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

131–140 of 336 posts

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

#131

Post by mook »

detaro wrote: post #17

November 14th. I really hope they get the promised additional APIs in order until then, but it seems like a really short time (given how they are not 1:1 Chrome yet last I checked). I personally don't mind the switch to much (since I really want better performance, and the beginning of e10s has helped, and I don't care much about non-trivial add-ons), but it's clear the promise of "We'll make new APIs for add-ons tha…

Getting the APIs in place isn't enough, though; there needs to be time for the addons to adapt too (or for new addons to show up to replace the old ones). I'm not sure they have planned enough time for that to happen, but time will tell.

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

#132

Post by sychophant »

hammerandtongs wrote: post #100
sirn wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a very different experience. Some of us who use Vimperator use it not only because of the key binding, but also for the command-line, ability to modify the UI (e.g. :set gui=none), ability to put .vimperatorrc in .dotfiles and use it across multiple systems, and such. As far as I know, VimFX still not capable of all these functionalities (some due to difference in mission, e.g. not modifying the UI.) That said,…

I use this all day long on Chromium - https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cvim/ihlenndgcmojh... I also use this in Chromium - https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/wasavi/dgogifpkoil... Note that they do very different things from each other AND that they are running Chromium which is a SUBSET of the plugin features that will be available in Firefox (if all goes well).

I have used all of the Chrome based variants of Vimperator. I like Cvim too.

However there is one killer feature for me in Firefox, that is the fact that I can:

nmap 10j

nmap 10k

Chrome has these keys already bound and there is no way to unbind them.

I am adamant about using this configuration because it matches my .vimrc - so I use the exact same navigation in my browser and my (arguably) IDE.

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

#133

Post by sychophant »

fuzzy2 wrote: post #123
richardboegli wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pale Moon

However, that’s pretty much the other extreme. It doesn’t support Web Extensions or even Add-on SDK extensions.

Do you use any indispensable add-ons that are Web Extension based?

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

#134

Post by darklajid »

callahad wrote: post #80
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…

> I want the addons to have full control over my browser I can assure you that you only want this if you can guarantee that your add-ons only do what they claim, don't have security vulnerabilities, and are never acquired and maliciously updated. Otherwise, a permissionless add-on model means a bug in TreeStyleTabs could potentially be used to exfiltrate your entire password database, plant malicious binaries on your…

> Firefox will not have this limitation

Is that a statement about future Firefox visions or Firefox 57? I assume you know the gritty details while I'm a rather confused Firefox power user / fan / advocate (using .. addons that are affected, vertical tabs/tree style tabs plus vimperator/pentadactyl mostly).

The outrage The Internet™ seems to feel is probably not about XUL being deprecated/killed. I'd say no user cares about the technology, the only people even caring are probably the addon developers.

From what I can tell, the outrage is mostly due to the impression (and I dearly hope that you will dismiss this as wrong, just like the 'addon limitation' reference above) that the web extension switch happens before popular, polarizing addons are even remotely possible given the new API.

"Will not have this limitation", as in "it won't support that use case in 57 at all" or as in "you can do better than this Chrome extension you describe"?

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

#135

Post by cpeterso »

hoschicz wrote: post #45
darklajid wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can use the LTS (Extended Support Release? Not sure about the Mozilla terminology) version. For a while..

It's called Firefox ESR

The next Firefox ESR will be based on Firefox 52 (to be released in March). Firefox 52 ESR will continue to support all add-ons and receive security fixes until sometime in 2018 H1.

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

#136

Post by [deleted] »

untog wrote: post #53
falcolas wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]

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

#137

Post by kibwen »

CaptSpify wrote: post #115
kibwen wrote: post #93

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. Owning the code that runs on your machine is your right as a user of open-source software, but there's no right that says that Mozilla must be the one to maintain that code. And nobody's asking you to maintain your own personal fork either: find all the other people…

> but there's no right that says that Mozilla must be the one to maintain that code. And there's no right that says I have to use FF. They are giving up one of their big advantages.

From where I stand, it looks like they're trading one of their big advantages for a massively reduced maintenance burden which will unquestionably allow them to compete better on every other front. It may or may not pan out, but I think we can all agree that some change of trajectory from the past few years is needed if Firefox hopes to stay relevant. You're free to think that Mozilla leadership is incompetent, but in this particular instance I think their stance is grounded in sound reasoning, as inconvenient as it is undoubtedly is for some power users.

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

#138

Post by mook »

mnordhoff wrote: post #120
mook wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There are some release builds that do. https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing#Unbranded...

Ah! Thank you, I stand corrected. I didn't realize they actually have those now. Still hard to find, but at least they exist.

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

#139

Post by exceptione »

CaptSpify wrote: post #113
exceptione wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything you said is true. However, > And most people don't care about avoiding Google. ...if that changes, everything changes. Thats the same thing with Signal and WhatsApp. I am positively surprised how easy it is to convert people to Signal and the momentum they are gaining. Maybe they are betting on the very long term? Tbh, I would expect a more focused marketing from Mozilla if that would be the case. I am alm…

> ...if that changes, everything changes. That's a big "if". How likely is it to change? If history shows anything, not very. Don't get me wrong, I strongly hope they can knock Google off the top spot. But hope doesn't ship units.

Exactly, that's why they should direct their (still huge) funds to create more awareness.

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

#140

Post by McCirculaire »

oblio wrote: post #47
Spivak wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wouldn't really be to make a statement. Chromium is a better browser but because of the powerful add-ons Firefox's overall experience is better. Take that away and there's no real reason to stay with Firefox unless you like their license and Mozilla as a company.

The question is, why is Chromium the better browser? Firefox 57 will have sandboxing and per-tab processes (most likely) plus a better extension system than Chrome's. Firefox 57 should be at least equivalent to Chromium.

Why is it better? just the two links I'm going to give should be enough to give you pause :

http://www.cvedetails.com/product/3264/Mozilla-Firefox.html?...

http://www.cvedetails.com/product/15031/Google-Chrome.html?v...

During 2016, Firefox had 53 code execution CVE reports.

Chrome had 2.

Firefox only has around 8% of the browser marketshare. Chrome sits between 44% and 60% depending on the source. So it's not a case of Firefox being more popular and attracting more people to target it for hacks. It's just worse software.

And then there's just user inconveniences like how Firefox becomes extremely slow if you open multiple heavy tabs. e10s has yet to fix it, currently, if you enable it, it only opens 2 processes, one for the UI, and one for the rendering engine. So the UI itself might not slow to a crawl but all your tabs will still feel slow if you open heavy stuff.

Firefox also has a slower rendering engine. My eyesight isn't great and I browse web pages with zoom active in between 120% and 150% depending on pages. That makes Firefox behave extremely slow on some pages. It's particularly unbearable, on, say, slashdot pages with lots of comments.

For the same reason smooth scrolling is the first thing Firefox users disable in Firefox. Smooth scrolling works fine on Chrome. FF has never managed to implement smooth scrolling in a way that doesn't slow things to a crawl and makes the scrolling look like stuttering or low framerate.

People often rely on Javascript benchmarks to say "Hey firefox is as fast as chrome!!!11!!" but JS is only one part of what makes a browser fast or slow. What about the parts that actually render the page to something your screen can display?

> Firefox 57 should be at least equivalent to Chromium.

Chrome would have had to stop all development years ago for that sentence to be true.

Post reply on HN