Looking at the diff[1], this seems to remove Yandex-, Odnoklassniki-, and Mail.Ru-related bundled bookmarks and extensions (that apparently exist in some build configurations?), if this removes the search option as well it does not seem obvious.
(The editorialized submission title is obviously against HN guidelines, but it’s unclear what should be done about it if the original page title is purposefully obscure—and it does seem to be, even given what I said above. Wait for independent reporting to use a more straightforward one?..)
Not sure it’s the right patch though. (Does a search engine need an extension to support being used for omnibox search? It might.) In any case, the two ultimate sources of the linked report seem to be:
Grigory Bakunov[1] (ex-Yandex) observes Yandex has been removed (but e.g. OZON is still there): https://t.me/addmeto/4782 (ru, but basically amounts to a screenshot)
Mozilla posts a vague note saying the “default search engine” (NB: omnibox default, not just installation default) may change in Firefox 98, no specific engines are named: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/search-engine-removal (en)
> Does a search engine need an extension to support being used for omnibox search? It might.
No, IIRC it just needs to have an appropriate OpenSearch xml file to have support for omnibox. I use a third-party engine that isn't bundled in FF and it works fine in omnibox.
Ok, I've done that above. Submitted title was "Firefox removed Yandex search option (and used misleading bug name to hide)".
Submitters: if you want to say what you think is important about an article, that's fine, but do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
Yes. Firefox removed Yandex Search Option is a fact, what is in the parens is OP's personal opinion. Unfortunately the submission has been flagged already. Not sure why though, I think some users are flagging it.
(The editorialized submission title is obviously against HN guidelines, but it’s unclear what should be done about it if the original page title is purposefully obscure—and it does seem to be, even given what I said above. Wait for independent reporting to use a more straightforward one?..)
[1] https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/a03a9c72d1db