Firefox 57 as the first release where only WebExtensions will be supported • Hacker News Board

Re: Firefox 57 as the first release where only WebExtensions will be supported

#51

Post by JeremyBanks » Sat, Feb 18, 2017, 4:44 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #43

bastawhiz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has better addons The add-ons might be better, but XUL-based Firefox add-ons are not better. They essentially give full control of your computer to the developer of the add-on. There's no permission model. The "APIs" are mostly the internals of Firefox itself, and when Firefox updates, lots of add-ons break. Most add-ons can be ported to webextensions. The ones that can't probably shouldn't have ever been add-ons t…

> Firefox will be better off for only supporting webextensions. Sounds like Firefox developers will be better off. Everyone else will suffer. I'm a developer, I understand how much the job sucks sometimes (that's why it's a job ). But if you want a product to succeed, can't afford to put the comfort of your developers over that of the end user.

Did you get even read the post you just responded to? It had nothing to do with developer comfort.

Re: Firefox 57 as the first release where only WebExtensions will be supported

#52

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Feb 18, 2017, 4:45 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #43

bastawhiz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has better addons The add-ons might be better, but XUL-based Firefox add-ons are not better. They essentially give full control of your computer to the developer of the add-on. There's no permission model. The "APIs" are mostly the internals of Firefox itself, and when Firefox updates, lots of add-ons break. Most add-ons can be ported to webextensions. The ones that can't probably shouldn't have ever been add-ons t…

> Firefox will be better off for only supporting webextensions. Sounds like Firefox developers will be better off. Everyone else will suffer. I'm a developer, I understand how much the job sucks sometimes (that's why it's a job ). But if you want a product to succeed, can't afford to put the comfort of your developers over that of the end user.

[deleted]

Re: Firefox 57 as the first release where only WebExtensions will be supported

#53

Post by untog » Sat, Feb 18, 2017, 4:45 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #43

bastawhiz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has better addons The add-ons might be better, but XUL-based Firefox add-ons are not better. They essentially give full control of your computer to the developer of the add-on. There's no permission model. The "APIs" are mostly the internals of Firefox itself, and when Firefox updates, lots of add-ons break. Most add-ons can be ported to webextensions. The ones that can't probably shouldn't have ever been add-ons t…

> Firefox will be better off for only supporting webextensions. Sounds like Firefox developers will be better off. Everyone else will suffer. I'm a developer, I understand how much the job sucks sometimes (that's why it's a job ). But if you want a product to succeed, can't afford to put the comfort of your developers over that of the end user.

No, security threats make both developers and users worse off.

It's undoubtedly true that power users will lose a little of the functionality they like in Firefox, but that normal users will have a more secure browser. I'm sure someone will fork Firefox to keep a version alive for those power users.

You might not agree with it, but the logic is sound.

Re: Firefox 57 as the first release where only WebExtensions will be supported

#54

Post by willemmali » Sat, Feb 18, 2017, 4:46 PM UTC

dagenleg wrote: post #8

I am honestly starting to believe that Mozilla is trying to run Firefox into the ground. I am not sure if it's just bad decision making or if the decision makers themselves had been bought off by competition, but it sure does feel like this. Why do we need one more Chrome like browser out there? I specifically use Firefox because it's a) not chrome, b) has better addons. If you hamstring the addons and make everythin…

For now using Firefox ESR might be a good stopgap measure for you?

That way you can use an old version with the old add-on ecosystem for at least a year longer, and still get security updates.

I usually work on Debian Jessie which ships (a variant of) Firefox ESR, and it's very well-usable. I haven't noticed any differences between the latest Firefox on Windows and Firefox-ESR on Debian.

The latest LastPass, XMarks, VimFX, uBlock Origin and uMatrix run on it, though I haven't managed to get RES (Reddit Enhancement Suite) to work.

Re: Firefox 57 as the first release where only WebExtensions will be supported

#55

Post by MiddleEndian » Sat, Feb 18, 2017, 4:46 PM UTC

exceptione wrote: post #12

Ouch, the comments over there are extremely negative. As mozilla is our last bastion of hope between advertising giants it pains me to see mozilla having an increasingly hard time to sustain a positive brand image. It is crazy if you think about it, because Mozilla is the last giant that respects its users. It has a very good proposition with regards to privacy and user-interest alignment. There are still tons of les…

A car analogy is perfect here.

Google Chrome is kind of like a sedan, something convenient for most people.

Firefox is kind of like a pickup truck, less convenient for a lot of people but more powerful and useful for the people who need them.

This move is kind of like a pickup truck manufacturer realizing that sedans are more common than pickup trucks, then thinking sedans don't have beds in the back, and removing the bed from their pickup truck. Then afterwards, they're confused why people don't like this change.

Re: Firefox 57 as the first release where only WebExtensions will be supported

#56

Post by icebraining » Sat, Feb 18, 2017, 4:46 PM UTC

greggman wrote: post #40

exceptione wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right. I did and do not say every chrome user is stupid, there might be legitimate use-cases. But the vast amount of people just install chrome or get it side-loaded with some freeware and don't even think about their options and the impact of their choice. Now that is less than smart.

Go look at the CVE reports for each browser. Your taking a > 10x risk running anything other than Chrome. These changes Mozilla is making are to fix that.

If I want to reduce computing security risks I'll use a calculator. Everything else comes with tradeoffs, and for many of us, these aren't worth it.

Re: Firefox 57 as the first release where only WebExtensions will be supported

#57

Post by bad_user » Sat, Feb 18, 2017, 4:46 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #43

bastawhiz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has better addons The add-ons might be better, but XUL-based Firefox add-ons are not better. They essentially give full control of your computer to the developer of the add-on. There's no permission model. The "APIs" are mostly the internals of Firefox itself, and when Firefox updates, lots of add-ons break. Most add-ons can be ported to webextensions. The ones that can't probably shouldn't have ever been add-ons t…

> Firefox will be better off for only supporting webextensions. Sounds like Firefox developers will be better off. Everyone else will suffer. I'm a developer, I understand how much the job sucks sometimes (that's why it's a job ). But if you want a product to succeed, can't afford to put the comfort of your developers over that of the end user.

I've developed extensions. Chrome and the WebExtensions API is by far the easiest way to do it.

Re: Firefox 57 as the first release where only WebExtensions will be supported

#58

Post by chr1 » Sat, Feb 18, 2017, 4:46 PM UTC

bastawhiz wrote: post #23

dagenleg wrote: post #8

I am honestly starting to believe that Mozilla is trying to run Firefox into the ground. I am not sure if it's just bad decision making or if the decision makers themselves had been bought off by competition, but it sure does feel like this. Why do we need one more Chrome like browser out there? I specifically use Firefox because it's a) not chrome, b) has better addons. If you hamstring the addons and make everythin…

> has better addons The add-ons might be better, but XUL-based Firefox add-ons are not better. They essentially give full control of your computer to the developer of the add-on. There's no permission model. The "APIs" are mostly the internals of Firefox itself, and when Firefox updates, lots of add-ons break. Most add-ons can be ported to webextensions. The ones that can't probably shouldn't have ever been add-ons t…

> weird popups, overlays in the browser viewport, extensions that sneakily inject ads into pages, and track user behavior _still exist_

all of this is possible to do with webextensions, just add a contentscript for all_urls. Of course webextensions help with some security issues, but not with the ones you mention.

Re: Firefox 57 as the first release where only WebExtensions will be supported

#59

Post by untog » Sat, Feb 18, 2017, 4:46 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #42

bastawhiz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has better addons The add-ons might be better, but XUL-based Firefox add-ons are not better. They essentially give full control of your computer to the developer of the add-on. There's no permission model. The "APIs" are mostly the internals of Firefox itself, and when Firefox updates, lots of add-ons break. Most add-ons can be ported to webextensions. The ones that can't probably shouldn't have ever been add-ons t…

Lots of other browsers used to do the same thing Firefox does, and chose to use a webextension-like model instead. Really? Name three. Your arguments may be true, yet they fail to answer the question: "If you hamstring the addons and make everything chrome/chromium like, what's the reasons to use FF then?" If Chrome made all the right decisions, we might as well kill off the Firefox project.

Your comment assumes that add-ons are the only reason anyone would ever use Firefox. Personally, I don't use many add-ons, and if Firefox is faster or more battery optimised than Chrome, I'll use it.

Re: Firefox 57 as the first release where only WebExtensions will be supported

#60

Post by dagenleg » Sat, Feb 18, 2017, 4:47 PM UTC

bastawhiz wrote: post #23

dagenleg wrote: post #8

I am honestly starting to believe that Mozilla is trying to run Firefox into the ground. I am not sure if it's just bad decision making or if the decision makers themselves had been bought off by competition, but it sure does feel like this. Why do we need one more Chrome like browser out there? I specifically use Firefox because it's a) not chrome, b) has better addons. If you hamstring the addons and make everythin…

> has better addons The add-ons might be better, but XUL-based Firefox add-ons are not better. They essentially give full control of your computer to the developer of the add-on. There's no permission model. The "APIs" are mostly the internals of Firefox itself, and when Firefox updates, lots of add-ons break. Most add-ons can be ported to webextensions. The ones that can't probably shouldn't have ever been add-ons t…

But I want the addons to have full control over my browser, that's the whole point! It's my browser and I've tailored it to myself and my requirements.

The one thing that is striking every time I try to use chrome/chromium is just how limited the addon functionality is and how much less freedom the user has. Have you seen "treestyletabs" implementation on chrome? It's a whole other window that has to be started and placed side-by-side with the browser window by user because of the addon limitations. There are also some keybindings which are fixed forever and not allowed to be changed (, etc).

Of course you can justify the restrictions by bringing up the case of the poor average user who will get abused by his browser having more functionality that he will ever need. But the thing is - I really don't care for the "average user" and its problems. Average user is a beast that is perfectly happy to be contained in the walled garden, but we already have Chrome and Android for that.