Live data from Hacker News

I cannot continue working on my add-ons

fasezero.com

111–120 of 218 posts

Re: I cannot continue working on my add-ons

#111
I don't expect much from the leadership who brought us FirefoxOS, and indeed the WebExtension migration is being mismanaged - BUT: the hard truth is that the Chrome extension ecosystem is already on top and growing, while the Firefox one has been waning for a while.

If you build a browser extension today, you build it for Chrome; if you have a Mac, you also get a Safari version almost for free; and then eventually, if you have time, if you can be bothered, you port it to FF. This could not go on, something had to be done. And they did it: JetPack/Webextensions, despite the uber-confused documentation, is an almost-complete compatibility layer that makes porting extensions from Chrome much easier. If they'd left it at that, nobody would have complained.

Unfortunately, the next step is to gut the old infrastructure. They might have their technical reasons for that, but it seems a suicidal move from a commercial perspective. They are throwing overboard almost 20 years of competitive differentiation and community engagement. It's like Microsoft told people to rewrite their .Net apps in ObjC.

Re: I cannot continue working on my add-ons

#112
post #67

If Tree Style Tab doesn't work anymore. What are the reasons to use Firefox? Also what are the alternatives. I tried Chrome but the Tree Style Tab-like plugin is clumsy. Should I just not update firefox and wait until devs realize tabs were meant to be on the side? Honnestly as a power user I can't browse the web without tree style tab anymore.

Mozilla created Tab Center, which is similar to Tree Style Tabs: https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/tab-center.

Re: I cannot continue working on my add-ons

#113
There seem to be a lot of people that are saying "oh, without XUL based extensions, Firefox is just a (worse) Chrome clone, so I might as well just use Chrome."

I think what they might be missing is that Mozilla's conclusion is a lot like the people seem to be thinking here -- even though Chrome doesn't have the fancy extensions that are possible in Firefox, many many more people are using Chrome than Firefox, because they see it as a better Firefox.

Clearly, that has something to do with either security or performance, where Firefox has a perceived lag.

Mozilla is actively working to improve performance, and you may not want to switch to Chrome after all, because Chrome may instead be the poor man's Firefox (I personally think this is already the case, simply because with my 679 open tabs, Chrome would simply kill itself [44 loaded]).

This video is one of the most exciting I have seen with regards to web browser performance, and it's Mozilla:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an5abNFba4Q

More info on what this means for Firefox:

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Quantum

TL;DR: What if even with the missing XUL extensions, you wouldn't want to switch to Chrome, because Firefox was just plain faster?

Re: I cannot continue working on my add-ons

#114

If this WebExtensions move makes Tab Mix Plus stop working (I use multi-row tabs extensively) then I will no longer have any reason to continue to use Firefox. I put up with it's poor performance and instability merely for this one feature. Nobody needs a clone of Chrome; we already have Chrome.

I would use the last version of Firefox that supported Tab Mix Plus until it no longer worked with the web in general. At that point I don't know what I'd do.

Looks like ESR 52 will continue to support XUL addons, and get regular security updates, well past the release of version 57 which is the estimated version for the cutoff. We can "vote with our feet" somewhat. If a large number of users switch from 56 back to 52 ESR instead of "upgrading" to 57, we will have some actual numbers to show.

Re: I cannot continue working on my add-ons

#115
post #76
post #45

Firefox has three APIs: XUL, Jetpack, and WebExtensions. XUL has been on the way out for years, and never worked in mobile Firefox anyway. (Almost nobody runs mobile Firefox, so that turned out not to matter much.) Jetpack was introduced in 2013, and by 2014, it was actually usable. It's not clear when and whether Jetpack add-ons will stop working. Mozilla's developer documentation is so confused that you can't tell.…

Encouraging all of your addon developers to create addons for your biggest competitor? How is that a good idea?

Having more addons available for more browsers is good for the open web, even if these browsers aren't specifically Mozilla's.

Re: I cannot continue working on my add-ons

#116
post #28

I'm only sticking to Firefox because there's a specific set of extensions I want to keep using. If only one of my key extensions breaks, my last reason to use Firefox vanishes, and I will immediately switch to Chromium/Iridium and never come back.

Same. I guess Mozilla's stubborn decision makers -- who will never admit being wrong -- can comfort themselves by thinking of all the people who decide to quit using Firefox, when their cherished extensions break, as idiots. It's so sad.

Re: I cannot continue working on my add-ons

#117

There seem to be a lot of people that are saying "oh, without XUL based extensions, Firefox is just a (worse) Chrome clone, so I might as well just use Chrome." I think what they might be missing is that Mozilla's conclusion is a lot like the people seem to be thinking here -- even though Chrome doesn't have the fancy extensions that are possible in Firefox, many many more people are using Chrome than Firefox, becaus…

>>Clearly, that has something to do with either security or performance, where Firefox has a perceived lag.

This is completely false

It has something to do with MARKETING and the fact the Google is largest marketing company in the world and has the ability to market chrome far far far more effectively than Firefox

IE is crap, so Windows users seek a replacement for IE, use to their only option was Firefox. Once Chrome came on the market with a HUGE marketing push people started to migrate

It was 80-90% marketing, not technical

Even if Firefox is better preforming people are not going to switch as only Technical people give a shit about performance numbers.

Edge on windows 10 is starting to eat into Chrome partly because MS is bringing back the IE6 marketing and integration tactics that got them in Anti-trust hot water in the 90's

No Firefox, absent Google Discontinuing the chrome Browser, will never break 20% market share again, I do not care how must better it preforms.

Mozilla needs to focus on Power Users, and Privacy. They are failing at both with these moves IMO

>>you wouldn't want to switch to Chrome, because Firefox was just plain faster?

They they take away my TreeStyle Tabs and a few other Extensions I dont care how much faster it is, FF will be removed my all my systems

TreeStyle Tabs is the the Main reason I use FF today. I dont understand why browsers have tabs horizontally across the window, it looks stupid and is unusable once you get above 20 or 30 tabs open So you talk about have 100's of tabs open, it is pointless if I do not have TreeStyle or some kind of Vertical Tabs. And no the Stupid Dock style of doing it on Chrome and other WebExtensions based hack is neither desirable or usable

Re: I cannot continue working on my add-ons

#118
post #81

Once this happens I will leave Firefox after being one of its strongest supporters for years. What makes Firefox worth it is the level to which I can customize it and this will knock out 5 of my must-have add-ons in one shot. When you do that you have nothing but a Chrome clone left and why use a Chrome clone when you can use Chrome. I hate Chrome because I feel locked in on UI design (old-school user here). Once FF…

> When you do that you have nothing but a Chrome clone left and why use a Chrome clone when you can use Chrome.

Why use Chrome when you can use a Chrome clone that better respects your privacy, is open source, and gives you more freedom to configure it? Because it's more secure or faster? It won't be for long: that's exactly what Mozilla is working on. At the expense, yes, of some configurability.

Re: I cannot continue working on my add-ons

#119
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emacs can already embed a webkit widget, but much more work would be needed to make interaction with the widget "emacsy". At the moment all you can do with it is send JavaScript snippets to it to make it change internal state. It would be great to intertwine this more with Emacs so that e.g. completing-read could be used on the DOM.

It would be rather fun to download a webpage in "BrowserEmacs" and have a REPL available with the page turned into a S Expression for you to manipulate at your or your plug-ins leisure. Throw in the tools to make plug-ins have there own UI and you have a developer's browser.

Ubiquity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiquity_(Firefox) (now defunct) had natural-language commands with localization including subject/verb/object order. It supported subscribing to commands too, so you could keep up with changing APIs automatically. It even understood pronouns, so you could write "email this to Dave" and it would email your selected text to your gmail contact named Dave. The only thing it was missing was a permissions model to limit what untrusted command code could do.

Re: I cannot continue working on my add-ons

#120

If this WebExtensions move makes Tab Mix Plus stop working (I use multi-row tabs extensively) then I will no longer have any reason to continue to use Firefox. I put up with it's poor performance and instability merely for this one feature. Nobody needs a clone of Chrome; we already have Chrome.

> I put up with it's poor performance and instability merely for this one feature.

Ah, but performance and stability is exactly what Mozilla is improving with WebExtensions, Electrolysis and Servo/Quantum, so you won't need to put up with the poor performance and instability any more! What's more, it will still respect your privacy more than Chrome, be open source unlike Chrome, and allow you to configure it more than you can configure Chrome.

Post reply on HN