Lolu chungechunge lwavalwa lwabekwa kunqolobane. Uyacelwa ubuze umbuzo omusha uma udinga usizo.
could not be verified for use with firefox
Is this statement below true? If so I will be forced to use another browser. These are safe and well functioning extensions I have installed from trusted web developers. I have trusted Firefox since, well "forever", and now limiting or even causing my extensions to stop functioning is bad. So upset about this and after all these years of having a functioning browser with the ease of making it more my own and having limited use such as with Chrome, Safari or IE is far the worst decision I have ever seen in the history of Mozilla. Hoping some feedback from others may help the developers make a better decision, and hoping Firefox can remain in the top for user-friendly experience. There are enough FREE web extensions out there to protect us all from malicious web sites and virus protection programs we all can use to keep us safe on our computers and web, why would a decision be made to limited extension security be implemented when all is working fine. Even my McAfee SiteAdvisor and Avast Online Security are showing they cannot be verified now with version 40. Ridiculous and bad for consumers who have always liked and trusted Firefox for a more user-friendly experience.
August 21, 2015
Mozilla just announced their intent to deprecate so called XUL-based add-ons in favor of what they call the WebExtensions API within the next year or two. The WebExtensions API is supposed to be mostly compatible to Chrome/Safari extension APIs.
What does this mean for XUL-based add-ons? Well, for starters, Extensions will be dead if XUL-based add-ons with XPCOM access are gone. Simple as that. The new APIs would only allow for a severely limited in functionality, severely stripped down Extensions at best.
Gone will be add-ons that e.g. let you change major bits about the Firefox user interface (e.g. tabs tree add-ons), add-ons that allow you to do more “advanced” stuff than just showing or slightly altering websites, such as e.g. restarting the browser upon click (unless mozilla kindly provides an API for that, which won’t be compatible with Chrome, of course). Add-ons like NoScript will be severely limited in their feature set as well. Say byebye to Greasemonkey and hello to Tampermonkey, with it’s limitations. Want that add-on that lets you change the new tab page for something else or enhances that page? Maybe it will be available, maybe not, depending on if and when mozilla kindly provides WebExtensions APIs for such things. And of course, depending on if there will be an author creating this entirely new add-on from scratch.
What this also means: Almost all your existing add-ons will be broken, entirely, save for some Add-on SDK add-ons, namely those that don’t do anything fancy. Sure, even today, lots of add-ons break, and some add-ons will not get updated when they do and there are no suitable replacements. However, with this change, almost every add-on will be completely broken and in need of major updating by the extension authors. Good luck with that.
It is safe to say, that Firefox will not be Firefox anymore as far as extensions go, but instead will become yet another Chrome-clone.
To be clear: I was furious when the extension signing stuff was announced and then actually implemented, which effectively created yet another Walled Garden, but regarding this announcement I am just sad. Right now, it feels like I just learned my dear old friend Firefox is going to die.
All Replies (10)
For addons like no script and addblockplus I stop using x64 nigtly versions that was supper fast and personaly love and happiness that i'm locked in x32 bits with 38.2.0 version of firefox that support them.
less 'services' less problems.
Moderators note: Post was edited due to use of offensive language see : https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/forum-rules-and-guidelines#w_language-and-conduct
Okulungisiwe ngu Madasan
As far as extension signing goes, all the add-on developer needs to do is to submit the add-on to Mozilla for signing and wait to get it back signed. No problem with the add-on not being hosted at the official add-ons website - Mozilla isn't setting up a "walled garden" as Apple did with apps for iOS.
When is comes to Firefox losing XUL-based add-ons, that is far in the future if it happens at all.
I don't think is a good idea to say to Giorgio Maone what to do!?
no script is so valuable that if a browser is not supported by it I automatically drop it on the spot as choice.
These are completely separate issues:
- Signing should be fairly easy for extension developers if their development cycle allows time for review by the Add-ons team. I expect McAfee and Avast to resolve that issue in the next few weeks. There are some older extensions that will not get signed before Firefox 41 is released, or possibly forever; if there are some you are concerned about, would you mind listing them?
- Rewriting complex extensions will be a much bigger challenge. That's probably why it is estimated to hit after 12-18 months in the article: The Future of Developing Firefox Add-ons. I'm sure there will be a lot of discussion of this over the next year.
Note that Firefox has a built-in "restart" command as part of the Developer Toolbar (Tools > Web Developer), so all you need to do is to open the toolbar (Windows, Linux: Shift+F2; don't know the shortcut on Mac) and type restart in the command line and press the Enter key to restart Firefox.
Okulungisiwe ngu cor-el
Roboform Toolbar 184.108.40.206 (latest version) is an add-on that also displays the Warning message from Firefox: "Roboform toolbar could not be verified for use in Firefox. Proceed with caution."
When I asked Roboform "WHY?"...their reply was this:
Roboform 220.127.116.11 is functioning without trouble in Firefox version 40.0.3 which you have now, although the warning appears that the extension could not be verified and the user should proceed with caution.
Please disregard that message as it is related to the fact that Mozilla has not yet "signed" our extension, although we sent the request to sign it quite a while ago. ***********************************************
Is Roboform going to get "signed" by Firefox soon???
Okulungisiwe ngu cor-el
Hi Local Search, the Add-ons team has a new forum where they might be able to answer that. Support volunteers don't have insight into the review queues.
Is this statement below true? <snip> Hoping some feedback from others may help the developers make a better decision, and hoping Firefox can remain in the top for user-friendly experience. <snip> August 21, 2015 Mozilla just announced their intent to deprecate so called XUL-based add-ons in favor of what they call the WebExtensions API within the next year or two. The WebExtensions API is supposed to be mostly compatible to Chrome/Safari extension APIs. <snip>
Here's Mozilla blog with information on the new WebExtensions API and other add-on topics: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/08/21/the-future-of-developing-firefox-add-ons/
Here's the Mozilla Support article about add-on signing: Add-on signing in Firefox.
If you want to leave feedback for Firefox developers, you can go to the Firefox 3-bar menu, click on the Help (question mark) icon and select Submit Feedback... or use this link. Your feedback gets collected at http://input.mozilla.org/, where a team of people read it and gather data about the most common issues.
To others who have questions about using Firefox, see Mozilla Support rules and guidelines under Posting support requests: Do not re-use existing threads started by others, even if they are seemingly on the same subject. Ask a new question instead.
It seems to me that the collectivists' elitist mentality (we know what's best for you so you will have to do as we say - it's for your own good) that is permeating this country is alive and well at Mozilla.
"Unless we approve of your work Firefox users will not be allowed to use it (even if they've used your extension without problems for years), unless you submit it to us first." " We demand control!"
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern. Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end." --Baron Acton
(As I wrote in my earlier post) Here's the Mozilla Support article about add-on signing: Add-on signing in Firefox. If anyone wants to leave feedback for Firefox developers, go to the Firefox 3-bar menu, click on the Help (question mark) icon and select Submit Feedback... or use this link. Your feedback gets collected at http://input.mozilla.org/, where a team of people read it and gather data about the most common issues. If you need help with Firefox and wish to submit a support request, please start your own thread. See Mozilla Support rules and guidelines.
To Bungiman: You started this thread on 8/30/2015 and a review of your profile shows that this is your only post to the support forum. Your original post looked to be more about providing feedback about add-on signing and future add-on development. You have not responded to any of the replies made in this thread. In your 8/30/2015 post, you also mentioned, Even my McAfee SiteAdvisor and Avast Online Security are showing they cannot be verified now with version 40. Requiring add-ons to be signed by default will not take effect until Firefox 43. If you have questions about using specific add-ons with Firefox, either now or in the future, your best bet might be to contact the add-on developer, for example, Avast or McAfee support.