Fix for installing unsigned add-ons in Firefox Dev and Nightly

If you run a recent version of Firefox Dev or Nightly, and try to install an unsigned add-on, you may receive the error message that the browser prevented the operation from completing (... has prevented this site from installing an unverified add-on).

Also, if you have unsigned extensions installed in Firefox Nightly, you may have noticed that the most recent update disabled them.

Mozilla announced back in February that it would introduce a signing system for add-ons in the near future.

The system would prevent the installation of unsigned add-ons in Firefox Stable and Beta versions to better protect users from malicious and unwanted extension installations.

The decision was made to add override switches to Dev and Nightly versions of Firefox only so that unsigned extensions could still be installed in those versions of Firefox.

This is especially important for add-on developers but also for users who require add-ons that are not signed by Mozilla.

Mozilla's current plan is to introduce warnings with Firefox 40, enforce signed add-ons in Firefox 41 with a disable option, and remove that preference again in Firefox 42. Starting with Firefox 42, Stable and Beta users won't be able to override this anymore which means that unsigned extensions cannot be installed in those browsers anymore.

Nightly users of Firefox may have noticed that the browser blocks the installation of unsigned extensions as well currently.

Mozilla did not make it clear previously that it would enforce add-on signing for Dev and Nightly versions of Firefox as well but this appears to be the case as the installation of unsigned add-ons is currently blocked in Firefox Nightly (currently at version 42).

If you try to install the popular HTTPS Everywhere extension currently from the EFF website, you will receive the error message that Nightly prevented the installation of the unverified add-on.

firefox prevent installation unsigned addon

It is unclear why Mozilla is using the term unverified in the error message and not unsigned, as signed is used on the Firefox add-on repository to mark compatible add-ons.

To fix the issue, do the following (please note once again that this will work in all versions of Firefox until Firefox 42 is released. When that release hits, only Dev and Nightly versions support the switch).

  1. Load about:config in Firefox's address bar and hit enter.
  2. Confirm you will be careful if a warning message is displayed.
  3. Search for xpinstall.signatures.required.
  4. Double-click on the preference name so that its value is set to false.

You may install unsigned extensions again in Firefox once you have set the preference to false, a restart of the browser is not necessary.

install unverified addons

You will still get a warning message when you try to install unsigned add-ons, but the install button is there again so that it can be installed after all.

The warning reads:

Caution: This site would like to install an unverified add-on in Nightly. Proceed at your own risk.

Closing Words

It may come as a surprise to Firefox Nightly users that Mozilla set the default preference of the browser in regards to requiring signed add-ons to true.

While it is easy enough to modify so that this is not the case anymore, it will likely irritate quite a few users and especially those who run unsigned add-ons in Firefox.

Summary
Article Name
Fix for installing unsigned add-ons in Firefox Dev and Nightly
Description
Find out how to install unsigned add-ons in Firefox Dev and Nightly builds.
Author
Please share this article

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedinmail



Responses to Fix for installing unsigned add-ons in Firefox Dev and Nightly

  1. Tom Hawack August 4, 2015 at 10:11 pm #

    "While it is easy enough to modify so that this is not the case anymore, it will likely irritate quite a few users and especially those who run unsigned add-ons in Firefox."

    Quite a few includes my humble person. Makes me laugh right now but I wont be laughing once Firefox 42's intransigence applies.
    But, as always, we'll manage.
    Firefox 40 within a few days which means that "No Firefox 42 no cry" will be a souvenir within 12 weeks or so... November.

    I have many add-ons of which several still unsigned. Three months should be ok but not sure for old extensions which still run fine...

    • Jimmy August 6, 2015 at 1:04 am #

      Tom, I'm as mad as hell and I don't think I'm going to take this any more! I just had an add-on that I wrote and that I know is perfectly safe disabled by Firefox Nightly 42 and then I couldn't re-enable it easily until I messed around with my about:config settings! This is madness I tell you! Why does Firefox do this to me? Why does every release make me angrier than I was before? I'm as mad as hell and I don't think I'm going to take this any more! I think I'm going to switch to Chromium, as much as I hate using Chrome. It is like the Firefox devs are doing every single thing they can to make the Firefox experience a yucky one. It is like they want me to not use Firefox!

      • Sören Hentzschel August 6, 2015 at 9:41 am #

        Just sign your add-on? What's the problem?

        "It is like the Firefox devs are doing every single thing they can to make the Firefox experience a yucky one"

        That's nonsense and I am sure you know that.

      • Samm August 7, 2015 at 9:59 am #

        > Just sign your add-on? What's the problem?

        If I want to run my own add-on on my own computer, I really shouldn't require "approval" from a third party - that's what the problem is…

      • Sören Hentzschel August 7, 2015 at 10:18 am #

        So your only reason is obstinacy. Thanks. It's all what I wanted to know.

      • Samm August 7, 2015 at 4:16 pm #

        Sören, I do agree with most of your posts here, but in this case, the snubbiness of your reply bugs me. (By the way, I'm not the person you originally responded to in case you did not realise.)

        The reason is independence. Why should your choice to use an add-on be at the whim of any other party?

      • Guest August 7, 2015 at 9:52 pm #

        @Jimmy - curious, what addon are you using for yourself. Perhaps it's something we could try out too?

        Anyway, I agree with you fully (aside from switching to Chrome crap) I was using FireGestures the other day, when it mysteriously stopped working. I found it had been disabled with no reason given by Firefox. It took me a while and Internet trawling to find out that I needed to set xpinstall.signatures.required to false. This is a very annoying move by Firefox. Sure, I understand that requiring signed addons increases security, but WHY is there no option to force-enable individual unsigned addons without setting xpinstall.signatures.required to false?

        More stupid moves by Mozilla.

        Also, Soren seems to be an idiot, ignore him.

      • Sören Hentzschel August 7, 2015 at 11:53 pm #

        The fact that you have another opinion makes others not to idiots. But it says a lot about you. No surprise that you are using a pseudonym.

      • Guest August 8, 2015 at 7:02 pm #

        @Soren - The fact that you are blindly supporting yet another foolish move by Mozilla would indeed make you an idiot. Have you given any reasons yet why you support Mozilla handling unsigned addons as they do, with no workaround whatsoever aside from an about:config setting? Then you try to defend their dumb decision and make other posters look like idiots for stating that there should be another solution.

      • Sören Hentzschel August 8, 2015 at 11:42 pm #

        Neither I support a foolish nor I support anything blindly. Please respect that not everyone shares your opinion. And stop to say "idiot" to me. I'll wait for your apology, otherwise you won't get any answer. Troll.

      • Guest August 10, 2015 at 6:14 pm #

        I suspect that you are the one trolling. Either that, or you're on Mozilla's payroll. You stated earlier to an addon developer "just sign the addon" - and how long does signing an addon take? 1 month? 2 weeks? When happens when there is a security patch for the addon released? How long does that security patch take to become "signed"? What about beta versions of addons? Why should a developer be forced to sign his own addon, or those who want to beta-test it?

        But alright let's assume best case scenario. You as a developer get an addon updated and signed within 1 hour. You as a developer are then covered, but what about the end-users who want to use addons that are inconveniently unsigned? I was using Firegestures the other day, Firefox updated itself, and then suddenly Firegestures is disabled because it's "unsigned". Fine, or it would be fine, if I could force-enable the addon. Except I can't. I have to first go to about:config and change some obscure boolean variable - HOW are normal users supposed to deal with that?

        So Soren, if you think this is the right way to go about doing things, then at least explain why there shouldn't be an option to enable an unsigned addon on a case-by-case basis, so that you can enable addons you KNOW to be safe, while still retaining some sort of security for all the others. Because right now, if you're running 30 addons, and you want to run 1 single unsigned addon, you have change that boolean and open up the security for ALL addons.

        But no, you can go-ahead and keep calling me and other trolls when they disagree with you.

      • Sören Hentzschel August 10, 2015 at 8:48 pm #

        "Either that, or you're on Mozilla's payroll"

        Quod erat demonstrandum, you're a troll.

        "You stated earlier to an addon developer "just sign the addon" - and how long does signing an addon take? 1 month? 2 weeks?"

        It takes a few seconds. Yes, seconds. It's an automatic process. Just try it. It's always interesting how some people have no idea about the facts but think they know all the facts.

      • Constantinos Kyriakides August 11, 2015 at 9:22 pm #

        Volunteered for Mozilla for a long time. Their engineers and developers are usually nice guys but the ones making the decisions act as if they want Firefox to die. They keep ignoring power users and users with the technical knowledge because "they know better".

        I tried to explain this to SUMO (their support dept) and all I received was rudeness by paid staff that also "know better".

        I've been loyal to Firefox for very many years. Maybe it's time to say good-bye...

      • Frank Lion August 12, 2015 at 12:00 am #

        @ Soren, give it a rest or at least get yourself better informed.

        Only the simplest non-AMO hosted extensions are automatically signed in seconds, the rest are manually reviewed and that indeed can take a few weeks.

        Note too, there is a world outside of Mozilla. A world where companies have made and use their own extensions for handling various internal company tasks. Many of these tasks are company information sensitive and they do not want some dumb slob working for a software browser program studying those extensions, for vacuous 'signing' reasons or otherwise. Similar reasons apply to many individual authors as well.

        I'll spell it out for you - It is not obstinacy, as you claimed.

      • Sören Hentzschel August 12, 2015 at 8:27 am #

        @Frank Lion:

        WTF? I *am* informed. I am add-on developer, I signed non-public add-ons and I am the administrator of the official german-speaking Firefox forum. Yes, sometimes a add-on needed a manual review (signing process is beta!), but there were some improvements, there will be further optimizations and Mozilla has new reviewers (volunteers and a new paid fulltime reviewer). So things will be better. Signing will not be a mandatory requirement unitl Firefox 42, Mozilla just released Firefox 40.

        And regarding companies, for companies is Firefox ESR. Firefox ESR will not require signed add-ons until Firefox 45 - if at all. AFAIK there is not yet a decision about Firefox ESR and signing.

      • Frank Lion August 12, 2015 at 2:26 pm #

        @ Soren - does the truth really have to be dragged out of you, like pulling teeth? We have gone from -

        'It takes a few seconds. Yes, seconds. It's an automatic process. Just try it. It's always interesting how some people have no idea about the facts but think they know all the facts.'

        ...to...

        ' Yes, sometimes a add-on needed a manual review (signing process is beta!)'

        Not giving people full information, when you know it, is the same as not telling the whole truth. You do Mozilla and Firefox a great disservice with that attitude and only reduce trust in the product.

      • Sören Hentzschel August 12, 2015 at 7:04 pm #

        Read the full comment, not only a part. And by the way, I don't care if you trust in Firefox or not, Mozilla is not my employer and Firefox not my product.

      • Frank Lion August 12, 2015 at 7:45 pm #

        @ Soren - Fascinating, but Firefox does happen to be my product and I'd thank you to desist in this half-truth 'Mozillian fan boy' stuff of yours here and elsewhere that only succeeds in lowering overall trust in the product in the eyes of the general public.

        What you personally care/not care about is irrelevant to me.

      • Sören Hentzschel August 12, 2015 at 7:53 pm #

        Firefox is not "my product" and not "your product", we're just users of Firefox. You can use Firefox or every other browser if Firefox is not good enough for you. And no, I am no fanboy, that's really an insolence. You don't know me so you can't say anything about me. I explained some things and if you don't like my explanations it's no reason to offend.

      • joe schmoe August 13, 2015 at 3:22 am #

        "Tom, I'm as mad as hell and I don't think I'm going to take this any more"

        I swear to you, I just posted my rant on another board and posted Peter Finch's classic "hands thrust up" picture.

      • Seniv August 14, 2015 at 4:23 pm #

        @Jimmy August 6, 2015 at 1:04 am
        "It is like the Firefox devs are doing every single thing they can to make the Firefox experience a yucky one. It is like they want me to not use Firefox!"

        You're totally right. That's what Mozilla (Firefox devs) is doing for years.

      • Seniv August 14, 2015 at 4:27 pm #

        @Samm August 7, 2015 at 9:59 am
        "If I want to run my own add-on on my own computer, I really shouldn't require "approval" from a third party - that's what the problem is…"

        Aggree. I couldn't have said it better.

      • Disgruntled December 3, 2016 at 8:56 pm #

        @ Soren
        There's quite a lot of apps e.g. on github whose authors abandoned them long ago that are not and will never get signed. Some are essential to me. Mozilla is fucking retarded for completely disabling them on Firefox 44+. I have to either use an older version or change my browser (e.g. to developer version or some fork).

        Why couldn't they leave us a chance to use unsigned add-ons after changing about:config? If I do that anything bad that happens is on me.

        The idiots should hire somebody with half a brain to keep those retarded changes in check instead of paying you to be a shill.

      • Sören Hentzschel December 4, 2016 at 10:25 am #

        @Disgruntled:

        > There's quite a lot of apps e.g. on github whose authors abandoned them long ago that are not and will never get signed. Some are essential to me.

        Just sign it, where is the problem? Everyone can do this.

        > Why couldn't they leave us a chance to use unsigned add-ons after changing about:config? If I do that anything bad that happens is on me.

        Then add-on signing would be nonsense. All what you can change via about:config can also be changed via third party software and malware.

        > The idiots

        Only idiots call other people idiots.

        > hire somebody with half a brain to keep those retarded changes in check instead of paying you to be a shill.

        paying me? Maybe you should stop to spread such a shit!

        Troll.

  2. juju August 5, 2015 at 9:29 am #

    Problem is even on official mozilla addon blog they say that for them to review addon takes about about 12 weeks which means that submitted addon might be outdated as they release new versions of firefox every 6 weeks. What is interesting that in reality it's almost 10 months estimated wait time until review, meaning that if i write extension for firefox 40, addon will be released to the public when firefox is already version 47. Of course addon might not pass review process and will be rejected and addon author will have to "fix" it and submit it to the queue again. How is that a sane policy? It appears all mozilla is doing is trying to get rid of addons all together. Maybe only those developed out of house/farm/agency. There is more than meets the eye with this "signing". It will probably be impossible to tweak anything in installed addon xpi file - extension will not work if you change even one character.

    • Sören Hentzschel August 5, 2015 at 2:02 pm #

      "What is interesting that in reality it's almost 10 months estimated wait time until review"

      10 months? In which reality? I never had to wait so long, my add-on updates are almost always reviewed within a few days. My newest add-on was reviewed ten minutes (!) after upload, but yeah, that's was an exception… Just ask in IRC if you think your review takes too long (= months).

      "It appears all mozilla is doing is trying to get rid of addons all together."

      And that's really nonsense. If Mozilla is trying do get rid of add-ons all together why the invest so much resources in a new extension api ("open browser extensions")?

      "It will probably be impossible to tweak anything in installed addon xpi file"

      Again nonsense. It's possible, i already tweaked and created non-public add-ons. The signining (without listing on AMO) is an automatic process, it's signed after a few seconds (!). Just sign and install the modified add-on.

      • juju August 5, 2015 at 5:33 pm #

        Do the math yourself: in 10 days they reviewed and added 9 new addons. My queue position advanced by 15-20 paces (meaning some addons were probably rejected or deleted by authors themselves if they notice a bug or something). At the same time during that time some addons were added in front of me meaning some of us are more equal than others. Total addons waiting in the queue ~330.

      • Sören Hentzschel August 5, 2015 at 5:41 pm #

        No, I won't do the math myself because it has nothing to do with math. Sometimes it needs more time, sometime it needs less time. I never had to wait more than two or three weeks. And no one can tell me that a review took ten months.

      • Adam September 3, 2015 at 5:40 am #

        > "The signining (without listing on AMO) is an automatic process, it's signed after a few seconds (!). Just sign and install the modified add-on"

        How? Can you provide a link to guides/documentation? Thanks

      • Sören Hentzschel September 3, 2015 at 9:02 am #

        You need an account on addons.mozilla.org. Then select Tools > Submit a New Add-on. Accept the agreement, select your add-on and enable the option "Do not list my add-on on this site (beta)".

  3. Chris Granger August 5, 2015 at 12:02 pm #

    There are some pretty popular still as yet unsigned add-ons including ABP, GreaseMonkey, NoScript, Request Policy Continued, the aforementioned HTTPS-Everywhere... Will my already installed unsigned add-ons continue to work, or will this new policy also disable those? Mozilla seems to be doing everything they can to encourage me to switch to another web browser.

    • Sören Hentzschel August 5, 2015 at 2:08 pm #

      Why do you think that these add-ons are not signed? ABP and NoScript *are* signed, the others probably too.

      • Chris Granger August 5, 2015 at 2:28 pm #

        Well, they lack the -signed suffix that all the other add-ons I'm using have, in the Add-ons manager.

      • Sören Hentzschel August 5, 2015 at 2:34 pm #

        Signed add-ons don't have a "-signed" suffix, it was only part of the version number when Mozilla did the mass signing of all existing add-ons. All reviewed versions of all add-ons on AMO since the mass signing are signed.

  4. wybo August 5, 2015 at 1:27 pm #

    No Script is used by tons of users. How is it possible that FF will block a great extension in November?.
    The same with the EFF's "Privacy Badger and "HTTPS Everywhere" extensions.

    So the do I understand this right that it is the job of the extensions to get signed?.

    I went through my list of extensions and including the above three, "Request Policy", "Flag Fox", "Night Mode page Dim", "ProfileSwitcher"," Quick Mark", "ScrapBook", :Ublock Origin" and XMarks are NOT signed. Wow that will become messy and certainly a reason to move to another browser if I cannot use those add-ons on FF.

    • Sören Hentzschel August 5, 2015 at 2:09 pm #

      Why should Mozilla block NoScript?

      • fokka August 5, 2015 at 3:35 pm #

        probably because it hasn't "-signed" in the name, which is confusing to users. can you tell us how we can find out if an addon is signed if it doesn't have the -signed suffix?

  5. Sören Hentzschel August 5, 2015 at 3:45 pm #

    @fokka: Okay, I see the reason for the confusion. ;) You will not see which add-ons *are* signet but which add-ons are *not* signed.

    screenshot of warning with xpinstall.signatures.required: false:
    http://soeren-hentzschel.at/wp-content/uploads/fx42-signierung-3.png

    screenshot of warning with xpinstall.signatures.required: true:
    http://soeren-hentzschel.at/wp-content/uploads/fx42-signierung-2.png

    • wybo August 5, 2015 at 7:30 pm #

      Hmmm as I am just a regular FF 39 user I see this on my add-ons page:

      http://imgmega.com/i/00147/hjikaf3u282z.jpg

      • Sören Hentzschel August 5, 2015 at 8:25 pm #

        Mozilla will introduce the new add-on signing (only warnings) with Firefox 40. ;)

    • DonGateley August 5, 2015 at 9:33 pm #

      Soren, I do appreciate your efforts here to keep things within the bounds of sanity. With some of these idiots I know that is challenging.

      • wybo August 6, 2015 at 7:59 am #

        Sorry but are you calling me an idiot??????????

        If so I am so sorry that us people with only less than intermediate knowledge of browsers dare to ask questions here.

      • DonGateley August 6, 2015 at 8:42 am #

        wybo, that was a seriously unfortunate placement on my part. Honestly, I meant only to thank Soren and I can sure see why it was easy for you to take it as an insult but believe me when I say it was not aimed at you but at a whole lot of idiots in other articles that give him flack simply because he is associated with Mozilla. My apologies for being an idiot. :-)

      • wybo August 6, 2015 at 12:18 pm #

        Ah I see. Well your apology is certainly appreciated. Showing me that you are a gent:)

        Cheers.

    • fokka August 8, 2015 at 2:09 am #

      ok, i see the warning now too, thanks for pointing out!

  6. Jimmy August 6, 2015 at 1:00 am #

    This is so frustrating! They should at least give the option to easily re-enable add-ons that are known to be good.

    I use Nightly and I just had an add-on of mine silently disabled, and I couldn't figure out how to re-enable it until I read this article and found out about the about:config option to disable this stupidity. I wrote this add-on myself for crying out loud! I know it's not harmful. I don't want to waste my time trying to sign it. Jesus Murphy! I just want to use my own add-on!

    I don't even know why I keep using Firefox. Every major release just pisses me off more and more. There's at least one new about:config option I have to toggle in order to fix something that the new version unnecessarily broke, or to disable something really dumb that Mozilla has added.

    So now it's a pain in the bum for me to use an add-in I wrote myself, but Mozilla deems it ok for them to include that Pocket social media junk?! Come on!

    I don't want to use Chrome, but it's starting to look better and better every day. I mean it doesn't even look that much different from how Firefox looks now, and I've always found it a lot faster, too. Maybe I will just start using Chromium because I can't believe it would treat me any worse than Firefox has been treating me!

  7. wybo August 6, 2015 at 12:25 pm #

    So I asked this question about the signed add-ons on here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1076109

    It seems that I was sort of right in assuming that the use of the word :signed" at the end of the add-on title on my FF 39 extensions page, indeed means that an extension is signed. BUT the word signed seems to disappear after a while after the add-on is signed.

    Apparently next week with the launch of FF 40 this will be all much clearer to see wgich add-ons are not signed.

    PS am I allowed to give a Mozilla forum link??

  8. wybo August 6, 2015 at 12:29 pm #

    So I asked this question about the signed add-ons to the Mozilla forum.

    It seems that I was sort of right in assuming that the use of the word :signed" at the end of the add-on title on my FF 39 aextensions page, indeed means that an extension is signed. BUT the word signed seems to disappear after a while after the add-on is signed.

    Apparently next week with the launch of FF 40 this will be all much clearer to see wgich add-ons are not signed.

    I guess alink to that question is not allowed?.

    • Sören Hentzschel August 6, 2015 at 1:03 pm #

      "It seems that I was sort of right in assuming that the use of the word :signed" at the end of the add-on title on my FF 39 aextensions page, indeed means that an extension is signed. BUT the word signed seems to disappear after a while after the add-on is signed."

      That's not correct. ;) Mozilla added the word "signed" to the version number as part of the mass signing of the add-ons. The "signed" does NOT disappear after a while. It disappers if a developer uploads a new version. The new signed version does not have the "signed" at the end of the version number. It was just the version number. Everyone can change the version number so it would not be a good idea to generally set the signed state as part of the version number.

  9. W.L. August 7, 2015 at 5:18 am #

    What Mozilla is doing is akin to what Microsoft did with the default browser yet Mozilla CEO whines...when they making it harder for an open and free firefox to add personal extensions in that you don't want uploaded. I think we should call on Mozilla to do a Ctrl+Z too only with extension signing.

    • Sören Hentzschel August 7, 2015 at 9:35 am #

      No. Why? There is no difference for users if they download add-ons from AMO and no difference for users if they download add-ons from other sources and the developers are not lazy. And add-on signing is, unfortunately, necessary for the protection of the users. If you know a better solution, please tell your idea Mozilla.

      • juju August 7, 2015 at 11:45 pm #

        It's certainly not for protection. Security has nothing to do with protection. Protectionism tactics usually indicate coverup.

      • Sören Hentzschel August 8, 2015 at 12:01 am #

        I don't understand your comment, sorry.

      • W.L. August 8, 2015 at 4:12 am #

        Well as I see it Microsoft is also doing it to protect users against all the browser hijackers too now that no api can set defaults and such so it requires user intervention to set it. I may be switching browsers cause I don't think I should have to upload anything to get it signed just to use for my own personal use in Firefox. So basically when someone else does something similar for the protection of users its not for the protection of users and makes it harder yet when Mozilla does it and gets called out about it...then its for the protection of the users.

      • chemao August 14, 2015 at 12:02 am #

        @Soren. The issue is not whether or not they are enforcing signing for general users. The issue is that starting with version 42 they will not provide any means of a workaround to disable the requirement for signed add-ons. You are as everyone else noted, a gruff pompous bigot (aka pile of shit).

        I've disabled updates in Mozilla. I will enable the switch to remove the signing requirement for version 41 and will not update again until Mozilla includes the option to remove this requirement in future versions. If they don't do that -- I'll just go to Chrome.

  10. DonGateley August 8, 2015 at 10:25 pm #

    I don't get all the sturm and drang about this. What, exactly, is wrong with having an unusual, yet simple, means to enable one to do something unusual?

    I welcome signing if it can be easily bypassed by those with special needs because it can increase security for the general user and decrease the time Mozilla must spend supporting users that are actually having add-on, not Firefox problems. If the ability to bypass signing is removed then let the sturm and drang commence.

  11. lodestar August 9, 2015 at 5:08 pm #

    Clearly Firefox Devs want chaos.
    I just found out YESTERDAY my windows 7 64 bit box 2x Xenon/8cores 16GB that I had been building and debugging for two years to replace my XP 32 bit which was to replace my TV show box and Audio workstation. That the record inputs are disabled in windows 7.

    So really after thousands of dollars and two years of work I found I can not produce ANYTHING AT ALL ON IT, it was 100% unsuitable to replace XP. Everybody who said XP was ANCIENT/OLD was a LYING MORON.

    Because There NEVER WAS ANTHING TO REPLACE XP!

    EVER.

    I should have known by the warning sign cause I was infatuated with VB6 and the MIXER. and when we went to win7 suddenly the focus was DITCH VB6 for .NET yeah, and note the MIXER was CRIPPLED AND REPLACED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    but I thought the cool .net mixer was good, I NEVER TRIED TO RECORD Analog!!!!!!!!!!!

    fOR YEARS... I dumped mini-DV's and USB, and SD cards, discs etc... NO PROBLEM..
    Then one day I got a record player at an auction and wanted to run a couple lines in to record. BOOM no mixer, no recording in win 7.

    A week later and still no resolve.
    Violently Angry is how I feel.
    I am done trusting Software people.
    Sick and Nauseated also.

    Microsoft can go bankrupt. They do not have a REPLACEMENT for XP.

    Linux is not ready to replace XP for MEDIA either.
    CLOSE but not ready.

    My opinions ...... I will base purchases on these in the future.
    Boxes are now going to get XP 32 bit. SCREW 64 bit.

    AS FAR AS AUDIO AND VIDEO PRODUCTION MY 32 bit quad core 2GB out does my 64 bit 2x xenon/8cores and 16GB!
    The latest is the SUCKIEST!
    The best is 2009 -ish...

    • DonGateley August 9, 2015 at 11:45 pm #

      Awesome rage rant, really, but what does it have to do with Firefox?

  12. reader August 10, 2015 at 10:47 am #

    nightly 42.0a1
    user_pref( "xpinstall.signatures.required", false ); - with user.js, in about config is 'false', but really this doesn't works.

  13. Whitebuck August 12, 2015 at 12:13 am #

    Firefox 40.0, this fix ( xpinstall.signatures.required ) to "false" did not work. FF 40.0 broke my most used and essential Extensions! FEED UP with Mozilla!

    The below are my thoughts or feedback, I offered Mozilla.

    The frigging morons, broke 1 Password Extension (https://agilebits.com/extensions/mac/index.html) for 1 Password 3.8.22 (Build 32110) and many of my most essential Extensions.

    They can either correct their asinine error immediately or myself and many others will be through with Mozilla and Firefox!

    This is an inexcusable oversight, which has become indicative behavior of Mozilla.

    No override option? You frigging presumptuous morons! "DO NOT" take my choices away, or assume I relinquish my prerogative. you NAZI FREAKS!

    Mozilla finally succeeded, in forcing me to use Chromium as my 'Default" Browser.

    Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft, Google and the like, are all Totalitarian Imperialistic Greedy Scum!

    My Machine, iMac, Yosemite 10.10.

  14. Dan Lauber August 14, 2015 at 5:33 pm #

    Among the extensions that the first BETA of FF 41 blocks is Adobe Acrobat PDF. So it's not just obscure or outdated add-ons that this attempt to "improve" the Firefox experience messes with.

    I've got to say that I'm a bit surprised by the nasty tenor of so many comments posted here. 'Tis a sad commentary on the state of online discourse.

  15. JayShanny August 31, 2015 at 9:35 pm #

    Thankyou! Thankyou! Thankyou!

  16. Mohamed Ali Said September 10, 2015 at 5:19 pm #

    Thank you very much. I was cursing Mozilla for the last month :P. thank u again

  17. Luke M September 11, 2015 at 10:42 pm #

    Excellent instructions. Thank you! It doesn't seem like this is in Mozilla's help pages but it should be!

  18. Anonymous September 16, 2015 at 3:06 pm #

    thank you!

  19. hedapepa October 31, 2015 at 2:37 am #

    Dont work anymore :/

  20. kapila December 30, 2015 at 6:37 am #

    Thanks a lot!
    I can run useful old add-ons again.

  21. Robert G December 31, 2015 at 11:51 am #

    THANK YOU :) This switch is now is enabled and works in 43.0.1 STABLE !!! :-D :-D :-D Yay

  22. DamPissed August 27, 2016 at 2:16 pm #

    The single and only reason I have been using firefox since around 32 was pentadactyl. Now they are taking the MS stance that "we own your computer and you and we dictate what you can and cannot do with it" I'm dumping this piece of s#?t. I will never use another mozilla product again.

Leave a Reply