News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Mozilla Firefox Add-On Signing Update by cpeterso on Saturday January 23, 2016 @01:29AM (#10957440)
Chrome requires extensions to be both signed and distributed through Google's "Chrome Web Store".

You can use the Firefox Developer Edition, which will continue to support the xpinstall.signatures.required preference allowing unsigned extensions.

Re:Mozilla Firefox Add-On Signing Update by superkuh on Saturday January 23, 2016 @01:31AM (#10957446)
"Chrome did it." isn't an excuse. It makes it worse, actually.

Developer edition is "Aurora". Aurora is alpha. Alphas have more bugs. It's not reasonable to tell me to use an alpha.

Re:Mozilla Firefox Add-On Signing Update by awalGarg on Saturday January 23, 2016 @04:19AM (#10957768)
> Aurora is alpha

Excuse my ignorance, but is this official? I use FF Dev edition as my primary browser and it is very stable for me.

Context, if it helps: I am a web dev most of the time, and my browser usage is almost always >100 tabs or so. More than half of those have the devtools open all the time (each of which basically count as another instance of Firefox). My machine is pretty modest (i5, dual core, 8gigs RAM). I don't use many extensions though. Only a lightweight custom theme and greasemonkey + lots of custom userscripts. Reason I use dev edition is because it has more devtools goodies and ES6 features. Nothing related to extension development.

Re:Mozilla Firefox Add-On Signing Update by superkuh on Saturday January 23, 2016 @04:42AM (#10957814)
It's official. Aurora is explicitly alpha. When they bump the version number Nightly turns into Aurora turns into Beta turns into Release.
Re:Mozilla Firefox Add-On Signing Update by awalGarg on Saturday January 23, 2016 @06:05AM (#10957986)
Well I meant, do you happen to have a link stating that? :)

> When they bump the version number Nightly turns into Aurora turns into Beta turns into Release.

Not exactly. I guess you intentionally (over-)simplified that? Firefox actually follows trainspotting for their different release channels: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2015/04/trainspotting-firefox-37-d...

Re:Mozilla Firefox Add-On Signing Update by reubenmorais on Saturday January 23, 2016 @09:41AM (#10958508)
They are right. Here's a link: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases#Upcoming_Releases

Aurora is alpha, but FWIW, I've been using Nightly as my main browser for over 4 years now without ever losing data, so Aurora should be more than fine.

Re:Mozilla Firefox Add-On Signing Update by notnarb on Saturday January 23, 2016 @01:55AM (#10957477)
Have you actually used Aurora? I can only speak to my own experience, but I have found it far more stable than any other 'alpha' software I've used.
Re:Mozilla Firefox Add-On Signing Update by superkuh on Saturday January 23, 2016 @02:45AM (#10957589)
Yes. When Firefox first announced their plans for the walled garden back near FF37/38 I did as everyone said and tried Aurora.

It crashed on me twice in as many hours. I'm pretty hard on browsers since I typically have 200+ tabs loaded. That never happens with final release versions.

Re:Mozilla Firefox Add-On Signing Update by cpeterso on Saturday January 23, 2016 @01:57AM (#10957490)
"Chrome did it" is not an excuse. I was pointing out that Chrome is even more restrictive. Google requires developers to distribute their add-ons through Google's store of approved add-ons.
Re:Mozilla Firefox Add-On Signing Update by tomjen3 on Saturday January 23, 2016 @03:32AM (#10957682)
That isn't true, you can install Developer add-ons worth going through Google (otherwise how can you develop them). You might get an annoying pop-up though.