• Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    3 months ago

    They made an error and quickly corrected. It’s the addon author who threw a fit and removed the addon.

    This just makes me worried to rely on uBO but more because what if the author just fucks off because someone else pissed them off.

    • mudmaniac@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      3 months ago

      It would seem that the ubo lite version was made specifically to cater to chrome and manifest v3 if I’m not mistaken…

      In the end the author may have just felt it was too much energy keeping a pared down chrome version on Firefox when the full version is present and working. Especially after this particular drama.

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        3 months ago

        Some say the Lite one was good for mobile since it was lighter weight but I didn’t notice a difference tbh.

        • Übercomplicated@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Performance wise they should be identical, what matters is how many lists you have enabled, etc. If anything, performance-focused list management will result in more performance with ordinary uBO. Either way, gothill is a legend

          Edit: I’m wrong, apparently Lite can be faster on android after all

    • DigitalDilemma@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      This just makes me worried to rely on uBO but more because what if the author just fucks off because someone else pissed them off.

      That is very concerning to me, also.

      Large parts of the internet relying on one or two tiny one-man FOSS projects? (UBO and ADguard are often cited as the only two reliable-ish and safe adblockers)

      If he can’t be bothered with that nonsense, how secure is UBO’s future? How secure is the future of adblocking?

      I would bet that advertising companies are rubbing their hands now and planning to ramp up pressure against these poor devs.

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        I don’t think throwing a fit and it being a hissy fit are the same thing.

        • abbenm@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I don’t think throwing a fit and it being a hissy fit are the same thing.

          the things people will debate online

          edit: I beefed it on this one. They were being normal and I misunderstood. Note to self to think before typing in the future.

          • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            Throwing a fit can mean getting angry. It being a hissy fit would mean the cause was something childish and not serious.

            I’m not trying to debate it, if you look I’m the one who originally wrote the comment so I’m trying to explain what I meant.

    • Übercomplicated@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Lite is barely relevant for Firefox anyway. Gorhill (along with host list maintainers) is one of the saints of modern day open source; if he felt overwhelmed by Mozilla’s actions, and chose to just take Lite down from the extension store, he has every right to. No one should shit on someone who has given so much to the community.

    • rtxn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Mozilla can’t be trusted to host the addon, so the author is taking on the responsibility of hosting it himself. How is that his fault and not Mozilla’s?

      Whether Mozilla acted out of malice or incompetence is irrelevant. The report was false and the findings were incorrect, they have to be held responsible either way.

      • PonyOfWar@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I’d much rather have them be overzealous and mistakenly block an addon for a few hours, than have them be too lax and approve addons actually stealing data.

        • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          They also removed all previous versions except a very old one with known issues, thus exposing people to more danger than necessary in any way.

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Mozilla did apologize, said they were wrong and said they’d correct the issue. The author refused and decided not to put it back to AMO. At that points its on the author that it’s not AMO.

        • rtxn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          20
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Promises from a for-profit company don’t mean shit. How many times have you seen the “we’ve heard you and we’ll do better next time” routine, only for next time to be the same or worse? They’d promise you the pissing Sun if it meant more dollar signs.

          They’re empty words. No company will put out a statement saying “we fucked up, we’re sorry, it’s going to happen again”. Until Mozilla prove through actions that the issue is fixed, Hill is correct in distrusting them.

          • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            27
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            This is such a storm in a teacup. Someone making the manual checks at Mozilla fucked up and the situation was quickly admitted. I don’t know what else to wish, other than that the failure wouldn’t have happened in the first place. Sucks that it did.

            While I like a juicy conspiracy and fuck the sytsems and all, I don’t think they were lying when they said they saw that they’d put the addon back if gorhill just resubmitted it.

    • MyNameIsRichard@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      As the article says, only when it blew up. But you’re right, the author doesn’t look good either.

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        As the article says, only when it blew up.

        The article also seems to say that he didn’t bother to disprove the mistaken findings and so Mozilla might’ve not even heard anything back until it blew up. The whole thing seems to have happened pretty quickly.

        • MyNameIsRichard@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yeah, I know. If I was in a sensible mood this AM, I probably wouldn’t have started this chain. But if you look back to my first comment, I did say it was probably a coincidence.

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        That is the power of open source, but gorhill is a very respected and uncompromising maintainer so can be hard to find someone as good

    • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think they had reasons to act how they acted. They’re probably on a lot of pressure because the whole tech world is fighting ad blocking now.

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        There’s always some reason. I’m just worried that something happens with uBO and same happens there

        • mudmaniac@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Things always change in the world. Case in point being Lemmy and Federation. Whatever comes after uBO will never be like the same old thing, but we just keep on going forward and fondly remember the nice things we used to have, thanking those that worked tirelessly so we could enjoy those nice things.

          • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            This is a peaceful but not the best approach. Though we should always respect and thank the developers, we (if possible) shouldn’t just let things be replaced with worse alternatives all the time.

            • mudmaniac@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              God grant me the serenity

              To accept the things I cannot change;

              Courage to change the things I can;

              And wisdom to know the difference.