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

Groups > alt.comp.software.firefox > #13136 > unrolled thread

Can't install ublock origin

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

Contents

  Can't install ublock origin jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-04-18 11:47 -0500
    Re: Can't install ublock origin Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-04-18 19:08 +0200
      Re: Can't install ublock origin "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-04-19 07:39 +0200
        Re: Can't install ublock origin jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-04-19 11:41 -0500
          Re: Can't install ublock origin "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-04-19 20:34 +0200
    Re: Can't install ublock origin Paul in Houston TX <Paul@Houston.Texas> - 2025-04-18 13:35 -0500
      Re: Can't install ublock origin jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-04-19 12:03 -0500
        Re: Can't install ublock origin Paul in Houston TX <Paul@Houston.Texas> - 2025-04-19 16:24 -0500
          Re: Can't install ublock origin jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-04-20 09:52 -0500
    Re: Can't install ublock origin Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-18 14:40 -0400
      Re: Can't install ublock origin Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-04-18 22:54 +0200
    Re: Can't install ublock origin "David E. Ross" <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2025-04-19 14:25 -0700
      Re: Can't install ublock origin "David E. Ross" <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2025-04-19 15:55 -0700
        Re: Can't install ublock origin jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-04-20 10:10 -0500
        Re: Can't install ublock origin Jo-Anne <Jo-Anne@nowhere.com> - 2025-04-21 11:53 -0500
          Re: Can't install ublock origin "David E. Ross" <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2025-04-21 11:16 -0700
            Re: Can't install ublock origin Jo-Anne <Jo-Anne@nowhere.com> - 2025-04-21 13:17 -0500
            Re: Can't install ublock origin Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-25 00:09 +0000
          Re: Can't install ublock origin NFN Smith <worldoff9908@gmail.com> - 2025-04-22 07:50 -0700

#13136 — Can't install ublock origin

Just updated brother-in-law's computer to 115.22 esr. It will not
install uBlock Origin. Says extension is corrupt. Set
xpinstall.signatures.required and xpinstall.whitelist.required to
false, but still won't install.
I thought the newest esr versions were supposed to allow extension
installing. No problem with 3 other computers I updated and he is
running the same Win 7 Ultimate that three of them are. Win 10 on the
other. Help please!


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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#13137

On 18.04.25 18:47, jetjock wrote:
> Just updated brother-in-law's computer to 115.22 esr. It will not
> install uBlock Origin. Says extension is corrupt. Set
> xpinstall.signatures.required and xpinstall.whitelist.required to
> false, but still won't install.
> I thought the newest esr versions were supposed to allow extension
> installing. No problem with 3 other computers I updated and he is
> running the same Win 7 Ultimate that three of them are. Win 10 on the
> other. Help please!
> 
> 
>      >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<

Everything in your setup are antiques. Years out of support even the
ESRs. FF currently stands at 137.0.2 (64-bit).

The OS is 5 years out of support.

-- 
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

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

#13141

Jorg,

> Everything in your setup are antiques. Years out of support even
> the ESRs. FF currently stands at 137.0.2 (64-bit).
>
> The OS is 5 years out of support.

If you have no idea how to solve the OPs problem and are only here to 
complain about others not sharing your preference to only to use the 
newest-of-the-newest bling (even though both get evermore user-hostile) than 
you are welcome to keep your mouth shut.

In fact, its prefered you do so.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

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

#13145

On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 07:39:53 +0200, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
wrote:

>Jorg,
>
>> Everything in your setup are antiques. Years out of support even
>> the ESRs. FF currently stands at 137.0.2 (64-bit).
>>
>> The OS is 5 years out of support.
>
>If you have no idea how to solve the OPs problem and are only here to 
>complain about others not sharing your preference to only to use the 
>newest-of-the-newest bling (even though both get evermore user-hostile) than 
>you are welcome to keep your mouth shut.
>
>In fact, its prefered you do so.
>
>Regards,
>Rudy Wieser

Thank you Rudy! My sentiments exactly. That's why I have his posts
blocked. :-(
>

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

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

#13148

jetjock,

> That's why I have his posts blocked. :-(

Same here.


Though once in a while I take a peek at some of the posts of people I've 
blocked, to see if something has changed and they can be "released".

Alas, he made clear he's not ready for that yet. :-|

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

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

#13138

jetjock wrote:
> Just updated brother-in-law's computer to 115.22 esr. It will not
> install uBlock Origin. Says extension is corrupt. Set
> xpinstall.signatures.required and xpinstall.whitelist.required to
> false, but still won't install.
> I thought the newest esr versions were supposed to allow extension
> installing. No problem with 3 other computers I updated and he is
> running the same Win 7 Ultimate that three of them are. Win 10 on the
> other. Help please!

I use the same FF, 115.22.0ESR.
My uB is the latest 1.63.2.  Had no problems installing it.
All works well.

You did not say what version of uB you are trying to install.
Did you get the uB by going to the real FF add on's site?
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?q=ublock

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

#13147

On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 13:35:03 -0500, Paul in Houston TX
<Paul@Houston.Texas> wrote:

>jetjock wrote:
>> Just updated brother-in-law's computer to 115.22 esr. It will not
>> install uBlock Origin. Says extension is corrupt. Set
>> xpinstall.signatures.required and xpinstall.whitelist.required to
>> false, but still won't install.
>> I thought the newest esr versions were supposed to allow extension
>> installing. No problem with 3 other computers I updated and he is
>> running the same Win 7 Ultimate that three of them are. Win 10 on the
>> other. Help please!
>
>I use the same FF, 115.22.0ESR.
>My uB is the latest 1.63.2.  Had no problems installing it.
>All works well.
>
>You did not say what version of uB you are trying to install.
>Did you get the uB by going to the real FF add on's site?
>https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?q=ublock

 I was doing everything via TeamViewer as he lives in a different city
than I, but I doubt that had anything to with it,

 I updated FF 108 to 115.23esr using the .exe I got from the Mozilla
FTP page. When I installed it on my computer, it just disabled all my
addons so I just reinstalled them using the find addons function. When
I installed it on his computer it completely wiped out all of his
addons. I got the uBlock Origin addon from the find addons function
and it downloaded just fine. When I clicked on the add to FF button,
nothing happened. I tried downloading uBlock direct from their
Website, but when I tried installing it to FF, it said it couldn't be
added because it was "corrupt". This is the same crap I got when
trying to add addons to my FF 108 before Updating to 115.23.

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

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

#13153

jetjock wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 13:35:03 -0500, Paul in Houston TX
> <Paul@Houston.Texas> wrote:
> 
>> jetjock wrote:
>>> Just updated brother-in-law's computer to 115.22 esr. It will not
>>> install uBlock Origin. Says extension is corrupt. Set
>>> xpinstall.signatures.required and xpinstall.whitelist.required to
>>> false, but still won't install.
>>> I thought the newest esr versions were supposed to allow extension
>>> installing. No problem with 3 other computers I updated and he is
>>> running the same Win 7 Ultimate that three of them are. Win 10 on the
>>> other. Help please!
>>
>> I use the same FF, 115.22.0ESR.
>> My uB is the latest 1.63.2.  Had no problems installing it.
>> All works well.
>>
>> You did not say what version of uB you are trying to install.
>> Did you get the uB by going to the real FF add on's site?
>> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?q=ublock
> 
>   I was doing everything via TeamViewer as he lives in a different city
> than I, but I doubt that had anything to with it,
> 
>   I updated FF 108 to 115.23esr using the .exe I got from the Mozilla
> FTP page. When I installed it on my computer, it just disabled all my
> addons so I just reinstalled them using the find addons function. When
> I installed it on his computer it completely wiped out all of his
> addons. I got the uBlock Origin addon from the find addons function
> and it downloaded just fine. When I clicked on the add to FF button,
> nothing happened. I tried downloading uBlock direct from their
> Website, but when I tried installing it to FF, it said it couldn't be
> added because it was "corrupt". This is the same crap I got when
> trying to add addons to my FF 108 before Updating to 115.23.
> 
>       >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<

If I use SeaMonkey to attempt downloading of the FF xpi it says:
"The add-on downloaded from an unknown host could not be installed
  because it appears to be corrupt."

Could BIL's comp have multiple versions of FF?
Perhaps some on another drive?
Could it have other brands of viewers and FF is not the default?
Could TeamViewer think the xpi is trying to install on Your comp and not 
his comp?  Or something like that.

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

#13158

On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 16:24:59 -0500, Paul in Houston TX
<Paul@Houston.Texas> wrote:

>jetjock wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 13:35:03 -0500, Paul in Houston TX
>> <Paul@Houston.Texas> wrote:
>> 
>>> jetjock wrote:
>>>> Just updated brother-in-law's computer to 115.22 esr. It will not
>>>> install uBlock Origin. Says extension is corrupt. Set
>>>> xpinstall.signatures.required and xpinstall.whitelist.required to
>>>> false, but still won't install.
>>>> I thought the newest esr versions were supposed to allow extension
>>>> installing. No problem with 3 other computers I updated and he is
>>>> running the same Win 7 Ultimate that three of them are. Win 10 on the
>>>> other. Help please!
>>>
>>> I use the same FF, 115.22.0ESR.
>>> My uB is the latest 1.63.2.  Had no problems installing it.
>>> All works well.
>>>
>>> You did not say what version of uB you are trying to install.
>>> Did you get the uB by going to the real FF add on's site?
>>> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?q=ublock
>> 
>>   I was doing everything via TeamViewer as he lives in a different city
>> than I, but I doubt that had anything to with it,
>> 
>>   I updated FF 108 to 115.23esr using the .exe I got from the Mozilla
>> FTP page. When I installed it on my computer, it just disabled all my
>> addons so I just reinstalled them using the find addons function. When
>> I installed it on his computer it completely wiped out all of his
>> addons. I got the uBlock Origin addon from the find addons function
>> and it downloaded just fine. When I clicked on the add to FF button,
>> nothing happened. I tried downloading uBlock direct from their
>> Website, but when I tried installing it to FF, it said it couldn't be
>> added because it was "corrupt". This is the same crap I got when
>> trying to add addons to my FF 108 before Updating to 115.23.
>> 
>>       >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
>
>If I use SeaMonkey to attempt downloading of the FF xpi it says:
>"The add-on downloaded from an unknown host could not be installed
>  because it appears to be corrupt."
>
>Could BIL's comp have multiple versions of FF?
I will have to check to confirm, but doubtful.
>Perhaps some on another drive?
Only has one drive.
>Could it have other brands of viewers and FF is not the default?
Does have Chrome, but FF set as default.
>Could TeamViewer think the xpi is trying to install on Your comp and not 
>his comp?  Or something like that.
Not likely. I have installed other things on his computer via
TeamViewer with no problem.

Thanks for the pointers!

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

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

#13139

On 4/18/2025 12:47 PM, jetjock wrote:
> Just updated brother-in-law's computer to 115.22 esr. It will not
> install uBlock Origin. Says extension is corrupt. Set
> xpinstall.signatures.required and xpinstall.whitelist.required to
> false, but still won't install.
> I thought the newest esr versions were supposed to allow extension
> installing. No problem with 3 other computers I updated and he is
> running the same Win 7 Ultimate that three of them are. Win 10 on the
> other. Help please!
> 

I don't know if this helps, but I'm using v. 1.59 on 115.


https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/file/4328681/ublock_origin-1.59.0.xpi

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

#13140

On 18.04.25 20:40, Newyana2 wrote:
> On 4/18/2025 12:47 PM, jetjock wrote:
>> Just updated brother-in-law's computer to 115.22 esr. It will not
>> install uBlock Origin. Says extension is corrupt. Set
>> xpinstall.signatures.required and xpinstall.whitelist.required to
>> false, but still won't install.
>> I thought the newest esr versions were supposed to allow extension
>> installing. No problem with 3 other computers I updated and he is
>> running the same Win 7 Ultimate that three of them are. Win 10 on the
>> other. Help please!
>>
> 
> I don't know if this helps, but I'm using v. 1.59 on 115.
> 
> 
> https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/file/4328681/ublock_origin-1.59.0.xpi

Completely outdated. The current version is 1.63.2

-- 
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

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

#13152

On 4/18/2025 9:47 AM, jetjock wrote:
> Just updated brother-in-law's computer to 115.22 esr. It will not
> install uBlock Origin. Says extension is corrupt. Set
> xpinstall.signatures.required and xpinstall.whitelist.required to
> false, but still won't install.
> I thought the newest esr versions were supposed to allow extension
> installing. No problem with 3 other computers I updated and he is
> running the same Win 7 Ultimate that three of them are. Win 10 on the
> other. Help please!

Windows 7
Firefox 115.13.0esr

I just now successfully installed uBlock Origin 2.63.2.


-- 
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]

#13155

On 4/19/2025 2:25 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
> On 4/18/2025 9:47 AM, jetjock wrote:
>> Just updated brother-in-law's computer to 115.22 esr. It will not
>> install uBlock Origin. Says extension is corrupt. Set
>> xpinstall.signatures.required and xpinstall.whitelist.required to
>> false, but still won't install.
>> I thought the newest esr versions were supposed to allow extension
>> installing. No problem with 3 other computers I updated and he is
>> running the same Win 7 Ultimate that three of them are. Win 10 on the
>> other. Help please!
> 
> Windows 7
> Firefox 115.13.0esr
> 
> I just now successfully installed uBlock Origin 2.63.2.

I downloaded the installer for uBlock via SeaMonkey and then installed
it in Firefox via "Install Add-on From File".

Afterwards, I downloaded Firefox 115.22 ESR, again via SeaMonkey and
installed it over 115.13 ESR.  uBlock remained installed and enabled.

Obviously, I prefer SeaMonkey over Firefox for many reasons.  I use
Firefox only for those Web sites that deviate so much from the W3C
specifications for HTML and CSS that SeaMonkey cannot render them.

-- 
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]

#13159

On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 15:55:10 -0700, "David E. Ross"
<nobody@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

>On 4/19/2025 2:25 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
>> On 4/18/2025 9:47 AM, jetjock wrote:
>>> Just updated brother-in-law's computer to 115.22 esr. It will not
>>> install uBlock Origin. Says extension is corrupt. Set
>>> xpinstall.signatures.required and xpinstall.whitelist.required to
>>> false, but still won't install.
>>> I thought the newest esr versions were supposed to allow extension
>>> installing. No problem with 3 other computers I updated and he is
>>> running the same Win 7 Ultimate that three of them are. Win 10 on the
>>> other. Help please!
>> 
>> Windows 7
>> Firefox 115.13.0esr
>> 
>> I just now successfully installed uBlock Origin 2.63.2.
>
>I downloaded the installer for uBlock via SeaMonkey and then installed
>it in Firefox via "Install Add-on From File".

I also tried that the other day, just not with SeaMonkey. That's when
I got the "possibly corrupt" BS message from FF.
>
>Afterwards, I downloaded Firefox 115.22 ESR, again via SeaMonkey and
>installed it over 115.13 ESR.  uBlock remained installed and enabled.
>
>Obviously, I prefer SeaMonkey over Firefox for many reasons.  I use
>Firefox only for those Web sites that deviate so much from the W3C
>specifications for HTML and CSS that SeaMonkey cannot render them.

I really believe his computer is cursed. I help several relatives with
their machines via TeamViewer and never have a problem. Every time I
work on his it's always one problem after another. Even TeamViewer was
messed up after updating it to the newest version. It had a big red
message block pointing to an "x" saying now you could just click here
to close the session. Unfortunately, we could not get rid of the
"helpful" block, and clicking the "x" did nothing!

I think I will try updating him to 135.xx which I think is the latest
version and try installing addons. If that works, I'll try "updating"
back to 115.xxesr.

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

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

#13160

On 4/19/2025 5:55 PM, David E. Ross wrote:

> Obviously, I prefer SeaMonkey over Firefox for many reasons.  I use
> Firefox only for those Web sites that deviate so much from the W3C
> specifications for HTML and CSS that SeaMonkey cannot render them.
> 

Thinking about installing SeaMonkey. I've noticed that it's a suite that includes an email client. 
Have you tried its email? And if so, do you prefer Thunderbird?

-- 
Thank you,
Jo-Anne

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

#13161

On 4/21/2025 9:53 AM, Jo-Anne wrote:
> On 4/19/2025 5:55 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
> 
>> Obviously, I prefer SeaMonkey over Firefox for many reasons.  I use
>> Firefox only for those Web sites that deviate so much from the W3C
>> specifications for HTML and CSS that SeaMonkey cannot render them.
>>
> 
> Thinking about installing SeaMonkey. I've noticed that it's a suite that includes an email client. 
> Have you tried its email? And if so, do you prefer Thunderbird?
> 

I prefer Thunderbird.  One important reason is that I often want to use
SeaMonkey to look up and check on what I am writing in an E-mail.  Thus,
I want Web browsing and E-mail in separate applications.

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

President Trump wants all Palestinians to leave Gaza and
relocate elsewhere.  How many will he accept to relocate
in the United States?

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

#13162

On 4/21/2025 1:16 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
> On 4/21/2025 9:53 AM, Jo-Anne wrote:
>> On 4/19/2025 5:55 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
>>
>>> Obviously, I prefer SeaMonkey over Firefox for many reasons.  I use
>>> Firefox only for those Web sites that deviate so much from the W3C
>>> specifications for HTML and CSS that SeaMonkey cannot render them.
>>>
>>
>> Thinking about installing SeaMonkey. I've noticed that it's a suite that includes an email client.
>> Have you tried its email? And if so, do you prefer Thunderbird?
>>
> 
> I prefer Thunderbird.  One important reason is that I often want to use
> SeaMonkey to look up and check on what I am writing in an E-mail.  Thus,
> I want Web browsing and E-mail in separate applications.
> 

Thank you!
-- 
Jo-Anne

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

#13167

On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 11:16:07 -0700, David E. Ross wrote:

> I prefer Thunderbird.  One important reason is that I often want to use
> SeaMonkey to look up and check on what I am writing in an E-mail.  Thus,
> I want Web browsing and E-mail in separate applications.

That can be done in separate windows/tabs though, can’t it?

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

#13163

Jo-Anne wrote:
> On 4/19/2025 5:55 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
> 
>> Obviously, I prefer SeaMonkey over Firefox for many reasons.  I use
>> Firefox only for those Web sites that deviate so much from the W3C
>> specifications for HTML and CSS that SeaMonkey cannot render them.
>>
> 
> Thinking about installing SeaMonkey. I've noticed that it's a suite that 
> includes an email client. Have you tried its email? And if so, do you 
> prefer Thunderbird?
> 

I use Seamonkey for both mail and browser, and I prefer the mail client 
over Thunderbird.  The browser is getting more difficult to use on a lot 
of sites.  Part of that is newer pages that tend to be developed for 
Chrome and use scripting that Seamonkey doesn't support.  Plus, working 
through my own settings, where I make aggressive use of NoScript and 
uBlock Origin.

The one caution on Seamonkey would be what you might want to do on 
extensions. The core of Seamonkey is mail client and browser based on 
Gecko 2.56, meaning that it still uses the old XUL structure, and 
doesn't support the newer WebExtensions or MailExtensions.

You still get many extensions for Seamonkey via 
https://addons.thunderbird.net/en-US/seamonkey/ Several more can only be 
found through the Classic Addons Archive (which tried to collect nearly 
everything XUL).  I've found that several are now to the point where 
they need small tweaks several tweaks.  uBlock Origin does work, but 
it's no longer maintained, and the last XUL version of that (1.16.4.30) 
is available from the developer's web site at 
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock-for-firefox-legacy

Unfortunately, there are a few extensions that are no longer available. 
To me, the most prominent one is OpenWith, one that allows you to 
right-click a link, a tab or an address, and choose which browser you 
want.  That was originally done as a Thunderbird extension, but works 
well in Seamonkey.  To me, that's really useful when I find a page in 
Seamonkey that doesn't render correctly, and that makes it easy to 
re-open the link in another browser (usually Firefox, but not always).

Smith

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web