That's nice, maybe they can finally re-enable about:config in the damn thing too. They removed it from mobile Firefox years ago and the lack of it aggravates the hell out of me.
Technology
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
It's available in nightly (and I think dev) builds
If you don't want to use the potentially unstable Nightly, Dev or Beta, you can use Fennec (stable builds with dev features).
One more reason to stick with Firefox
Other browsers already do, firefox users just cant stop licking mozillas balls
On mobile? Very few do
The point is they already do unlike what the article claims
It's desktop extensions. Most mobile browsers only support a subset of all available extensions (including Firefox!). Now, Firefox will support its whole library of extensions.
They only mention "open extension ecosystem" idk if that means everything and also I haven't found an extension not working on mine yet I have even installed a flash player extension for flash games on my browser so no opinion on those statements
They only mention "open extension ecosystem"
- The title: "Prepare your Firefox desktop extension for the upcoming Android release"
- End of the first paragraph: "Here’s everything developers need to know to get their Firefox desktop extensions ready for Android usage and discoverability on AMO…"
- End of the second paragraph: "so why not start optimizing your desktop extension for mobile-use right away?"
also I haven’t found an extension not working on mine yet I have even installed a flash player extension for flash games on my browser so no opinion on those statements
And those were installed from the mozilla addon library? With full support for a mobile interface? And you tried every extension available?
I have even installed a flash player extension for flash games
Flash used to be a mobile extension...
What u highlight desktop for, the article is about android and the 10 extensions it has so far, your own highlight says "about upcoming android release" desktop is only mentioned for devs to optimize their shit for mobile use.
And no my extensions were not from mozilla thats my whole point I can get extensions elsewhere this whole time, which is why I mock mobile mozilla users in the comments thinking mozilla did something revolutionary.
I think you're a little confused about what's being said here.
I think youre the one confused other mobile browsers already support extensions, too bad 100 people downvoting lack the skill to google
Firefox has always had been the most attractive to many people.
Mobile FF is already awesome with UBlock Origin and YT background playback extensions. I wish to install an auto redirect extension. (Twitter to Nitter) I know it is doable on beta w/ extensions etc. but I want to see them on normal Firefox.
Have a look at YouTube ReVanced if you want a much better YouTube experience on Android. :)
use Newpipe, it's free software, unlike revanced.
Cool! So many useful extensions that I couldn't use on android.
About time. I'm tempted to switch back to Mull from Bromite, but I'm worried about the security of Firefox compared to Chromium (that's why I switched in the first place), I've heard that particularly Mobile Firefox has awful sandboxing and bad security, I'm pretty sure it was the GrapheneOS team saying this? I'm no security expert though...
Yes it was the GrapheneOS team who said that. See the paragraph just above Camera. I literally just skimmed their guides and saw this yesterday while considering getting a Pixel.
I use Mull and Vanadium on Graphene OS, and the experience on Vanadium is just okay by comparison. It is true that not having extensions does decrease the attack surface, and Vanadium does have a built in ad blocker, but it simply isn't as all encompassing as ublock's list.
I use Mull mainly but don't log into anything with it, and have noscript extension on by default.
I also turn off JS by default in Vanadium. Both browsers have ways of making exceptions for certain sites in this case, but NoScript has more granular control.
I remember reading on reddit a convo that basically the GrapheneOS team was much more concerned with security than privacy. This isn't to say they don't care about privacy at all, just that they will always prioritize security first.
This makes sense considering their decision to only officially support the Pixel line of devices. You still are supporting Google by giving them your money (and a bit of your data in the process of purchase). Additionally, the decision to default to using the Google Play Store and sandbox the apps, rather than use the Aurora Store, also points to these underlying values.
Posted this above, but it might interest you as an alternative to Vanadium:
Bromite hasn't been updated in a while, so you should at least switch to Cromite if you're not switching to Mull. It's a fork by a previous Bromite contributor and includes some improvements, like a bottom toolbar and adblock plus (so normal block lists, not Bromite's less customizable ad blocker.
Is Vanadium just Bromite under the hood? I thought they were separate projects...
They're different, but according to its readme, Cromite includes "security enhancement patches from GrapheneOS project", so I assume it contains Vanadium's changes as well as other improvements.
Thanks for the clarification! I'll investigate.
Any reason to switch from Fennec?
Wont Feddec support mobile extensions in the future?
Now Brave needs to do the same and also create its own extension store