> Even if the answer to these questions is "no", the fact that I'm asking them is the barrier to entry.
Fair enough. The answers, for the record, are indeed "yes" (but that takes, what, 30 seconds?), "no", and (at least not severely) "no".
But apparently even non-Nightly Firefox for Android supports xpinstall.signatures.required = false, which is even less of a barrier to entry, so that's good news, I guess. While I understand Mozilla's reasoning for not wanting a bunch of people to set this and forget about it, it's a bit ridiculous that not once did they mention it aside from a "don't do this thing that we're not going to specify because it's a hack" (of course it's a hack, and it's one that got me up and running again long before there was even a fix via Studies).
> The answers, for the record, are indeed "yes" (but that takes, what, 30 seconds?), "no", and (at least not severely) "no".
Yeah, the last two would have been the broader deal breakers. The first one is just an issue for me personally - I don't know my sync password. I have it written down at home, but I'm not there right now.
Fair enough. The answers, for the record, are indeed "yes" (but that takes, what, 30 seconds?), "no", and (at least not severely) "no".
But apparently even non-Nightly Firefox for Android supports xpinstall.signatures.required = false, which is even less of a barrier to entry, so that's good news, I guess. While I understand Mozilla's reasoning for not wanting a bunch of people to set this and forget about it, it's a bit ridiculous that not once did they mention it aside from a "don't do this thing that we're not going to specify because it's a hack" (of course it's a hack, and it's one that got me up and running again long before there was even a fix via Studies).