Autoblocking addons now??? ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

[PCMasterRace]

So I guess PaleMoon now automatically disables any addons it thinks are security risks or cause instability. Is there no way to enable an addon when this happens? If not, that is some real BS.
I expect this crap from Chrome and FF, but not from PM. It is absurd to block an addon and then not give the user any option to turn it back on. Custom Toolbars Plus works fine, there is no security risk, and there is no instability either, or at least anything that I find unacceptable. What IS unacceptable is PM forcing me to stop using it. The awesome customization it offers is one of the main reasons I use PM over others. PM is not even close to being the fastest browser, or the most compatible either. That's not why I use PM. I use it because it lets me make it my own, with my own GUI tweaks and addons of my choice.

http://blocklist.palemoon.org/info/?id=pm111

[PCMasterRace]

I HAVE to be able to enable Custom Toolbars Plus. I had a TON of bookmarks in a custom toolbar. If I can't bring that toolbar back, then those bookmarks are all lost. PLEASE someone help me get CTP back!

[Moonchild]

You can calm down, first and foremost.

The extension was blocked because it simply breaks the browser. The extension developer needs to fix it; in its current state, when installed, it not only can, but will, remove access to the application menu and in general cause UI issues of such severity that the browser becomes unusable. Yes, this was verified on a new installation and by several people.

Once the extension developer publishes a new version with the current usability issues fixed, your installed copy can be reinstated.

See also the description you yourself linked to.

It's not absurd to block an extension when it breaks the browser. If you think it is, then you need to do a reality check.
Also, if you had paid attention to anything in the release notes, then you would know that we have a convenient way for you to take your own fate into your own hands, see Options -> Security -> Add-on security level. If you MUST have this broken extension right now, then you need to switch it to "off". Remember to set it back to default once no longer needed, as we will not provide any support for configurations with known-problematic extensions installed/enabled.

[PCMasterRace]

I have had NO issues with it whatsoever. I don't see any "breaks the browser" issues that you describe. Does it break it only on the newest version? I have not installed the new version specifically because of this and another extension I use a lot. If this is the case, you should make it the users choice whether or not to disable it and not just make that decision for us. Is there someway I can enable it through about:config.
I see that addition you posted, thanks for the info. I understand that it might be a bit buggy, but I will deal with it and disable if it becomes intolerable. Plus I've got to get those bookmarks, I don't know where they went.
Again, thanks for that info.

[Moonchild]

If it breaks the browser then we damn well MUST make that call.

Also, by the way: because the developer has an updateURL in the extension which is invalid.. users won't get any automatic updates.
So everyone who uses the extension will have to manually install the new version if/when it is released.

By all means, DO complain to the extension developer to fix it and test things before pushing it out to the public.

There are VERY few restrictions to add-ons for Pale Moon.. one is not to use updateURL if hosted on the add-ons site; two is that the extension has to work and three that the extension isn't harmful.

[redblade7]

I have had NO issues with it whatsoever. I don't see any "breaks the browser" issues that you describe.

Pale Moon is also blocking addons now because of the developer's personal opinions/pocketbooks, see this thread about the blocking of AdNauseam (which isn't even given press on the incompatible addons page). So when it comes to the Pale Moon blocklist setting (Security->Add-on security level), trust your own ethics, values, opinions, and Web browsing needs first and foremost.

I have the setting on High as I don't need any blacklisted addons. (Yet...?) Your wants and needs may differ.

[Thehandyman1957]

Good grief, you guys act like the world is coming to an end.

Moonchild has every right (and should) to block something that is causing an issue with the browser.

You act like your the only one using this browser. What about all those who would not know what was

wrong with their browser because he did not take the steps to keep the browser working right?

Do you want to take the time out of your life to help all those folks? No, didn't think so.

The fact that he still makes it possible for you to turn it back on is what truly makes him different than any of the others.

Go to now, find another browser anywhere that gives you what PM does. You won't find it because it does not exist.

As for the other issue viewtopic.php?f=46&t=16504

Every person anywhere has the right to stand for what he or she or it believes in.

Freedom of speech seems to be ok until someone else uses it in a way you disagree with.

It's a two way street. I bet most of you don't have a clue of the cost to run a web site do you.

Where would you get the funding? Nothing is free in this world. Somebody somewhere is paying for it.

Either in labor, or financial every free thing you use cost somebody something.

I don't like the way advertisers do things but when a add on starts harming normal folks and making a bad name

for a browser that someone else paid the price to make then he has every right to say so and defend his work.

And not just for himself but for others that rely on this browser.

What would happen if all of a sudden you found yourself being blocked because your browser agent string said it was PM?

What would happen to the project as a whole? Do you even consider any of these things before you go on your little rant

about how your being abused and he is running your life.

The fact that he even allows you to simply bypass this block with a small tweak and tells you how you can do it says volumes.

Find another browser anywhere that will allow you to do that! I bet you can't. So quit blowing this so far out of proportion.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Right.. So I am starting a trend here.. ANYWAY.. Hi, I'm the New Tobin Paradigm. I used to think I was a big deal around here. Not so much these days... However, while I am not in charge of anything anymore I am still working behind the scenes from time to time here and there coding up things that benefit everyone that very few people know about.

One of these is continued development of Project Phoebus. The software that drives the Add-ons Site, as per my continued promise when I stepped down of being in charge of anything last year. As part of the continued development of free and open source software that drives a free service at negative cash flow to my self personally.. I gained the ability to parse the install.rdf file inside of add-ons to extract metadata such as the minVersion and maxVersion of a Pale Moon targetApplication block of an add-on.

With this new capability, I devised and put into place various safety and sanity checks on install.rdf just as any Add-ons Site service would do using a status system I also devised using that. The new status component allows the Add-ons Team to see various warnings and errors when parsing the various manifest files. It is very useful in debugging and development of the software its self.

This is what presented the presence of three add-ons that had updateURL tags in install.rdf. One has already been dealt with swiftly and quickly to the developer's credit. The other two add-ons with red flag errors were the one mentioned in this thread and another by the same developer.

The Add-ons Team and Moonchild him self were notified of this when the issue was made apparent because I just finished coding the detection case for this issue. Of course I also installed the offending extensions to provide as much info I could for my report. One his extensions was fine except for the updateURL tag. The other, however, was busted rather spectacularly. All the previous versions also had the offending updateURL tag which was simply a URL to his homepage.. This means not only did he have an updateURL tag that isn't allowed.. It was invalid which means there would be no way for the Add-ons Manager to update the extensions and indeed spewed its own error messages about it in the Toolkit Error Console.

I made my report. They checked it out.. My recommendation was that because the extension was busted with no way to get updates that it should be placed on the blocklist. The detection code on the Add-ons Site side would render the add-on inactive, a null response, until such time as the developer resolved the issue.

I honestly hope the developer of these add-ons will issue fixed updates and inform his users that they do need to update manually from the Add-ons Site. They are rather nifty add-ons to have.. However, that does not negate the fact that the proper people, in the proper place, made the proper decision.

tl;dr If you want to blame someone who is not the developer who created this situation.. Go ahead and blame me for finally getting around to coding some actual validation checks for the Add-ons Site software and for making the recommendation.

And remember boys and girls, while I retreat back into the shadows.. I may be out of sight but I am never gone.

Peace.

[mseliger]

If you want to have controls over the add-ons you may change your preferences in about:config.

extensions.blocklist.enabled: false
extensions.blocklist.url:
and you can remove the file blocklist.xml from your profile.

It's your choice.

But it would be helpful if there is a webpage on Pale Moon where anyone can see, which extensions are blocked and why.

[Moonchild]

@redblade7: don't drag unrelated things into this.

Off-topic:
AdNauseam was blocked because it's harmful. That is just as valid a reason to get on the blocklist as spectacularly breaking the browser's UI. Everything has already been said on that topic and then some, so don't dredge it back up.

@mseliger: We have Options -> Security -> Add-on Security Level for this. No need to putter around with about:config to change your risk level.

[Moonchild]

But it would be helpful if there is a webpage on Pale Moon where anyone can see, which extensions are blocked and why.

It's already available from the clickable "more information" links on blocked add-ons.
Creating and maintaining a separate site with all that information for your browsing pleasure would really be a burden nobody has time for.

[redblade7]

But it would be helpful if there is a webpage on Pale Moon where anyone can see, which extensions are blocked and why.

It's already available from the clickable "more information" links on blocked add-ons.
Creating and maintaining a separate site with all that information for your browsing pleasure would really be a burden nobody has time for.

Are addons added to the blacklist more often than non-blacklisted addons on the working/broken/wontfix addon support page?

[redblade7]

Where would you get the funding? Nothing is free in this world. Somebody somewhere is paying for it.

Either in labor, or financial every free thing you use cost somebody something.

I've said in the past on the forum, and this still stands, that I'd be willing to pay money for a Web browser that is publicly audited/auditable ("shared source") for privacy and security, and respects personal and economic freedom without mandatory blacklisting or forcing third-party developers and users to do things. If Pale Moon decided to go the route of an free "adware browser" with mandatory blacklisting, tracking, and advertisements vs. a "premium browser" you would pay for and have total freedom, and it was proven private and secure according to a shared source model (which I believe Pale Moon's binary license already is), I'd be willing to pay money for a premium Pale Moon browser as I just described.

[redblade7]

Where would you get the funding? Nothing is free in this world. Somebody somewhere is paying for it.

Either in labor, or financial every free thing you use cost somebody something.

I've said in the past on the forum, and this still stands, that I'd be willing to pay money for a Web browser that is publicly audited/auditable ("shared source") for privacy and security, and respects personal and economic freedom without mandatory blacklisting or forcing third-party developers and users to do things. If Pale Moon decided to go the route of an free "adware browser" with mandatory blacklisting, tracking, and advertisements vs. a "premium browser" you would pay for and have total freedom, and it was proven private and secure according to a shared source model (which I believe Pale Moon's binary license already is), I'd be willing to pay money for a premium Pale Moon browser as I just described.

Somewhat relevant is this video I ran across not too long ago about social networking sites being free, which said that an ad-free, tracking-free, pro-privacy Facebook would only cost $12/mo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pFX2P7JLwA

[Thehandyman1957]

I will agree with you 100% that I would rather pay for something great than get junk for free.

And that comment really applies to the Linux World. What I wouldn't give for a paid for working version of Linux that works like windows.

The sad part is, even some of the stuff I pay for isn't always made the way I like.

Pale Moon is simply the best out there for this kind of thing and I'm super glad he decided to

put forth the effort, time and money so we still had a choice.

I simply would not have had anything else out there that even compares since FF sold the pooch.

I seriously don't think after all this time that he's going to turn the browser into a lock down junk.

I have been here awhile, and that's not his M.O.

Like I said before, at least he still allows folks to change the settings so they can indeed use what they want.

And it keeps those who simply don't really know anything about the inner workings of a browser from having issues.

I would say that's more than fair.