
Firefox Preview/GeckoView Add-Ons Support - Vinnl
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/10/23/fx-preview-geckoview-add-ons-support/
======
Vinnl
And here's the Issue for supporting uBlock Origin:
[https://github.com/mozilla-
mobile/fenix/issues/5630](https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/5630)

~~~
cyborgx7
I might switch from the current Firefox for Android (Fennec) when it supports
uBlock Origin. I'm not giving up adblocking anymore. It would also help to
have it available on F-Droid.

~~~
silon42
For me, it's uMatrix which I use more often as a general javascript blocker.

~~~
vanderZwan
It's really ridiculous how much faster websites are with those two add-ons
installed. Actually, faster isn't the right way to describe it, "how much dead
weight the internet has these days" feels much more apt.

~~~
djsumdog
Oddly enough, I always ran into performance issues when running uMatrix. I'd
turn off JavaScript by default though and only selectively enable it. That
seems like it should speed things up, but I'd often experience the opposite,
both on Vivaldi and Firefox.

~~~
jimbo1qaz
By default, uMatrix blocks Google Analytics, whereas uBlock Origin stubs it.
If both are installed (in my case), uMatrix often wins out. If Google
Analytics is blocked, many sites will spend 2 seconds on a white screen
waiting for Google Analytics to load.

------
mehdix
I love that they have moved the whole address bar to the bottom of the screen,
where my thumb can reach it easily.

~~~
Nagyman
This is a massive UX improvement for large screens. I wondered how long it
would take UX folks to make this change (along with moving app navigation to
the bottom generally).

Minor aside, they don't seem to support the <meta name="theme-color"
content="#000000"> to colour the address bar.

~~~
cpeterso
> they don't seem to support the <meta name="theme-color" content="#000000">
> to colour the address bar.

Do you consider that a bug or a feature? :) Some people wouldn't want the
website to mess with their app UI. I can file a Firefox Preview bug report.

~~~
cpeterso
Also, did Firefox for Android (Fennec) support <meta name="theme-color">? Or
is this a regression in Firefox Preview?

------
petepete
I've used it quite a bit over the last few months. It's a really positive
start and does lots of things right, I _really love_ the reader mode. It
allows me to bypass all the cookies nagging and just read an article without
fuss.

I'm not totally sold on the URL bar being at the bottom, and I kind of miss
the support for CSS theme-color, but I can see myself switching at some point.

~~~
Vinnl
FYI: regular Firefox for Android also has reader mode.

I still quite like Firefox Preview though. I'm not quite sure what you mean by
CSS theme-color, but if that refers to preferes-color-scheme: dark, then as
far as I can see it supports that? DuckDuckGo is dark for me.

------
maaaats
> _an early version of the new browser for Android that is built on top of
> Firefox’s own mobile browser engine, GeckoView._

Isn't the existing Android browser built on top of Firefox's own mobile
browser engine? Or am I reading this wrong?

~~~
jimbo1qaz
GeckoView is different from Gecko, which is already used by Firefox Android. I
heard GeckoView is closer to Android's WebView API and designed for easy
embedding into apps.

~~~
shakna
You're right, GeckoView [0] is a lot like WebView.

    
    
        GeckoView view = findViewById(R.id.geckoview);
        GeckoSession session = new GeckoSession();
        GeckoRuntime runtime = GeckoRuntime.create(this);
    
        session.open(runtime);
        view.setSession(session);
        session.loadUri("about:buildconfig");
    

[0]
[https://mozilla.github.io/geckoview/](https://mozilla.github.io/geckoview/)

~~~
cpeterso
Yes. GeckoView is currently used in Firefox Preview, Firefox Focus (on
Android), Firefox Reality (VR browser), and some Mozilla test apps. There are
a few third-party developers already using GeckoView to embed web content in
their apps.

One advantage of using GeckoView in your app instead of WebView is that you
know exactly which Gecko engine version and features are available; you don't
have to support old random WebView versions across different Android devices
and OS versions.

~~~
jimbo1qaz
>One advantage of using GeckoView in your app instead of WebView is that you
know exactly which Gecko engine version and features are available; you don't
have to support old random WebView versions across different Android devices
and OS versions.

Is this similar to how each Electron app uses a bundled version of Chromium
(which takes up disk space), as opposed to web apps which have to run in
whatever Chrome version (or other browser) the user has installed?

Firefox Focus on Android is quite a large app (132MB installed on my phone),
even though on my phone, it uses either Chrome or WebView (bundled Gecko is
disabled).

~~~
cpeterso
> Is this similar to how each Electron app uses a bundled version of Chromium
> (which takes up disk space),

At the moment, yes. In Android 10, Chrome and WebView are sharing common code
(a feature Google calls "Trichrome"), even though they are separate downloads,
so perhaps there is a way for GeckoView apps to share one GeckoView in the
future.

[https://www.xda-developers.com/google-chrome-no-longer-
webvi...](https://www.xda-developers.com/google-chrome-no-longer-webview-
provider-android-10/)

> Firefox Focus on Android is quite a large app (132MB installed on my phone),
> even though on my phone, it uses either Chrome or WebView (bundled Gecko is
> disabled).

Some Firefox Focus users were still getting WebView as part of an A/B test
comparing GeckoView to WebView. As of the latest release (Focus 8.0.23),
everyone should be getting GeckoView.

The Firefox Focus APK (with GeckoView) download size is about 38MB, but the
uncompressed footprint is larger.

~~~
jimbo1qaz
>As of the latest release (Focus 8.0.23), everyone should be getting
GeckoView.

Oh you're right.

------
bibyte
AFAIK there are only two browsers for Android that supports extensions.
Firefox and Kiwi Browser. Because of scrolling issues with Firefox I switched
to Kiwi Browser. It supports all desktop Chrome extensions and uBlock Origin
is working perfectly. I might switch to this if it supports all extensions.

~~~
windsurfer
What scrolling issues are you referring to? Perhaps they have been fixed

~~~
bibyte
Just installed it again to test it and you are right. The scrolling is now as
fast as Chromium. Many thanks.

------
AndrewDucker
Excellent news. I know this worried a few people, and not having them would
remove my major reason for using Firefox on mobile.

It's a shame it's going to be months until they get there, but hopefully I can
continue with the current Firefox on Mobile until then.

~~~
st3fan
Yes you can.

------
StevePerkins
Just started trying out Firefox Preview in response to seeing this post.
Firefox has SO many entries in the Google Play store (e.g. regular, Focus,
Preview, Nightly, Beta), I didn't really understand what this was.

An immediate concern is that the privacy settings are either dumbed-down, or
else altogether missing. I'm noticing a trend in Firefox across the various
devices and versions:

* FIREFOX FOR DESKTOP - The "settings" section allows you to block trackers, 3rd-party cookies, and fingerprinting.

* FIREFOX FOR ANDROID - The "settings" section allows you to block trackers and 3rd-party cookies. Fingerprint protection is possible, but hidden. You have to go to "about:config" and know how to enable it manually.

* FIREFOX PREVIEW FOR ANDROID - The "settings" section appears to be built for my Mom. It has a toggle for blocking trackers, and that's it.

Are more granular (or at least visible and understandable) privacy settings
coming in future releases, or is this just the UX direction? Why is Mozilla
making it so much harder to enable desktop-class protections on mobile
devices?

~~~
mncolinlee
> Are more granular (or at least visible and understandable) privacy settings
> coming in future releases, or is this just the UX direction? Why is Mozilla
> making it so much harder to enable desktop-class protections on mobile
> devices?

Yes, that release is imminent. Preview will include all of those settings. You
can try them right now by downloading Firefox Preview Nightly.

------
seren
I don't use Firefox Preview fully because of lack of login/password sync.

After looking at github, I understood that Fenix won't support Firefox Sync
for syncing login and passwords, but will rely on Firefox Lockwise, and is the
way forward. It this correct ?

edit : added a precision regarding firefox sync for passwords

~~~
mintplant
Firefox Lockwise is built on Firefox Sync and (IIRC) will eventually become
the built-in password manager on Firefox desktop.

~~~
lorenzhs
It did with Firefox 70, which was released a few days ago.

------
montroser
It has that persistent toolbar at the bottom with no way to hide it. I wish I
could have those pixels back.

~~~
rehemiau
Isn't there an option to hide it when scrolling down?

edit: It's supposed to do that automatically, if it doesn't - I think you
could report an issue.

~~~
mintplant
Firefox for Android (Fennec), yes. Firefox Preview (Fenix), no.

~~~
Vinnl
Firefox Preview does it by default.

~~~
mintplant
Still no. Apparently this is temporary until they can properly implement it
post-MVP release [0].

[0] [https://github.com/mozilla-
mobile/fenix/issues/2689](https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/2689)

~~~
Vinnl
Oh thanks, I didn't notice that it stopped doing that. (I didn't really like
it anyway - having it appear at the bottom when scrolling up felt weird.)

------
michaelmrose
Are recommended extensions merely curation designed to help users find high
quality extensions/themes or are recommended extensions going to ultimately be
the only ones available in future versions of firefox mobile?

------
maverick74
Well, this means that I won't be able to use it until next year...

Lack of add-ons and lack of user specified search engines is a must have to
me...

------
anotheryou
So what's the trick to install add-ons right now? Either I break things or it
works, won't use it without add-ons anyways.

------
snek
_fondly thinks back to the launch of firefox preview where hn was convinced
that them not explicitly mentioning extensions in their first quarter goals
meant they weren 't ever going to have them and the end of the world was
coming_

~~~
Faark
Yes, and you can likely thank the backlash / such comments for this change of
heart. Oh, you were implying they always highly valued Addons for their new
FF? I don't see anything in this blog post supporting that stance.

~~~
pcwalton
I don't know anyone who works here who doesn't use addons all the time.

~~~
Faark
Maybe its just me being disgruntled / fondly remembering the XUL days (pre
multi-process in 2008ish was when I was messing around with it) were it felt
like addons could anything. The possibilities seem way more restrictive now
that there only seems to be a specific list of white-listed api's. Scaling
that back even more for performance and (somewhat justified _) security
reasons seemed like the next natural step.

Anyway, I'm thankful for leaving a comment.

_ At the same time, all Addons I've installed right now require "Access your
data for all websites", making absolute trust in the developer / reviewer
necessary.

------
lukaa
Firefox Preview is great but I don't understand why it doesn't have night mode
and neither one of Firefoxes. Today night mode is standard for almost all of
the applications and that's the only reason why I simply can not switch to
Firefox completely. Btw, don't say that addons are good for since they only
switch text in dark not UI. Even Chrome now allows UI to change to dark not
just text.

~~~
amjd
Firefox Preview supports dark mode for UI. You can switch between light, dark
or follow the device theme.

~~~
lukaa
But it doesn't have ability to make text dark so again there is no dark mode.

~~~
bepvte
Websites are complex, you cannot make a script that edits every page to make
it both dark and readable when things like the background could be light
colored images and fonts that are permanently dark exist

~~~
noisem4ker
It's actually feasible for most websites, with surprisingly good results. CSS
tricks go a long way, even if the website doesn't support prefers-color-
scheme.

Give this addon a try (on desktop or mobile Fennec only, obviously): Dark
Background and Light Text [0]

[0] [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/dark-
backgrou...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/dark-background-
light-text/)

------
dessant
Meanwhile Mozilla is attempting to prevent users with administrative access
from installing private extensions in the release version of Firefox,
extensions for which the source code has not been handed over to Mozilla for
signing.

[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1514451](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1514451)

~~~
st3fan
Yes whenever Mozilla announces something exciting that could get some positive
feedback, be sure to use the opportunity to complain about something
unrelated.

~~~
dessant
Locking down Firefox to not allow installing private extensions is not
unrelated to extension support.

~~~
Spivak
So install the developer edition? Yes it’s a little more annoying for people
who want private extensions but you’re forgetting that we’re in a small
minority and this change is a massive win for security and privacy overall.

This site is full of threads talking about how friends, family, and coworkers’
browsers are riddled with badware that was installed behind their backs.

~~~
dessant
Again, this change prevents _regular_ users from configuring Firefox the way
they want. We should not need to install the developer edition, which is based
on Firefox Beta, or an unbranded build that does not auto-update to be able to
run local extensions in our browsers.

Not even Google is this heavy-handed, they allow installing local extensions
in Chrome after users enable an option, although a warning is shown on browser
restarts about the presence of external extensions, which can be dismissed.

Why not have sensible defaults, then educate and warn users about certain
actions, instead of treating them like cattle?

~~~
Vinnl
You can load local extensions in Firefox as well with warnings:
[https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/Tools/about:debuggi...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/Tools/about:debugging#This_Firefox)

And has been pointed out in most of these threads, the reason for not allowing
people to circumvent some things is because that also allows malicious
software to circumvent it.

~~~
dessant
> You can load local extensions in Firefox as well with warnings

Extensions loaded in about:debugging are not persistent, they are removed at
the end of the browsing session.

> And has been pointed out in most of these threads, the reason for not
> allowing people to circumvent some things is because that also allows
> malicious software to circumvent it.

Yes, and the discussion mostly ends after people point out that malware if
free to circumvent extension signing in any number of ways when it has root
access on the device.

The threat model is flawed, or at the very least they're placing _minimal_
security benefits above important user liberties.

Forcing extension signing by default is a great initiative, but we must be
given ways to override defaults, guarded by administrative access and
appropiate warnings, and be able to install local extensions in the browser we
love, and that is the release version of Firefox.

~~~
Vinnl
> when it has root access on the device.

But that's a big if. Extensions can be installed without root access, and can
wreck a lot of havoc. I'd also dare to state the the organisation with the
best insight into the extent of security benefits is the organisation that has
data on the number and nature of exploits, i.e. Mozilla.

> we must be given ways to override defaults, guarded by administrative access
> and appropiate warnings, and be able to install local extensions

Guarded by administrative access sounds reasonable, and I think that's even
already possible with Firefox ESR? I'd also consider an unbranded version of
Firefox equal to the branded one, with the unbrandedness being an "appropriate
warning". It does need to support auto-updating first, though.

