That's my thinking too. I went back to Firefox a few months ago and it is back to being a fantastic browser now, and it feels good to use something that is also a force for good. I'm hoping they resolve this quickly and that it all turns out ok.

>and that it all turns out ok.

While I agree with you two assuming the bridge is over water and not too high, there are real consequences that cannot be reversed. I cannot unsee the ads I saw in the past few minutes before switching to nightly.

Sadly, what they "stand for" and what they actually do are two different things. This is exactly the kind of centralization that a company supporting a "free and open internet" (to use their words) should be against on principle, let alone pushing in their only product of note.

This should not be possible.

Worse, had they not taken the paternalistic, nanny-like stance that you can't even disable the signing checks, I could roll out a script that would make this a non-issue for my users. But no, thanks Mozilla for ruining my Monday.

Might not be the most substantive comment I could possibly make in the circumstances, but I'm pissed. The only appropriate response feels like a string of infuriated profanity directed at their incompetence and decision-making.

Once Palemoon went to crap Firefox is the last one that does what I want. Good luck mozilla, I'm sure you guys are losing your minds right now.

True. But they also increasingly stand for things I completely disagree with. Namely, deciding which software is approved for me to run on my computer. The way I see it, extensions shouldn't need to be "approved" anyway.

Luckily, I can still type "make install" without debian informing me that "random_dangerous_untrusted_code_from_interwebs" is not approved.