Hacker News Reader

Comment by superkuh | Hacker News Reader

Title needs "on mobile". For actual computers you should probably go further and switch to a user freedoms respecting Firefox fork. Mozilla stopped doing so in version 37 when they turned off the ability to users to install (or edit) extensions/add-ons without Mozilla's approval. It's only been downhill since in terms of removal of features to "protect users" and the addition of proprietary DRM.

View on HN

You can opt into installing extensions directly from XPI files, in developer versions; it's just not the default. You can also disable DRM.

I don't like that the web added DRM, but given its existence, if Firefox said "you can't watch Netflix / Prime Video / etc in Firefox", they'd lose even more market share than they already have.

Correct, you can't install unsigned (not approved by Mozilla) extensions/add-ons in the main Firefox release. You have to use insecure/crashy versions (developer*) or you can dig deep and find the unbranded builds of Firefox and manually download and unpack them for every single update (they have updates disabled). It's tedious but I do it.

The ESR releases of FF main don't allow unsigned add-ons. You may be using a custom user freedom respecting build Debian specifically negotiated with Mozilla to allow in it's repositories?

*The developer version is literally the alpha release, later renamed aurora, later named developer. It is not acceptable to use an alpha release as a main driver for security and stability reasons.

You're right about disabling DRM though. That's not a deal breaker the way it's implemented.

Outdated information, sorry: some reports suggest that at one point they had disallowed it on standard builds but allowed it on ESR, but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

So, yes, you have to use a developer version, or a packaged version.

That said: What extensions, exactly, do you want to use on Firefox that aren't shipped on AMO? Other than the development of extensions themselves (for which it makes sense to use a developer version of Firefox), what is the use case?

For me it's not so much about which extensions but my ability to edit the extensions to fit my needs. Little tweaks to change appearance or text or or some internal list the extension uses. I do this fairly regularly (maybe once a month?).

> The developer version is literally the alpha release, later renamed aurora, later named developer. It is not acceptable to use an alpha release as a main driver for security and stability reasons.

It hasn't been for a long time, Mozilla dropped the Aurora channel in 2017 and rebased Developer Edition off Beta [0]. And as far as I'm concerned, beta is as stable as mainline (on my phone, at least).

> The ESR releases of FF main don't allow unsigned add-ons. You may be using a custom user freedom respecting build Debian specifically negotiated with Mozilla to allow in it's repositories?

Official documentation says you can still load unsigned extensions on ESR, but you need to enable a flag in about:config first [1].

[0] https://venturebeat.com/business/mozilla-kills-firefox-auror...

[1] https://extensionworkshop.com/documentation/publish/signing-...

I imagine if you use it on $latest OS and the like it's stable. But I can assure you if you're distro is a little older then the lib mismatches make developer edition a crashy experience.

I'm glad to hear about [1]. I'll have to try this in ESR myself. Hopefully all my extensions have the extra requirement of an add-on ID set. But I suppose I can edit that in myself for each if not.

> I don't like that the web added DRM, but given its existence, if Firefox said "you can't watch Netflix / Prime Video / etc in Firefox", they'd lose even more market share than they already have.

Firefox saying that now would have no effect, since they successfully managed to piss away approximately their entire market share despite going along with bullshit like that to not lose market share. Firefox saying that back when they had meaningful market share would've incurred significant cost calculations for everyone contemplating just throwing away the entire Firefox market.

Yes, I agree. They should have fought it tooth and nail when it was proposed, and held out as long as possible.

But if sites were willing to do it anyway, despite losing substantial numbers of users...

I would have liked to have seen that theory tested, but it may or may not have worked.

I switched over to IceRaven due to the extension lock out. The only extension I really needed outside of the Mozilla walled garden was to help getting past pay walls.

you can still install .xpi files on desktop

Pocket killed it for me. I got tired of re-disabling it.

You can add

  "DisablePocket": true

(and many other things) to your policies.json file. In my case that file is a symlink to a single master copy I maintain outside of the FF installation folder. See https://mozilla.github.io/policy-templates/

How about a one-liner to disable it globally via /etc/firefox/policies?

I encourage anyone reading this to try it. Good luck. I wrote a python wrapper to manage policies, and it's -deliberately- difficult and fragile. If I ever go back to the FF codebase, it will be a fork without pocket.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com