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

231–240 of 336 posts

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

#231

Post by icebraining »

aseipp wrote: post #170
icebraining wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The answer to "This piece of software has a track record of being more secure than this one, due to its design, and these changes in part help fix that disparity" IS NOT "I'm going to use a calculator now because nothing can be secure so what's the point anyway stop trying to force me to eat my dinner vegetables i'm not listening". I don't even know why this needs to be said, because it's fairly obvious nobody on Ear…

From your other posts you seem like a reasonable person, so I'll try to explain myself better despite the verbal abuse.

I realize that some software is more secure than others, and that changes can be made to make it more secure. My point is that you can't simply say "therefore these changes are necessarily good", because there is more to software than security, and those changes often involve tradeoffs in other areas, which have to be weighted. For some of us, in this case, those tradeoffs aren't worth it.

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

#232

Post by SilasX »

MiddleEndian wrote: post #55
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 th…

Yes, Firefox is supposed be more like a hobbyist's car, optimized for tinkering and non-mainstream features.

Except that one day they're suddenly disallowing core features that such hobbyists care about. Suddenly, they don't allow manual transmissions "for security reasons" (you try to plug one in and the internal computer shuts down and refuses to boot, even though you set the computer to expect a manual).

And they've worked with transportation agencies to ensure that their cars get pulled over when they're using a manual.

I was so upset that I wrote a hitler parody when FF stopped supporting unsigned addons even when the user finds the settings and authorizes it.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=taGARf8K5J8

"Why not just shrink wrap the browser and make me buy it from Microsoft at Walmart!"

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

#233

Post by barrkel »

msbarnett wrote: post #222
MiddleEndian wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except in this case it's like removing the bed so I can't hypothetically transport large quantities of nitroglycerin (addons with tracking) but they're preventing me from transporting anything of interest (tab mix plus). I'll just use the Firefox LTS until it stops working with the modern web. By then hopefully the issue will be solved (perhaps by me, as I'm a dev).

> Except in this case it's like removing the bed so I can't hypothetically transport large quantities of nitroglycerin (addons with tracking) No? That's not what's motivating this at all. The problem is the XUL/XPCOM API are fundamentally incomposable with completely sandboxed per-tab processes a la Chromium and other isolating security changes, because of assumptions they impose on Firefox internals. If you turn on…

Sufficient extension points with APIs to reimplement the interesting addons should have been made available and working years before dropping compatibility. From the conversations happening around the most popular addons, that has not been the case.

It may be that the old APIs need to die; but this way isn't the way to kill the old API. You need as near to complete overlapping for a long time to get people to port over. You don't do cliff edges. That's how you kill your userbase.

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

#234

Post by hackuser »

pvg wrote: post #192
hackuser wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, though I'm an avid supporter of Firefox and use it, my very consistent observation is that security experts believe, * Chrome/Chromium is more secure against attacks by governments or criminals (i.e., attacks against the integrity of the system; I can't think of the right word). * Firefox may be more secure against advertising and corporate confidentiality attacks. * Firefox with certain add-ons, too technical…

The fundamental difference is that Google is a gigantic engineering organization that dedicates enormous resources to security, benefiting Chrome directly and indirectly. Over the years, lots of work has been done to ensure and improve its security at a design and architectural level. Firefox, as this announcement shows, is just getting around to freeing itself from design decisions which may have made sense over a d…

> design decisions which may have made sense over a decade ago when Mozilla had 'software suite' ambitions

It doesn't change your overall point, but I think this part is incorrect. AFAIK abandoning those ambitions was the reason they left Seamonkey behind and developed Firefox.

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

#235

Post by barrkel »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #95
cosarara97 wrote: post #2

IMO Firefox has just 2 things to beat Chrome: better add-ons (like treestyle tabs) and politics (made by Mozilla instead of an ads company). They are burning the first one.

Only about 250,000 users use the tab modification extensions that people keep claiming is Firefox's only advantage out of 10s of millions of Firefox users. Addons that greatly alter Firefox's behavior are the main reason for crashes. And maintaining XUL is hampering Firefox future development.

It's the same story with Office, you know; only 5% use any given niche feature. The trouble is, it's a different 5% for everyone.

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

#236

Post by icebraining »

kibwen wrote: post #103
temgo wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Mozilla's test pilot projects there serve to prototype proposed extension APIs. It's there to inform the design of what hooks are needed to make such an addon possible, so that it will still be possible in a world with only WebExtensions.

Are the APIs required to make TabCenter as a WebExtension guaranteed to work on FF 57? If not, temgo is still right, no? At least an argument could be made that the elimination of XUL should only happen when the current experiments can actually be implemented using the new model.

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

#237

Post by jasonkostempski »

pjmlp wrote: post #193
jasonkostempski wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it still true you can't do extensions for Chrome on Android? If so, they should just do a commercial showing you can use uBlock Origin with it. That could get a good chunk to move on Android and if they use it there they might switch on desktop too.

Most people, aka normal users, don't care for extensions other than themes, if at all. So I doubt it would get any new users other than geek folk.

I'm not talking about showing off extension support, just ad blocking. I hate extensions myself, I wish content blocking with white listing was just built right into the browser which is that last real feature any browser needs. Once people get a few weeks with a good ad blocker they won't ever go back. After that, if they use a browser without it, they'll think they have a virus.

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

#238

Post by l_t »

hackuser wrote: post #179
nonbel wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so, I think its that Firefox used to be awesome. Now people who advocated for them feel betrayed when the search is "updated" to yahoo, the homepage is "improved" to have ads, the menus are "modernized" so you can't find the settings you used to, the add-on system is "secured" so you have to modify your workflow, etc.

Thanks for addressing my comment. Of course I can't speak for everyone (and neither can you or anyone else), but to my general point ... > people who advocated for them feel betrayed ... Consider how strong an emotional response that is to a search engine change, etc., especially from people very familiar with IT and capable of adjusting to change (changing the default search engine, for example), and in a context wh…

I understand your point, but I think you might be underestimating the importance Firefox has to some people. It was never just a replaceable Web browser for me. It was one of the few pieces of software that seemed to be "made right", built by people who care, and built for people who know what they want.

I always thought of Firefox as a paragon of power-user design, and I loved it for that. In terms of hours of usage, I'm sure I've logged more with Firefox than with any other program in my life. It might not be an exaggeration to say it's the most important piece of software I have ever(!) use.

So this change, in combination with the overall direction Firefox seems to be headed, does evoke fairly strong feelings, and I really don't think they are "actually about something else".

Having said that, I do want to say that I am not angry, and I don't want to vilify anyone. I'm just concerned, and a bit sad, because the browsing experience I've grown up with seems like it won't be around much longer.

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

#239

Post by beerbaron23 »

darkengine wrote: post #205
beerbaron23 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really should use Firefox if you are a heavy WebGL user, Firefox is 3 times as fast as Chrome now on Unity3D, an it's the complete opposite, Chrome is more snappy with Java and Firefox with animations/Graphics. Here is my latest benchmark as solid proof: https://www.dropbox.com/s/58doo8csebp9l62/Bench.pdf?dl=0

In my experience on Linux, the difference is night and day, and not in Firefox's favor. Really basic demos struggle to get 30fps while Chromium handles them at the refresh rate of my display no problem. Firefox WebGL works much better on Windows for me; never tried it on OS X. It's probably a Linux-specific issue, but I rarely use Firefox on anything else.

Also if you want to get to the root of the problem, when you install Firefox 51.0.1 in the URL bar type "about:support"

It will list HW acceleration info. You want to make sure electrolysis is running, in the line "Multiprocess Windows: 1/1 (Enabled by user)" should be enabled by default, if it says 0/1 it not active and you will have to manually turn it on.

You can also see if the WebGL renderer is loading properly. On my Debian box it says WebGL2 creation failed (drivers), which would explain my poor performance on that box.

It's worth a shot since Firefox's WebGL rendering is 4x faster then other browsers, it's worth your time taking a quick check.

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

#240

Post by pvg »

hackuser wrote: post #234
pvg wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fundamental difference is that Google is a gigantic engineering organization that dedicates enormous resources to security, benefiting Chrome directly and indirectly. Over the years, lots of work has been done to ensure and improve its security at a design and architectural level. Firefox, as this announcement shows, is just getting around to freeing itself from design decisions which may have made sense over a d…

> design decisions which may have made sense over a decade ago when Mozilla had 'software suite' ambitions It doesn't change your overall point, but I think this part is incorrect. AFAIK abandoning those ambitions was the reason they left Seamonkey behind and developed Firefox.

Firefox started well before Seamonkey was spun out, and they continued with Thunderbird anyway. But the details of the history of the ambitions don't matter, what matters is that these architectural decisions were made a long, long time ago but their consequences are still there. You can decide you're not going make an app suite, that doesn't magically re-architect the internals of the product you have. Take a look at this announcement from Netscape, in 2000 (AD):

https://gilbane.com/2000/03/netscape-announces-gecko-adoptee...

Support for XUL addons is being dropped now. That's a long echo.

Post reply on HN