71–80 of 288 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes!!! people don't realize that volunteers review the addons and that sometimes they make mistakes. They start acting as if Mozilla sent an internal memo to kill something when it is usually not the case.
If you read correctly, it was removed 15 days ago, and we have no idea what's the status since then.
Isn't this exactly the kind of user-hostile behavior open source is supposed to prevent? Apologies if this is a naive question, but how hard would it be to delete the parts of the release version of the Firefox source code that pertain to checking signatures for add-ons and recompile it?
It's not really user hostile either, from what I gather one of the volunteers who check addons has flagged the addon for violating the ToS. They may have had that impression and the author can bring it up elsewhere (there is plenty of contact points for addon authors) or resubmit the addon and see if another volunteer waves it through.
> Release and Beta versions of Firefox do not allow unsigned extensions to be installed I'm really disappointed at Mozilla regarding this. I recently wanted to do some Firefox customization for my own private use (not even an extension, I just wanted to have some visual indication of which Firefox windows belong to which profile). I was surprised to find out that even just a header .png in a theme can't be loaded loc…
IIRC you can install unsigned extensions in the dev and nightly as well as unbranded versions of firefox (usually the last option means compiling it yourself). Mozilla is, to some extend understandably, concerned with the image of Firefox and patrolling what Addons are available in the store is part of that. Apple does the very same thing.
I understand that Apple does everything in its power to make the life of developers miserable (such as requiring a Mac to be used for iOS development), but Mozilla were supposed to be the good guys on the web.
I don't want to subscribe, I also don't want to see ads or be tracked. I wish there was a universal micropayments way of paying for what I read.
Seriously though, perhaps a "read in" app (perhaps instapaper) which reconciles payment is what you want.
While this is extremely dubious behavior from Mozilla, and reminds me why I stopped donating to them (the moment Firefox started requiring _their_ signature in order to load addons), Mozilla still has the "automated signing API" in place. Supposedly, this API allows to get an XPI signed as long as it passes a series of automated checks. So it's worth a try. This was the excuse they used anyway when trying to justify…
I've recently been experimenting with creating an extension, and the automated signing was literally one of the first things I did when I followed the Hello World tutorial. It's very easy to obtain an .xpi that you can distribute to your users yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IIRC you can install unsigned extensions in the dev and nightly as well as unbranded versions of firefox (usually the last option means compiling it yourself). Mozilla is, to some extend understandably, concerned with the image of Firefox and patrolling what Addons are available in the store is part of that. Apple does the very same thing.
> Apple does the very same thing. I understand that Apple does everything in its power to make the life of developers miserable (such as requiring a Mac to be used for iOS development), but Mozilla were supposed to be the good guys on the web.
I'm not sure if HN has lots of Apple fans, or Apple marketing patrols HN, but these comments are describing real problems but are constantly downvoted.
EDIT: We have been found. These Apple accounts don't even respond to legitimate points.
The hard truth is someone has to pay for content in the end. It's either ads or some kind of paywall or micropayment. It's okay to say no to ads, but then we shouldn't circumvent paywalls. Free content is free only as long as someone somehow still pays for it.
I don't disagree, but that's a normative argument about what addons we should choose to use. My concern, however, is Mozilla putting themselves in the position of making that judgement for their users. Even if we agree that this isn't a good addon, does that mean it's fine for it to be censored by Mozilla?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IIRC you can install unsigned extensions in the dev and nightly as well as unbranded versions of firefox (usually the last option means compiling it yourself). Mozilla is, to some extend understandably, concerned with the image of Firefox and patrolling what Addons are available in the store is part of that. Apple does the very same thing.
> Apple does the very same thing. I understand that Apple does everything in its power to make the life of developers miserable (such as requiring a Mac to be used for iOS development), but Mozilla were supposed to be the good guys on the web.
Apple's primary aim by limiting the access to the store isn't to make devs miserable, it's to have users trust the app store.
Mozilla's aim is (likely) the same. If a user finds an addon in Mozilla's addon store, then Mozilla wants the user to fully trust that this addon will not violate their privacy in unexpected ways or install malware on their computer or otherwise interfere with them.
Similarly, Apple spends a lot of money on making sure the PR image of the app store is clean. People should be able to fully trust Apple's app store, in Apple's opinion.
That doesn't mean there won't be addons you don't like, it just means that malicious behavior is not allowed. If the user doesn't like it they can remove it without consequence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flattr set out do that, many years ago. They still exist. Brave is trying to address that. There's patreon, and many others. Have you tried them ?
i dont agree with the tracking that goes along with all of them. i shouldnt be recording my action to a bunch of unrelated companies just so i can give a few cents to a website.
Some level of tracking _is_ strictly necessary for a system like this, because otherwise there's no way for the system to know which sites to give your money to.