Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

jorams

The purpose of their comment is to correct your statement that:

> perhaps they should at least make a carve out for one of the single most important extensions that exists.

uBOL is not an important extension on Firefox.

View on HN

>uBOL is not an important extension on Firefox.

Perhaps you should read some earlier comments then you wouldn't say such things?

Hints: Firefox mobile; range of privileges required.

I did, it does not change what I said. uBO works perfectly fine on Firefox Mobile and doesn't use much battery. People can prefer uBOL, but that doesn't make it important to the ecosystem.

Out of all the criticism Firefox fans make of the mobile version, excess CPU usage and excess RAM usage are at the top of the list. Maybe high-end phones run Firefox decently now, but not everybody has a high-end phone. If uBOL has a place on Firefox, mobile Firefox is where it's best.

It's the same author, essentially same project. Mozilla shouldn't be wasting the maintainer's time and resources with this stuff, and that is the point of my comment. Their comment was nothing but failed pedantry and added nothing if that was its purpose.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com