Sure it doesn't.avada wrote:At this point it doesn't matter.
It matters so little to you, that you felt the need to bump a 6-month-old bug report thread to declare the current state of FlashGot, despite you not being officially involved with the project. Stepping in and speaking the words you think the addon's developer needs to say about XUL FlashGot, but could not muster the courage to write.
Seriously, neither of us knows what Giorgio is thinking beyond what he has written. Like the old saying goes, to assume otherwise just makes an ass of u and me.
... when e10s was either disabled by default, or just plain unavailable. Re-read what Giorgio wrote -avada wrote:Those quotes are a year old, or older
And e10s now is enabled by default, in the stable channel for some users.Giorgio Maone wrote:In the meanwhile, if e10s gets enabled in the stable channel before WebExtensions are viable, show-stopping bugs like these will be fixed.
If the status of FlashGot has changed, Giorgio will be the one to say so. Not you, nor me, nor anyone else not directly affiliated with FlashGot.
This less complex than NoScript, is it? -avada wrote:Flashgot has 1/3 of the userbase of noscript, but is an order of a magnitude less complex.
So, which addon is really more complex?
In public. That says nothing about what Giorgio did or didn't do privately. We don't know what we don't know.avada wrote:But it got about 0% dev time in the past years.
How do you know this? Again, please re-read what Giorgio wrote above, in the context of the current situation with Firefox.avada wrote:Now that the XUL phaseout is near there's no chance for a fix to the addon as it is.