-34 points

It’s probably a coincidence that shortly after Mozilla acquires an ad company, they “accidentally” remove an ad blocker.

permalink
report
reply
64 points

They made an error and quickly corrected. It’s the addon author who threw a fit and removed the addon.

This just makes me worried to rely on uBO but more because what if the author just fucks off because someone else pissed them off.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points
*

Mozilla can’t be trusted to host the addon, so the author is taking on the responsibility of hosting it himself. How is that his fault and not Mozilla’s?

Whether Mozilla acted out of malice or incompetence is irrelevant. The report was false and the findings were incorrect, they have to be held responsible either way.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

Mozilla did apologize, said they were wrong and said they’d correct the issue. The author refused and decided not to put it back to AMO. At that points its on the author that it’s not AMO.

permalink
report
parent
reply
32 points
*

I’d much rather have them be overzealous and mistakenly block an addon for a few hours, than have them be too lax and approve addons actually stealing data.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I think they had reasons to act how they acted. They’re probably on a lot of pressure because the whole tech world is fighting ad blocking now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

There’s always some reason. I’m just worried that something happens with uBO and same happens there

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

As the article says, only when it blew up. But you’re right, the author doesn’t look good either.

More honestly, I enjoy a good conspiracy theory with my coffee.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

As the article says, only when it blew up.

The article also seems to say that he didn’t bother to disprove the mistaken findings and so Mozilla might’ve not even heard anything back until it blew up. The whole thing seems to have happened pretty quickly.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points
*

then someone with much more talent can step up, rename the plugin, and carry on.

The challenge is choosing the next maintainer user handle.

https://github.com/msftcangoblowm/sphinx-external-toc-strict

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

That is the power of open source, but gorhill is a very respected and uncompromising maintainer so can be hard to find someone as good

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Lite is barely relevant for Firefox anyway. Gorhill (along with host list maintainers) is one of the saints of modern day open source; if he felt overwhelmed by Mozilla’s actions, and chose to just take Lite down from the extension store, he has every right to. No one should shit on someone who has given so much to the community.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

I don’t think throwing a fit and it being a hissy fit are the same thing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
44 points

It would seem that the ubo lite version was made specifically to cater to chrome and manifest v3 if I’m not mistaken…

In the end the author may have just felt it was too much energy keeping a pared down chrome version on Firefox when the full version is present and working. Especially after this particular drama.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Some say the Lite one was good for mobile since it was lighter weight but I didn’t notice a difference tbh.

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points
*

This just makes me worried to rely on uBO but more because what if the author just fucks off because someone else pissed them off.

That is very concerning to me, also.

Large parts of the internet relying on one or two tiny one-man FOSS projects? (UBO and ADguard are often cited as the only two reliable-ish and safe adblockers)

If he can’t be bothered with that nonsense, how secure is UBO’s future? How secure is the future of adblocking?

I would bet that advertising companies are rubbing their hands now and planning to ramp up pressure against these poor devs.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

It’s probably a coincidence that shortly after Mozilla acquires an ad company, they “accidentally” remove an ad blocker.

I mean I’m of two minds here. One, there’s an epidemic of intellectually lazy, kneejerk Mozilla hate and it’s time to turn the tide on that.

But on the other hand, even as a Mozilla fanboy I can see how this is a really bad look, and really indefensible. I think it’s more of a huge error of judgment, and if there are other huge errors, I can begin to see a problem, but I think they have too much of a positive track record in their history to just go reaching for the tinfoil hats so quickly.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

Gorhill is free to do whatever he wants, of course, I thank him for all the good work. But his reaction is honestly childish and dangerous for the community. Once again his decision to pull the plug opens the door to abusers. Now when you go to the addons page and search for uBlock, you may find illegitimate extensions pretending to be uBlock which are trying to collect your data or worse. Less tech say people don’t know any better.

permalink
report
reply
29 points

This one is completely on Mozilla. TBH I’m not very happy with their governance either. Stop spending money on bullshit and start working on the damn browser. Stop hassling devs like him who have had an immense contribution to not only open source, but your fucking browser’s usage metrics.

I wish another browser standard comes up and we can say goodbye to this google-infested shit-bucket that is mozilla.

permalink
report
reply
-2 points

Not to disagree but mozilla and firefox are not the same thing

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I didn’t say they were. For the most part, if a third option really comes up, I’m OK with Mozilla not existing at all.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Thats kind of like saying Valve and Steam are not the same thing. Like, yea, Valve owns and develops Steam, but most people will understand someone who calls the company “Steam” (even if they sound a bit daft in doing so).

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The funny part is I did mean Mozilla

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

Ok, but “google-infested shit-buckets” are also Chrome and all the chromium poop cups, even more so one might say.

Not disagreeing, especially with the sad sentiment of what’s happening at Mozilla, just trying to keep in mind the other 95% of the browser picture.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Which is why I’d like to see a third player. I don’t use Chrome except for ungoogled chromium when the other browsers are tied up

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Yes, as said, Im agreeing, I was just pointing out the sad reality of what the majority is doing (and like it or not, that affects us all).
I’d love a legit third choice (again)!

permalink
report
parent
reply
66 points

Probably due to automatic extension reviews by Mozilla.

Sad that it happened, but at least it doesn’t impact the actual uBlock, only the lite version for which I honestly see no purpose in Firefox anyways.

permalink
report
reply
77 points

It was a manual review conducted by an actual person that in the end admitted they were wrong

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

Oh okay, not a good look.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Are you like, those old multi colour swirly rubber balls we used to get out of 20p machines as kids? Those were ill!

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Agreed. Especially considering uBlock origin is pretty much the main reason to use FF at all. They shouldn’t be delegating reviews of it to someone who would fuck up this badly.

Assuming this wasn’t a “test the waters” kind of thing to determine just how much they were reliant on ublock.

I’ve been using the main FF build for a while now but I’m wondering if I should start looking at the various fork options.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

It was a manual review conducted by an actual person that in the end admitted they were wrong

Good to know! I wasn’t sure if it was automated or not. That’s rough.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Where does it say it was a manual review?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

In the original post on GitHub it’s mentioned that it was a manual review

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

I honestly see no purpose in

It’s to circumvent ManifestV3.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

I thought that was the shit Chrome was doing to block adblockers and antimalware plugins, if Firefox is doing the same thing what browser do we use now? :-(

I don’t care about all the browser wars stuff, I lost interest when it was Netscape Vs IE, I just want a browser that I can configure fully myself and have it be as safe and secure as one can make it, within reason.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Firefox is not eliminating MV2 extensions. You can stick with Firefox.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

If we want to do something radically different, there’s always gopher and gemini browsers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I thought that was the shit Chrome was doing to block adblockers and antimalware plugins, if Firefox is doing the same thing what browser do we use now? :-(

They’re doing a modified version of V3 that they changed to restore ad-blocking functionality.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Manifest v2 still works on Firefox, so OP was right, it’s useless

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The dev stated that it mostly exists for more performance-limited applications like mobile.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Theoretically, the browser executes the Mv3 blocking rules, so it could be optimized and more efficient than js ever could.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

then someone with much more talent can step up, rename the plugin, and carry on.

The challenge is choosing the next maintainer user handle.

https://github.com/msftcangoblowm/sphinx-external-toc-strict

Good choice?

permalink
report
reply

Linux

!linux@lemmy.ml

Create post

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word “Linux” in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

  • Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
  • No misinformation
  • No NSFW content
  • No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

Community stats

  • 6.4K

    Monthly active users

  • 4K

    Posts

  • 55K

    Comments