>you cannot install your own extensions on your own firefox browser without sending them to get approved for an official ID by Mozilla first, even if they're private What is the use case of this shit browser again?
>>109249488Can't you do that on the Developer Edition?
I moved back to Chromium now that violentmonkey is getting ported to mv3 and works fine even in beta.firefox is asshttps://github.com/violentmonkey/violentmonkey/releases
>>109249488>b-but at least it's not chrome
>>109249502yep
>>109249488Mozilla binary distribution exclusive issue, not a problem on Gentoo where signing enforcement is disabled
>>109249488I dunno, do you make any of your own extensions?
Google will make them refuse to sign ublock origin in the future, you know it's inevitable.
>>109249502>you cannot install your o-AAAACCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKK
Nowadays you can just ask AI to make you all of the extensions you could ever need and install them in the dev mode, so you don't have to worry about the mandatory approval bullshit.
>>109249488The approval system is only if you want your Addon to be in the recommended section/tag. Also Developer Edition exists, you can do whatever you want with it.>>109249521What a gotcha moment lad. Maybe educate yourself before posting absolute cringe.
Works on Firefox ESR
>>109249488You absolutely can do thatOf course, you already know this but made this thread anyway
Unbranded build also exists, if you don't want to beta test (freq updates) of dev edition.They take time to compile it with every update. You can blame Mozilla for alot of things, but not this. 95% percent of npcs would install a harmful extension in a heartbeat if it was possible,
>>109250318he's right, you can install them but it's not a permanent install unless they're signed. you have to do it everytime ff restarts. unless using other versions.
Skill issue. You can use developer edition and do whatever the fuck you want.Tech support thread. Now fuck off
>>109250318No, you can't. Go ahead, do it on a normal version of Firefox. I even have xpinstall.signatures.required set to false, I looked it up online and apparently this checkbox does absolutely nothing for normal Firefox, LMAO. What's even the point of having it then? Why not at least warn me that it's useless?Like some other guys said it seems to work only on developer edition and ESR.
>>109250922there is a way to do it i cant remember but like i said its not a permanent install but maybe they changed it
>>109249488engagement-bait thread
>>109250940Yeah you can test the addon by going to about:debugging and installing it from there but it wipes clear when you close it, because it's just for debugging. Why there's no option to keep it permanently on when it's my own script on my own PC is beyond me. Just have it autoload the shit from my folder, can't be that hard.
>>109249878They have already added braves in engine adblocker to new release you don't need ubo anymore. That said I still use it because I prefer the makers "fuck you youtube" attitude.
>>109249488Amateur
>>109251014so why would mozirra continue to maintain mv2 shit when they use braves ad blocker? ublock is the only and biggest reason for mv2, no?
Since all the firefox users on /g/ are now in this thread, what extensions do you guys use?
>>109251092>>109245292
>>109249488It's called controlled opposition for a reason.
>>109249488I developed an internal extension for a client just the other day. What’s frustrating is this approval system means you can’t just make an extension and send it to someone, you MUST upload it publicly on the store. And unlike chrome, where dev mode is a toggle, users need to install Firefox dev edition or whatever and that’s a whole different browser. So good luck getting your users to test it.On top of it all, Firefox took longer to review and approve my extension, compared to chrome.For a browser that claims to be free and open their extension review process is the exact antithesis. It was a great example of the kind of bullshit that stops Firefox from ever overtaking chrome in terms of popularity.
>>109249488what
>>109251631>>109250922
>>109249488Lying chromejeet. I literally installed Bypass Paywalls Clean from file with zero.
>>109251867*zero issues.
>>109249488a bunch of trannies develpoed it
>mozilla
>>109251978Jeet means victory
>>109251986Is that why their userbase keeps shrinking despite Chrome killing Mv2?
>>109250922cant you add your own certificates and sign them yourself for your own build?or if the certificate is hardcoded it cant be that hard to patch firefox to add your own as well right
>>109249488I believe it was a reaction they did to stop dissenter
>>109249488This is honestly the biggest gripe I have with Firefox (no, I won't use chr*me instead).And I don't mean OP's "you cannot install" because obviously you can. But the fact they refuse to allow people to self-sign their extensions and trust their own certificates.This idiotic signing centralization is the most ridiculous security theater in the history of the internet, specially since they'll literally sign anything. I'm 100% in favor of extension signing done properly but the way they do it is actually worse from a security standpoint than no signing at all.
>>109251642If you install one from a file it bypasses those restrictions you fucking mungeon.
>>109252469>If you install one from a fileAnd HOW exactly do you think I got that window warning you assmuncher? You think I uploaded it on Mozilla's store and THEN tried to install it even though my whole point was that I didn't want to do that?How about you make a blank extension, try to install it and then come back here and apologize?
>>109252579I just did and it worked flawlessly.
>>109252055Grimmest.
>>109252786
I remember there was a funny hack to force regular firefox version to accept unsigned extensions, something with autoconfig. does it still work?
>>109249488>even if they're privatethat isnt true
https://gist.github.com/TheBrokenRail/c43bf0f07f4860adac2631a1bd9e4136LOL, "Jailbreak-Firefox"
>>109255361...why not use developer edition instead?
>>109255361>curl into sh some random gistlmao cant believe people recommend thisit does look like it (CURRENTLY) "just" seds out some js variable in /usr/lib/firefox but passing random gist into sh is insane
>>109249488I am running ESR. Don't you have this entry or something?
oh ok so if you arent a developer you need the extension to be signed
this behavior by mozilla signals that they treat their average users as cattle who cannot be trusted to not hurt themselves.you'd think chrome would be more of a cattlebrowser, and yet...
>>109249488Tried this?In standard stable Firefox releases, you generally cannot permanently install your own unsigned extensions; they must be submitted to Mozilla for digital signing, even if you choose to keep them unlisted (private) on the Add-ons website rather than publishing them publicly. However, you can bypass this restriction by using Firefox ESR, Firefox Developer Edition, or Firefox Nightly. In these versions, you can disable signature checks by setting xpinstall.signatures.required to false in about:config, allowing you to install local, unsigned extensions directly from a zip file without Mozilla's approval
>>109256181I solved my problem before I even made the thread anon, I just wanted to vent and hate. In a perfect world I shouldn't have had to change my browser just for a small QoL extension I wanted to make.
>>109256362You switched to ESR?
>>109249488@grok is this real? should i install chrome?
>>109249488ESR doesn't have that problem.
>>109256374Developers. What's the usecase of ESR?
>>109256508yes it does
>>109256362>In a perfect world I shouldn't have had to change my browser just for a small QoL extension I wanted to make.Agreed.
>>109256534>yes it doesnuh uh
>>109249488>What is the use case of this shit browser again?Not using Chrome. I honestly hate Firefox so God damn much. Sent from firefox 152.0.5
>>109249502more like telemetry edition
>>109256531Does BacktoWork actually help you stay productive? I've tried porn blockers before, but I always ended up turning them off. Only willpower has really worked. Do you have a link to your BacktoWork?
>>109249488the use is that I CAN USE UBLOCK ORIGIN
>>109251035Adblockers are THE reason for mv3 in the first place. The entire concept is literally just the fight between google and users.
>>109256581>Does BacktoWork actually help you stay productive?I just made it 24 hours ago, so I'll find out this week. At the moment it just blocks 4chan during certain hours and shows me pic related. There's also a 1% chance to show me goatse. You can probably ask an AI to make you something better, I just cobbled together some shitty javascript I knew. (There's also better actual blockers online but I found them too bloated with too many features that I didn't need.)Obviously these blockers depend heavily on your own willpower to not just turn them off, but I often find myself unconsciously opening up 4chan during deadtime when I'm compiling something and I only realize 10 or 20 minutes later (even though the compile only took like 30 seconds), so I just need a slight nudge to remind me that I shouldn't be doing it. This place is like a drug addiction.
>>109249512Lmao, it's crazy how it has been possible to port ViolentMonkey to MV3 for six years, but they refused to do it out of sheer laziness until _after_ MV2 was finally removed from Chroium.
>>109256631Is that true or are you just parroting the anti-Google sentiment that you've read.Do you even know what the chnages API changes are between MV2 and MV3?
>>109256687They removed webRequest api and replaced it with a massively crippled declarativeNetRequest api. For "security" of course. 99% of extensions weren't using it.
>>109249488But you totally can, you stupid motherfucker:https://www.firefox.com/en-US/channel/desktop/developer/
>>109256687Not him, but the other anon is partly correct and partly outdated. Google makes a lot of its money from ads, so the argument that MV3 benefits Google by making ad blockers weaker makes sense. Early MV3 proposals had a strict 30k rule limit, which would have seriously limited ad blockers.Google later increased that limit to around 330k after pressurefrom extension developers. However, they kept the bigger MV3 change as anon said here >>109256727My thinking is Google were aggressive with the original 30k limit plus they other changes made and eventually had to walk it back. They'll probably aim to back close to 30k again in the future
>>109256678Because Firefox itself is already MV3 compliant. Mozilla just added a couple of extra features on top of MV3 that gorhill demands to make Ublock Origin fully functional
>>109256763Even with the rule limit increased it is simply a less capable api. Not all filters can be ported, sites with anti-adblock measures most affected.
>>109256795I think Google got cocky with the 30k limit AND the new API change. By increasing the limit it gives them plausible deniability by not saying "we are just protecting our revenue stream" but doing developers a favor by "helping" the new increased limits.
>>109249488Sorry if this is dumb, I'm not a dev, but can't you turn an extension into a userscript and just deploy it using a monkey extension?
>>109255082Give your extension and I'll install it.
>>109258330Tell me your Firefox version first.
