[HN Gopher] Mozilla expands extension support for Firefox for An... ___________________________________________________________________ Mozilla expands extension support for Firefox for Android Author : rebelwebmaster Score : 283 points Date : 2023-12-14 17:58 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (blog.mozilla.org) (TXT) w3m dump (blog.mozilla.org) | briffle wrote: | I wish they would push hard for proper support in IOS for running | extensions (or their own engine, etc) | ivanjermakov wrote: | I think it's still against Apple's TOS, stating that every web | browser must be based on WebKit. | capitainenemo wrote: | Indeed. Mozilla can complain about it (and they have) but | blaming them for the situation serves little purpose. It's | entirely in Apple's court. | bluGill wrote: | There are probably laws in some country they can use to | fight this, but that is a hard legal battle. | fngjdflmdflg wrote: | The US may be one of those countries depending on the | result of the current Epic vs. Apple & Google | cases.[0][1] | | [0] https://www.theverge.com/23994174/epic-google-trial- | jury-ver... | | [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38607424 | temp0826 wrote: | Why can Kagi's Orion browser support extensions on iOS? I | recently switched from Firefox because lack of uBO caused | huge beef for me and have zero regrets. I'm not paying for | Kagi's search service (happy enough with DDG for the majority | of my searches), but I can really appreciate their business | model and mission (they seem genuine afaict). | mod50ack wrote: | Orion is built on webkit, both on desktop and mobile. It's | possible to build WebExt support into a WebKit browser, as | they've done. | | While I definitely prefer FF and Android, I can support the | notion of Mozilla integrating extension support into WebKit | on their iOS version of FF. But it would take a lot of | effort to do that, and Firefox for iOS is ultimately just | totally separate from any other Firefox (whereas Android | and Desktop Firefox share the same innards). | tiltowait wrote: | Orion on desktop supports Firefox extensions, so is | integration possible? (Not all are compatible.) | lxgr wrote: | Browsers on macOS can use custom rendering engines. On | iOS, they have to all use Apple's provided version of it | (which does not support WebExtensions by itself), so the | two are not comparable at all. | temp0826 wrote: | Interesting, I always thought the holdup was that third | party things used in-app were expressly forbidden because | they're not vetted by the app store onboarding process | (in addition to the requirement of using webkit). Didn't | occur to me that webkit could be extended to support | webext either. | wharvle wrote: | There's _long_ been a grey area for downloading new | program logic as e.g. Javascript--the distinction between | content and program can be rather fuzzy--and IIRC they | made an explicit exception years back for certain | categories. | lxgr wrote: | Yeah, Apple likes to say that (and reject apps for | violating that rule!), but then there's also things like | Linux x86 userspace emulators in the app store that can | run unmodified ELF binaries downloaded via curl from any | random website... | | At this point it's just a polite fiction, maintained | jointly by Apple and app developers, that allows Apple to | maintain a somewhat straight face when saying things like | "you can't download third-party code at all" or "all code | extending app functionality must be downloaded through | our designated mechanism". | | iSH is one such app, this blog post is very interesting: | https://ish.app/blog/default-repository-update | | Given the current regulatory scrutiny of their app store, | I believe they just don't want to open yet another can of | worms by rejecting "browsers" (which are really WebKit | wrappers) for injecting third-party JavaScript into all | web pages displayed within them, even though by their own | rules, they arguably totally should. | bad_user wrote: | Not sure what "userspace emulators" you're speaking of, | but the apps I tried, for running a programming language | (for education purposes) are rubbish due to limitations | (you can only interpret, you can't compile). And the | restrictions are mostly in place; otherwise, for example, | there would be apps that allowed you to download | torrents, or do other forbidden activities. | | Even if what you're saying is true, businesses that can't | afford a ban from the App Store, can't afford to bend the | rules. If Mozilla developed Firefox for iOS, with its | engine, and Apple banned it from the App Store, the | consequence would be millions of dollars going down the | drain. And Mozilla would let their current users down, | too, since the current Firefox for iOS is somewhat | useful. | lxgr wrote: | I've linked one (iSH) in my comment. It really does run | most completely unmodified x86 binaries for Linux, | including CPython and Java. | | aShell [1] is very similar. It takes another approach - | it compiles POSIX C source code to WASM and runs that | using iOS's JIT-enabled web engine, which gives it much | better performance than x86 software emulation. There's | another one that uses lldb to interpret LLVM IR. In other | words, if Apple doesn't want that type of app, they sure | have been explicitly enabling the use case for a long | time now. | | > And the restrictions are mostly in place; otherwise, | for example, there would be apps that allowed you to | download torrents, or do other forbidden activities. | | App store reviews don't exist to "prevent forbidden | activities" in the legal sense; they are there to | maintain their walled garden ecosystem financially, as | well as protect their platform and products from | reputational or legal harm. | | The issue of legality and passing the App Store review | process are largely orthogonal: Just like you can already | do plenty of illegal things using stock iOS (e.g. writing | threatening emails, downloading copyrighted material | using WebTorrent etc.), you can do infinitely many legal | things using Turing-complete computing as enabled by | first and third party apps on iOS. | | Now if you start offering an app that features a big | button labeled "click here to dynamically load software | facilitating copyright infringement", and Apple | distributes it in their App Store after having reviewed | it, that could get them into a tricky situation; offering | a full-featured browser or OS emulator very likely | doesn't, given that Google has been allowing these types | of apps in their Play Store for more than a decade now. | | [1] https://holzschu.github.io/a-Shell_iOS/ | jwells89 wrote: | It would be interesting to see how Mozilla approaches | implementing Gecko on iOS, with how the engine stripped | support for embedding years ago (prior to which they | could've used an approach similar to that seen in | Camino[0]). | | I guess they could take the approach of drawing the whole | screen themselves but that's going to make Gecko-based | Firefox for iOS feel noticeably worse than the current | WebKit/UIKit version in terms of responsiveness and such | and might require some legwork to properly support VRR on | 120hz iPhones (which is critical for battery life on | those models). | | [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camino_(web_browser) | saagarjha wrote: | This would currently be against the App Store guidelines, | which do not permit the use of a third party browser | engine. Also, Firefox has ProMotion support. | SSLy wrote: | Luckily that provision is going to be illegal under DMA | within half a year. | lxgr wrote: | WebExtensions are (or at least can be) ultimately just a | weird type of HTML+JS app, as far as I understand, so I | suspect it's possible to run that in one WebView context on | iOS and bridge the required APIs between the extension and | browser context using content scripts. | saagarjha wrote: | That is indeed what Orion does, to the extent that this | is possible. | thomastjeffery wrote: | That's incredible. Just write anti-competitive behavior | directly into the contract. No one will care. | nikeee wrote: | Actually, it has been mandated by the EU (and other | regulators) that they have to allow other browser engines | and AFAIK there are already teams at Mozilla/Google that | are porting their respective engine to iOS. | | https://9to5mac.com/2023/02/07/new-iphone-browsers/ | gloryjulio wrote: | They can't push for that. Even chrome didn't get the engine | deal. | | But EU is pushing for sideloading | firebot wrote: | > where we're the only major Android browser to support an open | extension ecosystem | | Uhm, Kiwi browser is Chrome-based and supports Chrome-extensions | on Android and has for years. It's pretty great. | mod50ack wrote: | While I respect Kiwi for implementing extension support, | they've often fell far behind the upstream Chromium codebase | and they're significantly smaller than even Firefox for | Android. So I don't think they'd really be a "major" Android | browser. | | Then again, Firefox could easily be said to not be a major | Android browser either! | xnx wrote: | > they've often fell far behind the upstream Chromium | codebase | | I don't pay consistent attention, but these are the version | numbers I currently see: | | Kiwi: 120.0.6099.26 | | Chrome: 120.0.6099.110 | ajayyy wrote: | Kiwi has historically faked the version number to prevent | websites from telling you to update your browser. I would | assume that number is not legitimate. | firebot wrote: | I wouldn't say that far, maybe a month. It gets regular | updates. | mod50ack wrote: | Historically, it's gotten much further behind, but they've | gotten better recently. | xnx wrote: | I was a longtime Firefox on Android user until the extension | situation got increasingly fragile and complicated. I've been | very happy since switching to Kiwi. It's faster, more | frequently updated, and supports all the extensions I want. | Highly recommended. | gruez wrote: | According to their github repo, it was last rebased with | chromium version 105.0.5195.24, which was from August 2022. | Using a 15 month old browser seems hilariously insecure. | | https://github.com/kiwibrowser/src.next | davidy123 wrote: | I use Kiwi, I take the risk for the ability to run my own | extensions (though I use a two-fisted approach where I use | Chrome for deep accounts). It's a shame it's not updated more | often, it's an open source project I would support. | AzzyHN wrote: | You are vulnerable to the webp exploit | (https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-4863) | firebot wrote: | Mine states 120.0.6099.26, which was released a month ago, | https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2023/11/chrome-beta- | fo... | zamadatix wrote: | Your user agent string or the actual browser code? The | former is notoriously just set to whatever makes websites | happy. An easy way to test is see if a current feature | actually works as expected e.g. | https://jsfiddle.net/fxc9a8uc/1 "test1" should be green at | the top right. | gruez wrote: | It's also possible that they updated the code but didn't | push the changes to the repo, which I guess is better | than running 15 month old code, but also is kinda | suspicious because they're not honoring their commitment | to open source. | p1mrx wrote: | I just tried this on Android. "test1" is green on Chrome | 120 and Firefox 121, black on Kiwi 120. | troyvit wrote: | I was about to be like, "Yah well is Kiwi a 'major' browser?" | Then I looked at android browser share[1] and realized that | Firefox certainly isn't either. | | [1] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market- | share/mobile/world... | Ridj48dhsnsh wrote: | How does Opera have 3-4x the market share of Firefox? Is it | installed by default anywhere? | ChrisArchitect wrote: | We've had lots of news about this coming for months, but with | Mozilla's quite low market share, and the share of those users | that use extensions - who's really caring about this other than | some power users? | capitainenemo wrote: | Well, you might be right that it is power users, but I know | that extensions and greater extension freedom are one of the | things that is the draw that keeps the remaining Mozilla | Firefox users (like me) loyal. Basically I'm arguing power | users are a disproportionate percentage of the remaining | Mozilla Firefox user base, which is why things like supporting | tracking protection and privacy measures also makes sense for | them to focus on, even if the majority of people online might | not care about this. | | So, I'm glad they are expanding the extensions available. I | just hope that this isn't tied to creating an account still. | [EDIT] I was overjoyed to see that I was able to add an | extension without creating an account. Yay! | emestifs wrote: | The Firefox paradox: | | People b***h about Firefox's (lack of) market share, Mozilla | doing stupid things (fair criticism), Firefox not having X | (extension support on Mobile, moving from legacy extensions to | standard manifest format) | | Then people will still bring up this baggage even when | something good happens, will refuse to move away from the | browser monoculture/monopoly, s**t on Firefox devs | | FFS, something good happened. No other browser has this. Yet | people will find a way to lessen it. For what? What benefit? | dmix wrote: | "Why even try" | dblohm7 wrote: | Former Firefox dev for both desktop and Android here: I can | definitely confirm that being constantly shit on wore me down | a lot. | emestifs wrote: | Thank you and everyone else working on the Firefox browser | and adjacent projects for your hard work. Don't let the | noise of the internet lessen what you and the team have | done and continue to do. | MiddleEndian wrote: | Gotta say, I fucking love Firefox. Be proud of your work. | coldpie wrote: | I'm sorry that happened. I wish there was some way to solve | the "one jerk outweighs a thousand happy users" problem. I | still vividly remember one guy being an asshole about my | work on the Wine bug tracker a decade ago, regardless of | how many happy users I know there were. | wolverine876 wrote: | > I wish there was some way to solve the "one jerk | outweighs a thousand happy users" problem. | | We could downvote all that stuff to oblivion. Instead, | comments like it are voted to the top comment on almost | every page. | pcwalton wrote: | It's human nature, unfortunately. Reality television | producers have known this for ages: the episodes that | feature people who come off as irredeemable jerks always | garner the highest ratings. | wolverine876 wrote: | > It's human nature, unfortunately. | | If that ever really meant something, it has been so | overused in the last few years that it's impossible to | pick out any needles of serious use from the general | default trendy grain silos of despair. | | I'm not trying to get all of humanity to give up sex. I | believe we can do better, here on HN, in this one regard. | I am that insanely optimistic! | dandanua wrote: | Haters gonna hate | bloopernova wrote: | I am very thankful for Firefox. It keeps the web sane for | me, and I very much appreciate everyone who contributed to | it. | | Thank you for your work! | wolverine876 wrote: | Sorry. You did good things for everyone and deserve much | better, but I hope you give yourself the recognition. | Thanks for everything. | | HN should have an annual Appreciation Day, with no | enshittification of threads. | MaxBarraclough wrote: | > s*t on Firefox devs | | The nerd rage is targeted at Mozilla's dishonest and | incompetent managers, no? The actual dev work is top notch. | emestifs wrote: | No, people go after the devs too. I was specific about | distinguishing Firefox and Mozilla in my post. Firefox in | too often caught in the political/flame crossfire. | coldpie wrote: | > dishonest and incompetent managers | | Even if it is, that kind of language doesn't help. These | are all people you're talking about, trying their best to | do a job they care about. Nothing gets better by your being | a jerk. | Ridj48dhsnsh wrote: | > trying their best to do a job they care about | | I would not take that as a given for Mozilla's upper | management. Many of their decisions seem to ignore what | users want in deference to Google or other motivations. | wolverine876 wrote: | Comments like yours are exactly the problem. Do you have | any real knowledge anyway? Have you worked there? It's | just spreading toxic sludge. | toyg wrote: | _> For what? What benefit?_ | | Trolling used to be an amateur sport, but these days it's | largely a professional endeavour. Astroturfing is an everyday | occurrence on any decently-sized social media site, including | this very one. | squidbeak wrote: | Those who care about competition among browser engines. Share | is more likely to stay low if potential new users can't find | the extensions they need. | LegitShady wrote: | you don't need to be a power user to do any of this. its just | like using any other browser. | neilv wrote: | Techies and power users often create network effects, in how | they contribute to and promote what they use. | | This is one of the reasons it's so troubling when some techies | latch onto some very closed platform (sometimes by a known- | underhanded company) and start making it more attractive to | others, by making open source software specific to it, making | tutorials on hot employability topics that implicitly use the | platform, etc. When open platforms exist, and could also | benefit from this contribution and promotion. | | At first it was "Jeebus, I wonder what's going on with that one | person, who normally uses open source, stabbing themself in the | back like that." Then it became "Jeebus, are we losing open | platform ground with the majority of an entire generation of | techies, after we'd finally won." (I have good guesses about | why, and I also know at least a couple early maneuvers that I | can't talk about, but it's still dismaying how vapid the | collective behavior can be.) | smilliken wrote: | May I remind you that Firefox has over 300M users. If that's | not worthy of admiration, scarcely anything is. | ChrisArchitect wrote: | Sensitive power users. | | I didn't say it was sh*t. I'm saying it's not newsworthy. | | Clap for the devs. And install all the extensions. But we don't | need a hundred posts about it. This isn't the big story Firefox | marketing might think it is. | emestifs wrote: | You got downvoted and now you're original comment is greyed | out. Now you're mocking people and calling them "sensitive". | | The fact news about Firefox gets upvoted clearly indicates it | is newsworthy. You don't get to decide. The users of HN and | their votes do. | nix0n wrote: | Power users matter a lot for web browsers, because web | developers are power users of web browsers. | | Firefox's loss of market share in general is a direct | consequence of its loss in market share among web developers, | because web developers stopped testing their websites in | Firefox. | | Any time Firefox does something good for power users, it's a | good thing for the whole web ecosystem. | yjftsjthsd-h wrote: | This is _Hacker_ News - if you don 't want things that are | interesting, even primarily, to power users, this is a terrible | forum to frequent. | mod50ack wrote: | This is good. Now, all extensions marked by the developer as | being compatible with Android are shown on AMO. (If you toggle to | Desktop mode, you can actually install any other extension on | AMO, too.) | | The baffling thing is why this took so damn long. FF for Android | supported add-ons from the beginning. That's the best thing about | Firefox for Android! They decided to rewrite the UI in 2020, and | there were fair reasons to do that. Obviously this required some | reimplementation time for extension support. | | But they then launched the rewrite of FF for Android with | extension support... but hidden. Only a small set of recommended | extensions were enabled, and a few were drip-fed over time (that | is, added to the list). Thankfully, this included the single most | important extension, uBlock Origin, from the very beginning. (The | lack of uBO why Chrome for Android is borderline unusable for | me!) | | But from almost the very beginning, we've also had the ability to | activate custom extension collections in Nightly (and in Fennec | F-Droid, which is a rebuild of stable Firefox). The vast majority | of extensions worked fine for... well, years now. | | So why in the world was this delayed the whole time? | gruez wrote: | AFAIK it was because firefox for android was on a slightly | different codebase than desktop firefox, and thus had supported | a different set of webextension apis. The user contexts api | (container tabs) was missing entirely, for instance. | dblohm7 wrote: | (I used to work on this stuff) | | It was more complicated than that. Yes, GeckoView needed a | separate WebExtension implementation, but that work was | pretty much at parity with Fennec (the previous Firefox for | Android that supported more extensions) when I left in 2021. | | It was a product management decision that held off on more | complete WebExtension parity with desktop, as well as any | artificial limits as to which extensions were supported in | release. | Zak wrote: | Can you elaborate on the product management motivations? | | It seems to me projects like Iceraven demonstrated years | ago that a great many extensions were usable without any | changes. Why not just slap a "here there be dragons" | warning on untested extensions and let users have at it? | | To be clear, I'm not asking you to justify decisions you | didn't make, just to provide some visibility into the | process if you can. Mozilla was pretty opaque about it. | toyg wrote: | Probably fear that bad extensions would tank performance, | tarnishing the reputation of the overall browser. Now | that such reputation is more or less established (i.e. | people use FF on Android without big problems, it's not | considered particularly slow etc), they can dare a bit | more. | cubefox wrote: | That fear was obviously unjustified. Extensions that | would tank performance would have gotten bad user | ratings. | Vinnl wrote: | I believe it's that, and that with extensions living in | their own processes, Android can at any moment decide to | kill it (like it can do with any mobile app). With the | changes required for Manifest V3, extensions are able to | deal with that gracefully, rather than causing a deluge | of bug reports. | athrowaway3z wrote: | This is speculation based only on press releases but: | | - Google pays Mozilla more than 400m per year. | | - Its in Google's interests to not have good Firefox add- | ons. (For both Ads and Chrome's market share). | | Google's negotiator could easily added some incentive for | Mozilla's management to set the focus somewhere else. | | In fact, given what Google's team is likely earning, they | wouldn't be doing a good job if Firefox's mobile strategy | wasn't discussed before signing such deals. | mod50ack wrote: | Firefox for Android had add-ons before, and even during | the past few years, they're fully supported the | collection of recommended add-ons, including uBlock | Origin from day one. So I don't see how it could be about | preventing ad blocking. | pcwalton wrote: | The idea that Google has some secret underhanded deal | with Mozilla to sabotage Firefox comes up here repeatedly | and makes no sense. If Google wanted to prevent ad | blocking on Android it would be much simpler to just ban | ad blockers from the Play Store outright. | | There is a much simpler potential explanation for such a | product management decision. Suppose Mozilla determines | that 90% (made-up number) of users want addons because | they want uBlock Origin. It then seems sensible to | prioritize that addon and not others when determining how | to spend limited engineering resources. Reasonable people | can of course disagree with that decision, but there's no | need to bring conspiracies into it. | | (NB: Even though I worked at Mozilla I have zero insight | into this particular issue; it's entirely speculation.) | asadotzler wrote: | This is just silly. Firefox on Android has had uBlock | Origin, the world's most effective ad blocker, since day | one. But sure, go invent conspiracies rather than do a | little research. | mvdtnz wrote: | For those who are wondering, I _think_ AMO is supposed to mean | "addons.mozilla.org" although neither the author of the article | nor this comment define the acronym. | jraph wrote: | Yes, indeed, AMO means addons.mozilla.org | vallode wrote: | I was also somehow aware of this acronym. Turns out the about | page of Mozilla's add-ons page also uses it[1], so it's | "official" so to speak. | | [1]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/about | zerocrates wrote: | The article currently does define it, but maybe that was | changed. | akdor1154 wrote: | My crank unevidenced theory is that | | 1. they wanted an Apple-level of verified review process for | AMO, because the Chrome store and even Android app store have | problems with malicious content. | | 2. This costs money. | | 3. They didn't want to open a free for all because they didn't | know exactly how to go about solving 2. yet, and if they | introduced some payment system then it would be easier to do | from a clean slate, without an AMO full of existing extensions | to somehow grandfather through. | | As said before, this is fully unfounded and probably unfair | speculation. I like it more than the 'google conspiracy against | adblockers' though because Mozilla's motivations in this case | are quite reasonable and can be taken in good faith. Keeping | credit card skimmers out of AMO at the cost of restricting | access to 'Firefox Pro'/'AMO Pro'/author-pays would honestly be | quite a good thing for Mozilla to consider imo. | | In any case it's great to see them allowing things now! | wolverine876 wrote: | > The baffling thing is why this took so damn long. | | I'm surprised it's baffling in a community of developers and | other IT professionals. | | It's not baffling to me that two significantly (wholly?) | different applications on different platforms and form factors | would require quite a bit of work to both be generally | compatible with the same third-party software via the same API | - and all while maintaining the same compatibility with another | application, made by another company, completely outside | Mozilla's control. | | And it needs to work reliably enough to release to a world of | developers - of every skill level, motivation, writing every | kind of software (within the domain of browser add-ons) - with | confidence that it will work for them and users. | | And you need a way to maintain all that over the long term. | | I'm impressed Mozilla! | LeoNatan25 wrote: | Did you read past that sentence you quoted? | bad_user wrote: | You could get extensions working on FF for Android, for some time | now, by setting a custom collection ID, allowed in the Beta | version. | | The problem is that many extensions have been incompatible with | Android. And of those compatible, many have poor UX. For example, | LeechBlock has been compatible and listed as available for some | time, but its settings page isn't mobile-friendly. And LeechBlock | can't restore settings from "sync storage", you have to load them | from a local file (on mobile, having local files is a challenge | in itself). Many people may have a bad experience. | | On the other hand, extensions are the primary reason to use | Firefox on Android. Therefore, I'm glad about this news. | neilv wrote: | This is great news. On GrapheneOS, every time I use the stock | browser without the benefit of my uBlock Origin setup, I feel a | bit creeped-out and violated. | yjftsjthsd-h wrote: | In fairness, uBo has been supported even when most extensions | were being artificially left out. | Night_Thastus wrote: | I'm so grateful that FF for Android exists with addon support. | Using it with uBlock is the only way to make mobile not an awful | experience for me. | commoner wrote: | This is progress, but Mozilla needs to do more. Firefox for | Android still lacks the ability to sideload add-ons, a feature | that works on the desktop version of Firefox. This means Android | users aren't able to install extensions outside | addons.mozilla.org (AMO) unless they switch to a Firefox | alternative that supports it, such as Iceraven[1] or | SmartCookieWeb-Preview.[2] | | For me, the most important add-on that has been removed from AMO | is Bypass Paywalls Clean, which is the easiest way to bypass | paywalls on popular news sites. In April of this year, a French | website filed a DMCA copyright takedown notice, causing Mozilla | to remove the extension from AMO.[3] The add-on developer | (magnolia1234) did not want to challenge the DMCA notice, | probably because it would require them to break anonymity and be | subject to legal liability.[4] | | Fortunately, in September, another developer (dbmiller) was | willing to reupload the add-on to AMO as "Bypass Paywalls Clean | (D)" with no changes.[5] The hope is that dbmiller will keep this | add-on up to date with the source and challenge any DMCA notices | filed against this new upload. | | However, the fact remains that Bypass Paywalls Clean was | unavailable on Firefox for Android for 5 months because the | browser did not allow sideloading. In the announcement, Mozilla | says their mission is to maintain "an open and accessible | internet for all" and that extensions are meant to help users | obtain "more personal agency out of their online experience". To | achieve this mission and better distinguish Firefox from browsers | that gate add-ons through app stores (Safari on iOS), Mozilla | should allow users to enable sideloading on Firefox for Android | as an option. | | [1] Iceraven: https://github.com/fork-maintainers/iceraven- | browser | | [2] SmartCookieWeb-Preview: | https://github.com/CookieJarApps/SmartCookieWeb-preview | | [3] https://www.ghacks.net/2023/04/20/mozilla-removes-bypass- | pay... | | [4] https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox- | clea... | | [5] Bypass Paywalls Clean (D): https://addons.mozilla.org/en- | US/firefox/addon/bypass-paywal... | DistractionRect wrote: | AFAIK, it was available in nightly. You could curate your own | add on list which you could then install on Firefox for Android | Nightly, and I'm fairly certain you can still do that if you | want something that isn't in this new, expanded list. | mdaniel wrote: | I can confirm that sideloading .xpi does not work in Nightly | (at least the one from the Play store -- I've never worked up | the energy to build the apk from source and don't feel like | using the F-Droid because reasons) | | I even tried creating my own collection to include | Violentmonkey and it didn't work but I don't this second | recall why | jeffchien wrote: | You can also directly sideload .xpi by tapping the Nightly | logo in the About page a few times. I'm not sure when they | added this back. | Ikatza wrote: | Extensions are nice to have, but pointless as long as FF for | Android doesn't render most pages correctly (HN, for example). | Aardwolf wrote: | I've never seen HN rendered incorrectly in any desktop or | android FF version, what do you mean? | novemp wrote: | I'm using HN on Firefox for Android right now and it looks | totally normal. What are you talking about? | scottbez1 wrote: | Care to expand a bit? | | I've been daily driving FF Android for a few years now and I've | had the opposite experience: the vast majority of pages work | and render fine (including HN) and it's an extremely rare | occasion that I switch to Chrome to use a website. Even then, I | often find that Chrome isn't any better and the underlying | issue was the website's mobile handling in general (e.g. touch | events working differently than mouse events, or just a | completely broken mobile-only component swaps) | emestifs wrote: | Firefox paradox strikes again. User brings up an unrelated | thing, even if valid, to lessen something positive. | | You seen this pattern again and again in Firefox news threads. | leaf-node wrote: | Iceraven, a fork of Firefox, already has these features. | autoexec wrote: | Nice! Now add about:config to stable releases | Ridj48dhsnsh wrote: | As an alternative, you can get a stable release with | about:config by installing Firefox (or Mull) from F-Droid. | yoavm wrote: | curious, what do you want to do with about:config on FF for | Android? | autoexec wrote: | Mostly, basic security things like disabling prefetch, | disabling WebRTC, disabling redirects, disabling SVG, | preventing sites from reading my battery level, preventing | firefox from changing what I type in the address bar (fixup), | etc | kungfufrog wrote: | This was a clincher for me that made me switch from | Chrome/Chromium on my Pixel. Previously, I was using Kiwi Browser | because it supported Chrome extensions however while it works it | has a lot of annoying quirks. I just couldn't stomach the | experience of browsing the web without an ad blocker though. Now | Firefox and UBlock work on Android, Firefox has quickly become my | preferred browser. Still using Chrome on desktop though for now.. | maybe that'll change too! | Vinnl wrote: | Give it a shot! It can import your bookmarks, passwords, etc. | from Chrome, and it's great to be able to quickly send a tab | from desktop to mobile, or vice versa. | cubefox wrote: | Thanks to Firefox extensions I get an automatic dark mode on HN, | and almost any other website, as soon as my device is switched to | dark mode. Normally this would have to be supported explicitly in | the website CSS. | pentagrama wrote: | Great! Now I can finally install an extension to autodelete | cookies for certain domains. This feature is available on stock | Firefox Desktop but not Mobile. | ixmerof wrote: | Can you please link the extension you use for that purpose? | summm wrote: | The 2nd most important addon after unlock origin is Multi- | Account-Containers: https://addons.mozilla.org/en- | US/firefox/addon/multi-account... | | This would enable proper isolation between browsing contexts, and | therefore make progressive web apps truly usable and a good | alternative to native apps. Currently PWAs leak cookies to the | browser, therefore you cannot login on the PWA while browsing | "anonymously" in the browser. | peoplefromibiza wrote: | Best news in the mobile browsers' space since Firefox supported | extensions! | | If Firefox goes back to being THE browser of choice for tech | savvy people, I'll stop thinking I made a bad choice supporting | it everyday since it came out. | | Sometimes a joy. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-12-14 23:00 UTC)