Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.software.firefox > #12681 > unrolled thread

Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted"

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.software.firefox

Contents

  Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-03-14 20:06 -0700
    Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" Reiner Schug <schugo@schugo.de> - 2025-03-15 04:17 +0100
    Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-03-15 04:42 +0100
      Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-03-14 21:56 -0700
        Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" Reiner Schug <schugo@schugo.de> - 2025-03-15 06:01 +0100
          Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-03-14 22:05 -0700
        Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-03-14 22:03 -0700
        Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-03-15 14:21 +0100
          Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-03-15 14:44 +0100
          Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-03-15 14:39 +0000
            Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-03-15 15:02 +0000
              Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-16 06:04 -0500
              Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-03-16 15:09 +0100
          Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> - 2025-03-15 11:23 -0700
          Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-16 05:57 -0500
      Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2025-03-15 06:57 +0000
        Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-03-15 13:06 +0000
    Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-03-15 07:55 +0100
      Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-03-15 13:36 -0500
        Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-03-15 19:45 +0100
          Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" None <none@none.none> - 2025-03-15 14:43 -0500
            Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-03-15 21:15 +0100
          Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-03-15 16:07 -0500
            Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-16 21:24 -0500
              Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-03-17 13:12 -0500
                Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-18 01:42 -0500
                  Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-03-18 11:41 -0500
                    Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-18 23:28 -0500
                    Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-18 23:41 -0500
                    Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-18 23:59 -0500
                      Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-03-19 13:46 -0500
                        Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" Reiner Schug <schugo@schugo.de> - 2025-03-19 21:08 +0100
                        Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-19 20:43 -0500
                          Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-03-20 09:31 -0500
                            Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-20 13:25 -0500
                          Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-03-20 21:39 -0500
                            Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-21 02:11 -0500
                              Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-03-21 11:53 -0500
                                Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-03-21 13:46 -0500
                                  Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" Reiner Schug <schugo@schugo.de> - 2025-03-22 14:50 +0100
                                  Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-22 13:40 -0500
                                    Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" Reiner Schug <schugo@schugo.de> - 2025-03-22 20:59 +0100
                                      Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-22 15:13 -0500
                                    Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-03-23 10:27 -0500
                                Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-22 04:40 -0500
          Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" "David E. Ross" <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2025-03-15 18:03 -0700
            Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-03-16 03:19 +0100
              Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-03-15 23:45 -0700
                Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-16 20:31 -0500
        Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-03-15 21:20 +0100
      Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-03-15 12:25 -0700
        Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-03-15 21:24 +0100
          Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-03-15 23:40 -0700
        Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-16 06:09 -0500
          Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-03-16 09:57 -0500
            Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-03-16 15:11 +0000
              Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-03-17 13:06 -0500
          Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" "David E. Ross" <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2025-03-16 09:13 -0700
            Re: Suddenly all extensions are deemed "corrupted" gym <no_one@example.net> - 2025-03-16 20:25 -0500

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#12846

On 3/21/2025 1:46 PM, jetjock wrote:
> gym, one more question for you please.
> 
> I just installed 115.21.0esr on wife's Win 10 machine. Everything went
> very smoothly...even smoother than my update. It activated all her
> addons, albeit with a warning (not a problem), and even put the tabs
> on the bottom using the already installed userChrome.css file.
> 
> My question is, when I checked about Firefox in Help it suggested I
> update to 128.8.0esr. Is this the last version that works in Win 10
> like 115.21.0esr does in Win7? Should I update or leave well enough
> alone? Thanks!
> 
>       >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<

 >> I just installed 115.21.0esr on wife's Win 10 machine.... <<

According to Mozilla, Firefox 115.21.0 ESR is only supported on Windows 
7, 8 and 8.1. Users on other OSes are advised to install Firefox 128 ESR 
(or the release version) instead. So your wife is on an unsupported 
version of Firefox!

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/115.21.0/releasenotes/
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/115.21.0/system-requirements/

Also, since your wife is on Win 10, she does not need to run an ESR 
version (unless she wants to). She could run the latest release version, 
which is Firefox 136.0.2. The latest ESR version is 128.8.0.

I suggest you or your wife research the new features and the differences 
between the two versions. A lot has changed since 115.

 >> Is this the last version that works in Win 10 like 115.21.0esr does 
in Win7? <<

Firefox 115 is the last supported Firefox version that works in Win7. 
But Firefox 115.21.0 ESR is not the last version. It is just the latest 
Firefox 115 ESR version. Firefox 115.22 ESR is scheduled to be released 
on April 1, Firefox 115.23 ESR on April 29, Firefox 115.24 ESR on May 27 
etc. Mozilla said that it will continue to support Firefox on Win7 until 
at least September 2025 and it will reevaluate in August. If that holds, 
Firefox 115.27 ESR would be the last version, but that may change.

Firefox 128 or Firefox 136 does not work on Win7. Note that Firefox 138 
for Windows 7 that Reiner linked to is NOT an official Firefox release 
from Mozilla. It is a patched version from China.

https://github.com/e3kskoy7wqk

 >> It activated all her addons, albeit with a warning (not a problem),,, <<

Do you have extension signing disabled on your wife's machine?

With Firefox 115.21.0 ESR, this is not necessary because it has the new 
root certificate.

The following preference does not need to be set to false:

xpinstall.signatures.required

It can remain at the default setting of true.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12847

On 22.03.2025 19:40, gym wrote:
> On 3/21/2025 1:46 PM, jetjock wrote:
> ...
> Firefox 128 or Firefox 136 does not work on Win7. Note that Firefox 138 
> for Windows 7 that Reiner linked to is NOT an official Firefox release 
> from Mozilla. It is a patched version from China.
> 
> https://github.com/e3kskoy7wqk

"from China" doesn't mean it's evil.

Works fine for me. No evil.

ciao...

P.S.: Since 01/2025 USA is more evil to me than China.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12848

On 3/22/2025 2:59 PM, Reiner Schug wrote:
> On 22.03.2025 19:40, gym wrote:
>> On 3/21/2025 1:46 PM, jetjock wrote:
>> ...
>> Firefox 128 or Firefox 136 does not work on Win7. Note that Firefox 138
>> for Windows 7 that Reiner linked to is NOT an official Firefox release
>> from Mozilla. It is a patched version from China.
>>
>> https://github.com/e3kskoy7wqk
> 
> "from China" doesn't mean it's evil.
> 
> Works fine for me. No evil.
> 
> ciao...
> 
> P.S.: Since 01/2025 USA is more evil to me than China.
> 

No, it doesn't, but you have no way of knowing. There's a lot of private 
information that goes through a browser, especially if you engage in 
online banking, shopping, medical portals, etc. It's a risk I personally 
would not want to take. Others may feel differently.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12857

On Sat, 22 Mar 2025 13:40:01 -0500, gym <no_one@example.net> wrote:

>On 3/21/2025 1:46 PM, jetjock wrote:
>> gym, one more question for you please.
>> 
>> I just installed 115.21.0esr on wife's Win 10 machine. Everything went
>> very smoothly...even smoother than my update. It activated all her
>> addons, albeit with a warning (not a problem), and even put the tabs
>> on the bottom using the already installed userChrome.css file.
>> 
>> My question is, when I checked about Firefox in Help it suggested I
>> update to 128.8.0esr. Is this the last version that works in Win 10
>> like 115.21.0esr does in Win7? Should I update or leave well enough
>> alone? Thanks!
>> 
>>       >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
>
> >> I just installed 115.21.0esr on wife's Win 10 machine.... <<
>
>According to Mozilla, Firefox 115.21.0 ESR is only supported on Windows 
>7, 8 and 8.1. Users on other OSes are advised to install Firefox 128 ESR 
>(or the release version) instead. So your wife is on an unsupported 
>version of Firefox!

See below.
>
>https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/115.21.0/releasenotes/
>https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/115.21.0/system-requirements/
>
>Also, since your wife is on Win 10, she does not need to run an ESR 
>version (unless she wants to). She could run the latest release version, 
>which is Firefox 136.0.2. The latest ESR version is 128.8.0.

I installed 128.8.0 on my sister's computer yesterday via TeamViewer
(she lives in Las Vegas and is almost 91 so I'm her IT guy). Will
update wife's today. 

Decided to try it to see if it would work and it did. Clicked on the
"update to 128" button in "help" "About Firefox" and after it
installed it said to restart which I did. After restarting FF it still
said she had 115 no matter how many times I restarted it. Finally just
downloaded 128.8.0esr from the ftp site, installed it and was finally
told she had 128. Strange!!
>
>I suggest you or your wife research the new features and the differences 
>between the two versions. A lot has changed since 115.
>
> >> Is this the last version that works in Win 10 like 115.21.0esr does 
>in Win7? <<
>
>Firefox 115 is the last supported Firefox version that works in Win7. 
>But Firefox 115.21.0 ESR is not the last version. It is just the latest 
>Firefox 115 ESR version. Firefox 115.22 ESR is scheduled to be released 
>on April 1, Firefox 115.23 ESR on April 29, Firefox 115.24 ESR on May 27 
>etc. Mozilla said that it will continue to support Firefox on Win7 until 
>at least September 2025 and it will reevaluate in August. If that holds, 
>Firefox 115.27 ESR would be the last version, but that may change.

This is very bad news! I was really hoping that installing the "last"
version of the esr would mean that it really was the "last version".
This was not a problem until Mozilla disabled the ability to block the
update nag. Has anyone been able to find a work-around to block this
constant nagging to update? I told my sister that she wouldn't have to
worry about the constant nagging anymore! :-( That's why I gave her
(and wife) the esr version; to stop the constant updates of the
release versions.
>
>Firefox 128 or Firefox 136 does not work on Win7. Note that Firefox 138 
>for Windows 7 that Reiner linked to is NOT an official Firefox release 
>from Mozilla. It is a patched version from China.
>
>https://github.com/e3kskoy7wqk
>
> >> It activated all her addons, albeit with a warning (not a problem),,, <<
>
>Do you have extension signing disabled on your wife's machine?

I'll have to check on that. I have it on mine, but as you say, it's
not needed now. FF did re-enable all wife's extensions even though she
was on an "unsupported version; 115 vs 128. Maybe updating to 128 will
remove the warning.
>
>With Firefox 115.21.0 ESR, this is not necessary because it has the new 
>root certificate.
>
>The following preference does not need to be set to false:
>
>xpinstall.signatures.required
>
>It can remain at the default setting of true.

     >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12834

On 3/21/2025 11:53 AM, jetjock wrote:
> Just went straight for the jugular, so to speak. Once you said it
> would not destroy my profile I just figured the easy way would be the
> best. Only problem encountered was the tabs on top. The .css
> workaround didn't work until I found a post about changing two lines
> in it which worked great. Here's a link to the post if anyone is
> interested.
> https://www.reddit.com/r/FirefoxCSS/comments/13ckx1r/firefox_113_tabs_under_address_bar_how_to_do_this/
> 
> Scroll down to "The_Wkwied" post for the lines to change. Just replace
> the two lines totally with the text shown.
> 
> 
>       >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<

These Firefox GUI changes often occur with version updates, especially 
major version updates. Fortunately, there always seems to be someone 
either here or on one of the Firefox support forums that has CSS coding 
to work around them. Even more fortunately, Mozilla still allows it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12716

On 3/15/2025 11:45 AM, Frank Miller wrote:
> jetjock wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 07:55:36 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
>> wrote:
> 
>>> My (ancient version of) FF has a(n about:config) setting to ignore signing 
>>> of extensions.  Maybe your version of FF still has the same ?
> 
>>   Would it be possible to be more specific about the about:config
>> setting referenced above? Thankfully, my 108.0.1 64 bit on Win 7, is
>> still working but I'd like to be prepared should it stop. 
>>
>>  I looked, but didn't see any setting that I could be confident was
>> the right one. Don't like messing with things if I don't know what I'm
>> messing with!  :-)
> 
> https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-on-signing-in-firefox?as=u&utm_source=inproduct#w_what-can-i-do-if-firefox-disables-an-installed-add-on
> 

I had the extension uBlock Origin installed in Firefox 115.0.
Yesterday, I noticed the icon for it had disappeared from the upper
right corner of the Firefox window.  Today, I looked at Firefox's
Add-ons Manager and saw that uBlock was disabled.

I followed the link given above and set "xpinstall.signatures.required"
to false.  Then I went to the Web site for uBlock Origin and requested
to install the extension.  It installed version 1.62.0, and I got the
icon.

When I terminated Firefox and later launched it again, the icon was
gone.  The Add-ons Manager showed uBlock disabled.  I checked via
about:config and saw that "xpinstall.signatures.required" was indeed
false.  I tried installing uBlock again from its Web site but got a
message that the extension was corrupt.

-- 

David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/

History repeats --
Ukraine now: Czechoslovakia in 1938
Crimea: Sudetenland
Putin: Hitler
Donald Trump: Neville Chamberlain

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12718

David E. Ross wrote:
> On 3/15/2025 11:45 AM, Frank Miller wrote:
>> jetjock wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 07:55:36 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>> 
>>>> My (ancient version of) FF has a(n about:config) setting to ignore signing 
>>>> of extensions.  Maybe your version of FF still has the same ?
>> 
>>>   Would it be possible to be more specific about the about:config
>>> setting referenced above? Thankfully, my 108.0.1 64 bit on Win 7, is
>>> still working but I'd like to be prepared should it stop. 
>>>
>>>  I looked, but didn't see any setting that I could be confident was
>>> the right one. Don't like messing with things if I don't know what I'm
>>> messing with!  :-)
>> 
>> https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-on-signing-in-firefox?as=u&utm_source=inproduct#w_what-can-i-do-if-firefox-disables-an-installed-add-on
>> 
> 
> I had the extension uBlock Origin installed in Firefox 115.0.
> Yesterday, I noticed the icon for it had disappeared from the upper
> right corner of the Firefox window.  Today, I looked at Firefox's
> Add-ons Manager and saw that uBlock was disabled.
> 
> I followed the link given above and set "xpinstall.signatures.required"
> to false.  Then I went to the Web site for uBlock Origin and requested
> to install the extension.  It installed version 1.62.0, and I got the
> icon.
> 
> When I terminated Firefox and later launched it again, the icon was
> gone.  The Add-ons Manager showed uBlock disabled.  I checked via
> about:config and saw that "xpinstall.signatures.required" was indeed
> false.  I tried installing uBlock again from its Web site but got a
> message that the extension was corrupt.

The support for FF 115 is dropped in August this year anyway.
So get used to the fact that you have to use a real ancient FF or an
up to date FF then. More flexible configuration versus more security.
It's your choice.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12724

On 3/15/25 7:19 PM, Frank Miller wrote:
> David E. Ross wrote:
>> On 3/15/2025 11:45 AM, Frank Miller wrote:
>>> jetjock wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 07:55:36 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> My (ancient version of) FF has a(n about:config) setting to ignore signing 
>>>>> of extensions.  Maybe your version of FF still has the same ?
>>> 
>>>>   Would it be possible to be more specific about the about:config
>>>> setting referenced above? Thankfully, my 108.0.1 64 bit on Win 7, is
>>>> still working but I'd like to be prepared should it stop. 
>>>>
>>>>  I looked, but didn't see any setting that I could be confident was
>>>> the right one. Don't like messing with things if I don't know what I'm
>>>> messing with!  :-)
>>> 
>>> https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-on-signing-in-firefox?as=u&utm_source=inproduct#w_what-can-i-do-if-firefox-disables-an-installed-add-on
>>> 
>> 
>> I had the extension uBlock Origin installed in Firefox 115.0.
>> Yesterday, I noticed the icon for it had disappeared from the upper
>> right corner of the Firefox window.  Today, I looked at Firefox's
>> Add-ons Manager and saw that uBlock was disabled.
>> 
>> I followed the link given above and set "xpinstall.signatures.required"
>> to false.  Then I went to the Web site for uBlock Origin and requested
>> to install the extension.  It installed version 1.62.0, and I got the
>> icon.
>> 
>> When I terminated Firefox and later launched it again, the icon was
>> gone.  The Add-ons Manager showed uBlock disabled.  I checked via
>> about:config and saw that "xpinstall.signatures.required" was indeed
>> false.  I tried installing uBlock again from its Web site but got a
>> message that the extension was corrupt.
> 
> The support for FF 115 is dropped in August this year anyway.
> So get used to the fact that you have to use a real ancient FF or an
> up to date FF then. More flexible configuration versus more security.
> It's your choice.

No, it's not.  I lost a lot of flexible configuration around version 52 
and decided I had lost enough and stuck at version 82.  I've never had a 
security problem, and I've been using FF/TB since Netscape .9.


-- 
Cheers, Bev
    "I just realized how bad the economy really is. I recently
     bought a new toaster oven and as a complimentary gift,
     I was given a bank."                        -- L. Legro

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12749

On 3/16/2025 1:45 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
> No, it's not.  I lost a lot of flexible configuration around version 52 
> and decided I had lost enough and stuck at version 82.  I've never had a 
> security problem, and I've been using FF/TB since Netscape .9.

If you don't want to upgrade to the newest release, you could switch to 
an ESR version close to the release version you are now using. The ESR 
versions have the xpinstall.signatures.required preference that you can 
set to false to allow you to run unsigned extensions. There is no 
Firefox 82 ESR but you could install Firefox 78.9 ESR or Firefox 91.13.0 
ESR. If you're going to start with a new profile, you could use either 
one, but if you're going to bring part or all of your old profile over, 
I'd suggest using Firefox 91.13.0 ESR. That way you won't run into any 
backward compatibility issues.

I just did a test install of Firefox 91.13.0 ESR (in Windows) and I was 
able to install uBlock Origin, NoScript and a few other extensions after 
setting the above-referenced preference to false. They are all working 
as expected. You just get a cautionary note in the Add-ons Manager 
telling you that the extension could not be verified.

Note that I'm only suggesting this because you seem to want to keep your 
old versions despite the risks. Otherwise I'd recommend the latest 
Release versions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12709

jetjock,

>  Would it be possible to be more specific about the about:config
> setting referenced above?

Yes, but only for my ancient version of FF (v52).  I have absolutily no idea 
if its still the same for v108.

Although "None" already mentiond it, I'm just going to post it again :

xpinstall.signatures.required

> Thankfully, my 108.0.1 64 bit on Win 7, is still working but
> I'd like to be prepared should it stop.

In that case, also download an FF v108 installer.  If all goes well you will 
never need it, but you never know ...

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12703

On 3/14/25 11:55 PM, R.Wieser wrote:
> Bev,
> 
>> FF82/linux.  Worked OK this morning.  When I came back just now every 
>> single extension -- the only thing that made FF worth using -- was dead.
> 
> You've been amply informed to the why of it. :-)
> 
> My (ancient version of) FF has a(n about:config) setting to ignore signing
> of extensions.  Maybe your version of FF still has the same ?
> 
> The major problem is, can you still access the intarwebz.

Yes, but without my extensions it's pointless.  I bit the bullet and set 
the default to the Beta version I was also using.


-- 
Cheers, Bev
   "On the other hand, I live in California so I'd be willing to
    squeeze schoolchildren to death if I thought some oil would
    come out."                                    -- Scott Adams

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12711

Bev,

> Yes, but without my extensions it's pointless.

Without having internet access puting effort into getting those plugins to 
run again would *really* be pointless.  :-|

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12723

On 3/15/25 1:24 PM, R.Wieser wrote:
> Bev,
> 
>> Yes, but without my extensions it's pointless.
> 
> Without having internet access puting effort into getting those plugins to
> run again would *really* be pointless.  :-|

I would guess I still have all functions (or at least most of them). 
Certainly internet access, passwords, bookmarks are all there.  But I 
NEED a vertical tab bar and a lot of extensions.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
    "I just realized how bad the economy really is. I recently
     bought a new toaster oven and as a complimentary gift,
     I was given a bank."                        -- L. Legro

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12728

On 3/15/2025 2:25 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
> Yes, but without my extensions it's pointless.  I bit the bullet and set 
> the default to the Beta version I was also using.
> 
If you're set on keeping your old version, have you tried temporarily 
loading your add-ons in Firefox 82 in debug mode?

Go to about:debugging, click Load Temporary Add-on, navigate to the 
extension folder and click any file in the directory (steps may vary 
depending upon version of Firefox).

Any extensions installed should remain installed until you restart Firefox.

Of course if you have a lot of extensions... :(

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12736

On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 06:09:25 -0500, gym <no_one@example.net> wrote:

>On 3/15/2025 2:25 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>> Yes, but without my extensions it's pointless.  I bit the bullet and set 
>> the default to the Beta version I was also using.
>> 
>If you're set on keeping your old version, have you tried temporarily 
>loading your add-ons in Firefox 82 in debug mode?
>
>Go to about:debugging, click Load Temporary Add-on, navigate to the 
>extension folder and click any file in the directory (steps may vary 
>depending upon version of Firefox).
>
>Any extensions installed should remain installed until you restart Firefox.
>
>Of course if you have a lot of extensions... :(
>

Thank you very much, gym!! What a great work around. I did have
several extensions but realized that there were only 2 that I really
needed (liked): uBlock Origin and Firefox Color. I now have both of
them back for as long as I don't restart FF. I might even add Honey
and Camel,Camel,Camel! Fantastic.

     >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12738

jetjock wrote:

> I might even add Honey

Why would you?

<https://theverge.com/24343913/paypal-honey>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12763

On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 15:11:38 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

>jetjock wrote:
>
>> I might even add Honey
>
>Why would you?
>
><https://theverge.com/24343913/paypal-honey>

Why is it that everything "good" has to be a scam? Thanks!

     >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12740

On 3/16/2025 4:09 AM, gym wrote:
> On 3/15/2025 2:25 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>> Yes, but without my extensions it's pointless.  I bit the bullet and set 
>> the default to the Beta version I was also using.
>>
> If you're set on keeping your old version, have you tried temporarily 
> loading your add-ons in Firefox 82 in debug mode?
> 
> Go to about:debugging, click Load Temporary Add-on, navigate to the 
> extension folder and click any file in the directory (steps may vary 
> depending upon version of Firefox).
> 
> Any extensions installed should remain installed until you restart Firefox.
> 
> Of course if you have a lot of extensions... :(

Where I live, Southern California Edison (SoCalEd) goes out without
warning.  It is not a weather situation since it can happen any time of
the year.  Dropping power merely shuts down my system.  When power is
restored, however, a surge can damage my system even though everything
is plugged into a surge suppressor.

Thus, for safety, I always shut down my system whenever I leave the
house.  If I am home during a loss of electricity, I quickly shut down
the system and hit the off switch on the surge suppressor.  I will then
lose any extensions in Firefox but not in SeaMonkey or my old version of
Thunderbird.

-- 

David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/

History repeats --
Ukraine now: Czechoslovakia in 1938
Crimea: Sudetenland
Putin: Hitler
Donald Trump: Neville Chamberlain

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12747

On 3/16/2025 11:13 AM, David E. Ross wrote:
> On 3/16/2025 4:09 AM, gym wrote:
>> On 3/15/2025 2:25 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> Yes, but without my extensions it's pointless.  I bit the bullet and set
>>> the default to the Beta version I was also using.
>>>
>> If you're set on keeping your old version, have you tried temporarily
>> loading your add-ons in Firefox 82 in debug mode?
>>
>> Go to about:debugging, click Load Temporary Add-on, navigate to the
>> extension folder and click any file in the directory (steps may vary
>> depending upon version of Firefox).
>>
>> Any extensions installed should remain installed until you restart Firefox.
>>
>> Of course if you have a lot of extensions... :(
> 
> Where I live, Southern California Edison (SoCalEd) goes out without
> warning.  It is not a weather situation since it can happen any time of
> the year.  Dropping power merely shuts down my system.  When power is
> restored, however, a surge can damage my system even though everything
> is plugged into a surge suppressor.
> 
> Thus, for safety, I always shut down my system whenever I leave the
> house.  If I am home during a loss of electricity, I quickly shut down
> the system and hit the off switch on the surge suppressor.  I will then
> lose any extensions in Firefox but not in SeaMonkey or my old version of
> Thunderbird.
> 
You might be able to do something with web-ext run to automate the 
loading of an extension, but it was not really designed for this. It's 
probably easier to switch to an ESR version (see my reply to The Real 
Bev) or upgrade to the newer supported releases.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.software.firefox

csiph-web