I guess:
"Firefox for Android voluntary broke add-on support in 2020 and has now fixed it after 3 years of users and developers complaining about it"
Doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
I mean as a user I get the rationale for the rewrite and one step back two steps forward but it genuinely feels like Mozilla has prioritized just about everything else instead of this.
Not because of add-ons obviously but because of the Mozilla foundation mass layoffs with the MDN, Servo, Rust team, etc. The contrast of C-levels (of an open-source _foundation_) like Mitchell raking in +3M a year and the layoffs felt too hypocritical. The suits have taken over and they lost their mission.
I will not be donating to them until there is a clear way to make donations specifically for Developer payroll only.
It's not about teaching anyone anything. All I want is a browser that supports any addons I want. Mozilla decided they didn't want to provide what I want when they blacklisted most addons and required their wierd signing requirements, so I simply switched to a browser that does.
You're free, of course, to be a patron of whatever software you want. However, they only instituted "weird" signing requirements to help dramatically slow down or stop the influx of addons that were maliciously changing browser settings among other hazards. If that doesn't sound like some good utility to you, then I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Online security has never been a priority for a large subset of internet users.
In any case, most people tend choose functionality over security if they have to choose and, in this case, it seems like we did.
Cheers.
Also, I fail to see how the existence of a malicious extension PoC translates "Chrome definitely has a problem with malicious browser extensions". I'm sure you're right about malicious actors not overlooking extensions, yet here we are with virtually everyone using chrome and no wide-spread security issues to speak of. Proofs and pudding.