Minified code is typically compressed to remove all unnecessary characters such as whitespace, line breaks, and comments to reduce the file size, making it harder to read.

The code you provided contains readable formatting, including comments, indentation, and well-structured functions, which are not characteristics of minified code."

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#315

Post by fragmede »

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…

Can we build a better sandbox? exfiltrating data is the issue, but if the extensions just weren't able to reach out arbtrarily but could only download a specified url, then that would eliminate the problem for plugins that could adapt to only using a specific permission and then not need manual review.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#317

Post by superkuh »

Freak_NL wrote: post #5

I really hope Raymond Hill won't do the same for uBlock Origin (the manifest v2 version). I'm not too comfortable recommending others to install a self-hosted extension. It's a shame Mozilla and Raymond Hill can't/won't solve this together. I get that the review he got simply should not have happened for an extension like this (see the Github thread¹) and that he is simply done with bothering, but I worry about how t…

uBlock Origin 1.60 is still held back for review by Mozilla. Despite it being out for about a week 1.59 is the latest available on the Firefox add-on site.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#318

Post by cxr »

adrian17 wrote: post #267
cxr wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything described here sounds like your team, your extension, and your software development process are the problem. Demanding >9GB of disk space to build a browser extension is capital F, capital I Fucking Insane. Go yell at the Rust folks about their shitty toolchain and your engineering lead for buying into it instead of blaming people who have enough problems as it is just coming into contact with the quagmire…

The 9GB limit was not just the Rust stuff, that was for the entire docker environment with compiler, JRE, node, wasm toolkit, typescript, webpack etc. Yes, we need all of these to make a "true" reproducible build from scratch. > to build a browser extension It shares 99% of code with a desktop application; you can compile it to wasm while preserving most features. The extension wraps the wasm. For reference, when mak…

> The 9GB limit was not just the Rust stuff, that was for the entire docker environment with compiler, JRE, node, wasm toolkit, typescript, webpack etc.

None of this is surprising or exculpatory. Demanding >9GB of disk space to build a browser extension is insane.

> we need all of these to make a "true" reproducible build from scratch

You need and them to reproduce your build. You definitely don't need all of them to build what you're building.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#319

Post by TZubiri »

lez wrote: post #240
TZubiri wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems a bit extremist. I get being mad at microsoft for trying to charge for their software (gasp). I also get being mad at Chrome for trying to monetize their software (gasp) with ads. But now if you somehow get upset at Mozilla, it's more likely that you are the problem.

According to your argument, if Gorhill gets upset at Mozilla, then Gorhill is the problem? Who is the extremist here?

That's obtuse, I'm talking about users.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#320

Post by paulryanrogers »

move-on-by wrote: post #303
neilv wrote: post #197

Gorhill's full uBlock Origin might be the only remaining selling point for Firefox. With the outrageous sum of money that the Mozilla top executive was recently taking for themself, they could've instead staffed an entire team of first-rate people, with the sole mission of doing whatever Mr. Gorhill needed.

They are too busy working for the advertising companies Mr. Gorhill is blocking. Most recently adding ‘privacy preserving attribution’ - a feature that no user has asked for.

People don't want 3P cookies tracking them around the web. They also don't want to pay to visit sites. Mozilla is trying to provide a middle path, I salute the effort.
Post reply on HN