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

An enhancement request I submitted to Bugzilla 15 years ago was just closed

bugzilla.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 129 posts

Re: An enhancement request I submitted to Bugzilla 15 years ago was just closed

#101

Post by dotancohen »

hnarn wrote: post #100

I don't find this that interesting since the bug was not "fixed" in the sense most people probably think about fixing a bug -- i.e. someone picks it up, investigates it and writes a fix. It was closed due to housekeeping since, as the latest comment states: > "legacy" extensions are gone While I agree that housekeeping large backlogs is commendable, this bug was if anything fixed by "accident", and is no more a fix i…

Not really. The real feature being asked for was to prevent arbitrary extensions from accessing the filesystem. That specific request has been granted, as WebExtensions cannot access the filesystem.

The situation that no other "safe" method of accessing the filesystem was not even considered by the bug's author, but it does address the issue.

Re: An enhancement request I submitted to Bugzilla 15 years ago was just closed

#102

Post by dotancohen »

BoppreH wrote: post #56
TBurette wrote: post #53

I remember that the introduction of the new WebExtension API to replace the existing extension system was heavily criticized. The old system gave extensions deep access to the browser and the new extension API (copied over from the Chrome browser) was seen as a limiting dumbing down. It was a painful transition but very much needed. Now extensions don't clash with one another. The browser code can be modified more fr…

My two most important extensions were my adblocker, and Vimium (enable Vim-like control in Firefox). The new WebExtension API broke Vimium, with no replacement possible[1]. Meanwhile, I never had problems with extension clashes. I appreciate that this improved the code base quality for Mozilla folks, but it was a significant step down in features for me. I even switched to Vivaldi (which has built-in Vim keybindings)…

I feel your sentiment regarding Vimium - I was using Vimperator and it took quite a while to remap my fingers from gt to Ctrl-Tab while the page is loading.

But I really do love Tridactyl, even if only for the link hinting. I really suggest that you give it a few weeks. Remember, learning VIM took you longer than a few weeks.

Re: An enhancement request I submitted to Bugzilla 15 years ago was just closed

#103

Post by dotancohen »

mqnfred wrote: post #61
BoppreH wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My two most important extensions were my adblocker, and Vimium (enable Vim-like control in Firefox). The new WebExtension API broke Vimium, with no replacement possible[1]. Meanwhile, I never had problems with extension clashes. I appreciate that this improved the code base quality for Mozilla folks, but it was a significant step down in features for me. I even switched to Vivaldi (which has built-in Vim keybindings)…

I know you might not be interested in anything chromium-based since this thread is about firefox, but qutebrowser[1] is a great solution for anybody looking for vimium/pentadactyl-like experience. [1] https://qutebrowser.org/

I will very likely move to QTBrowser when it gets Tree Style Tabs.

https://github.com/qutebrowser/qutebrowser/issues/927

Re: An enhancement request I submitted to Bugzilla 15 years ago was just closed

#104

Post by mrjin »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #71
mrjin wrote: post #35

Thought M$ was the worst. In VisualStudio 2008 they introduced a really annoying bug that in environments that had non-English IMEs installed, when there was a compilation error, the default IME would be invoked, and of course, when you tried to fix the error, what you typed would make nonsense to the compiler. Contacted M$, they promised thatit would be fixed in VS2008 SP1. But the fact was they never made it until…

Logging issues with a big company like Microsoft or Adobe feels like talking to a brick wall. I don't bother wasting my time on it anymore.

Neither do I. Was too naive...

Re: An enhancement request I submitted to Bugzilla 15 years ago was just closed

#105

Post by WhyNotHugo »

> WebExtensions have various permissions associated (though not controllable by the user -- merely declared and accepted or not

I think this is a major flaw in how permissions are implemented in Firefox (and Flatpak and other pieces of modern technology).

Software commonly "declares" what permissions it wants, but the user doesn't have to opt-in to grant these permission. They're granted by default, and there's usually no way to deny it.

I think iOS has a good approach here, where an application asks for camera permission and there's two buttons: Grant or Deny. The prompt also comes when camera access is actually required, not at software installation time.

Re: An enhancement request I submitted to Bugzilla 15 years ago was just closed

#108

Post by boomboomsubban »

scim-knox-twox wrote: post #18
boomboomsubban wrote: post #8

Closed because it became irrelevant in Nov 2017. I guess that's resolved.

Closed today because it "became irrelevant in Nov 2017 "?

The "today" was in the title, didn't think I needed to repeat it.

Re: An enhancement request I submitted to Bugzilla 15 years ago was just closed

#109

Post by marcosdumay »

scim-knox-twox wrote: post #18
boomboomsubban wrote: post #8

Closed because it became irrelevant in Nov 2017. I guess that's resolved.

Closed today because it "became irrelevant in Nov 2017 "?

Closing is a manual action, and if the bug is not relevant, people won't go there often.

Re: An enhancement request I submitted to Bugzilla 15 years ago was just closed

#110

Post by einpoklum »

In the bug page, we see the initial response:

> That's a good idea. We can look into it, but I suspect that doing it right will require either crippling Chickenfoot substantially, or doing substantial rewiring of Firefox itself.

The direction Firefox decided to go was mostly "crippling substantially" of extensions, and not enough "rewiring of Firefox itself".

Post reply on HN