Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 336 posts

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

#81

Post by alphapapa »

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…

> 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.

IOW, the addons are software, just like Firefox is. That is what makes them useful.

> Most add-ons can be ported to webextensions. The ones that can't probably shouldn't have ever been add-ons to begin with.

I hope you realize that this attitude is 100% the opposite of the original Mozilla team, and that Firefox and Mozilla would not exist today if it had been. Firefox became what it is today because of its customizability and its empowerment of users.

> Firefox will be better off for only supporting webextensions.

On the contrary, it will no longer be Firefox. That is the point that we 15-plus-year, loyal users have been trying to drive through the thick heads at Mozilla.

If I wanted to use a browser like Chrome, I would use Chrome. What kind of product manager thinks he can beat his competitor by essentially duplicating their product, when there is no differentiation on price? Both browsers are free. People are already using Chrome because Google has what is essentially a Microsoft, IE-style de facto monopoly. People can still use Firefox if they prefer it--but if it ceases to be unique, why would they bother?

Firefox 56 will be the last version of Firefox I use, because Firefox 57 will no longer be useful to me. That is the bottom line.

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

#82

Post by temgo »

oblio wrote: post #79
icebraining wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How will the extension system of FF 57 be better than Chrome's?

Can Chrome do this: https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/tab-center/ ?

That add-on won't run on ff57, either.

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

#83

Post by mook »

shard972 wrote: post #65
dagenleg wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

While i agree with the idea of being able to install whatever you want. What's wrong with it being behind a developer mode? I would bet that 99%~ people don't need or even want that kind of absolute freedom. As a chrome user, the only plugin I have that I can't get on the play store is one for downloading youtube videos but I can still install it from the author website, just takes a few extra clicks.

> What's wrong with it being behind a developer mode?

The fact that one doesn't exist. "Developer edition" is really just their alpha build, they don't have release builds that allow unsigned extension installs.

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

#84

Post by alphapapa »

detaro wrote: post #67
dagenleg wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

But Mozilla cares about average users, not about making something for power-users only. That seems to be the big conflict here: power users saying "you've lost the masses, so make something for us" while Mozilla's mission is making something that would be good for the masses, and they'd rather fail trying than failing that mission by abandoning it.

The power users are saying, Firefox became successful by being powerful. When it ceases to be powerful, it will cease to be successful. People will just use Chrome.

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

#85

Post by falcolas »

untog wrote: post #76
falcolas wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, fix the problem instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I get it, it's a hard problem to fix. There would be a lot of pain in getting there, both for Mozilla and addon developers. But throwing in the towel feels like a cop-out. The logic is sound, but so is closing down every theater because someone got shot in one of them. After all, everyone has TVs and blu-ray players now, and you can't get shot i…

But this is the fix. Instead of allowing open access to the internals of Firefox, which will never be secure, you use a limited API. It isn't difficult to imagine that they can expand this API later to allow things that aren't currently possible. It's a hard problem to fix and there will be pain getting there. And the theatre analogy is just silly. It's not like shutting down a theatre because someone got shot in it,…

This is a fix. It's not the only fix. I postulate that it's probably not even the best fix for Firefox.

> Instead of allowing open access to the internals of Firefox, which will never be secure

Android, iOS, and many other OSes do this all the time via rather granular ACLs. It can be done.

All analogies are flawed - but Firefox is closing the theaters by completely killing off their add-on interface in exchange for an comparatively shallow experience.

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

#86

Post by lisivka »

> And the theatre analogy is just silly. It's not like shutting down a theatre because someone got shot in it, it's like enacting a "no guns in this theatre" policy instead.

"No guns here" means "Shooters, you will have zero resistance here. Enjoy!".

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

#88

Post by CaptSpify »

exceptione wrote: post #71
lucideer wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree generally with your points, but this doesn't really address the issues being criticised in comments here. I want to use Firefox (I do currently use Firefox, despite a lot of limitations), but there comes a tipping point where the balance of privacy (and apparent "user-interest") and actual usability and power leads to a not-so-good proposition. Someone has commented above that it seems like Mozilla management…

I can't rule that out either. It might be that it is in Googles best interest to kill firefox. Here is an alternative view I have in mind. The strategy to mimick chrome makes sense, because the masses think this is how the browser -- or as they call it the "internet" -- should look like. Its imho feasible to launch a television and internet campaign promoting firefox after the transition by stressing the privacy qual…

> The strategy to mimick chrome makes sense, because the masses think this is how the browser -- or as they call it the "internet" -- should look like.

But that's what FF has been doing for the past ~5 years, and how has their share been doing? Not so well.

Chrome has much more marketing behind it. And it comes from a name that people know and trust. Most people don't know who Mozilla is. And most people don't care about avoiding Google. So if I have two browsers, and the lesser known one is constantly following the other, why would I choose it? I'd rather take the leading browser. It seems as if the FF one is just playing catchup the whole time.

I love Mozilla and FF because it respects me. But it often feels like they are losing that respect just to play follow the leader

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

#89

Post by alphapapa »

untog wrote: post #76
falcolas wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, fix the problem instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I get it, it's a hard problem to fix. There would be a lot of pain in getting there, both for Mozilla and addon developers. But throwing in the towel feels like a cop-out. The logic is sound, but so is closing down every theater because someone got shot in one of them. After all, everyone has TVs and blu-ray players now, and you can't get shot i…

But this is the fix. Instead of allowing open access to the internals of Firefox, which will never be secure, you use a limited API. It isn't difficult to imagine that they can expand this API later to allow things that aren't currently possible. It's a hard problem to fix and there will be pain getting there. And the theatre analogy is just silly. It's not like shutting down a theatre because someone got shot in it,…

The theatre already had such a policy. The sign did not deter the murderer. The analogy is apt.

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

#90

Post by frik »

masklinn wrote: post #68
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…

> They essentially give full control of your computer to the developer of the add-on. That's the entire point. Firebug could not have existed as a WebExtension, and thus without XUL addons the entire web development field could still be on Venkman or Script Editor rather than where it is now. The XUL extensions model allows extensions in ways unmatched by WE, and yes the development experience isn't tremendous and it…

Exactly. Now they killed Firebug. And their newer DevTool has a Firebug skin - just a skin. Very bad devision. So now I reverted back to an older Firebug version, which is actually the true Firebug addon.

This means I will now have a zoo of old outdated browsers. Safari 5.1 Win32, Firefox 56 Win32 with Firebug addon, IE11 on Win7 (plus Chrome, Vivaldi and Servo alpha)

I have hope in a lightweight reboot of Firefox based on Servo with HTML based UI (like Firefox was a lightweight reboot of Mozilla Suite; funny that Firefox is now many times more bloated than Mozilla Suite (now called SeaMonkey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeaMonkey ) and has less features)

Post reply on HN