5 ms·

So killing off XUL is great and all, but two of my favorite add-ons [1] [2] are already planning to call it quits because the Web Extension API likely won't be

So killing off XUL is great and all, but two of my favorite add-ons [1] [2] are already planning to call it quits because the Web Extension API likely won't be powerful enough. Tree Style Tab isn't far behind, I'll bet. These add-ons are the reason I use Firefox. It seems like Firefox is going to become just another browser. [1] http://www.downthemall.net/the-likely-end-of-downthemall/ http://www.downthemall.net/the-likely-end-of-downthemall/ [2] https://github.com/sparhami/BeQuiet/issues/2 https://github.com/sparhami/BeQuiet/issues/2

javajosh 11y ago
Oh come now, that's not fair. Sure XUL can't be the key to a good extension mechanism. If devs stop writing (or choose not to port) it's because of the economics of Firefox extensions, which is to say, there are no economics to writing Firefox extensions. Except some minor reputation points and feel-good points. (The exception, of course, being those add-ons that make a SaaS more usable.) Out of curiosity, if there was a Firefox App Store, how much would you pay for Tree Style Tabs?
- yellowapple 11y ago
  > Out of curiosity, if there was a Firefox App Store, how much would you pay for Tree Style Tabs? Probably a few bucks. TST is pretty fundamental to my Firefox workflow.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - Qantourisc 11y ago
    Well according to Mozilla TST has 100 000 users. At a few bucks that's 300 000$ I suppose that could be enough :) With that money you can even maintain a separate Firefox patch-set to allow the plugin to work.
- mafuyu 11y ago
  I would pay a significant amount of money for pentadactyl + Tree Style Tabs that just worked, without bugs. It's a significant part of my workflow, and I'm not sure if either will survive XUL deprecation. :(
  - silon7 11y ago
    FF will be forked if that happens (also for classic theme restore, and others).
- Illniyar 11y ago
  From what I understand its not for lack of commitment that these extensions arent porting, its because XUL had basically the ability to run native code and modify everything. That is the new web extension api does not replicate all the features of XUL (by design). Look at the sorry state that is Tree Style Tabs clone in chrome - which is because Chrome's extension api is just not powerful enough.
  - Springtime 11y ago
    For those interested the relevant previous HN discussion on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10097630 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10097630
- Mindless2112 11y ago
  > there are no economics to writing Firefox extensions. The same could be said of most free software. But see [1]. > Out of curiosity, if there was a Firefox App Store, how much would you pay for Tree Style Tabs? I don't know. I keep dozens of tabs of reference materials open at work, which becomes unmanageable without it. I'd either pay for it, find a new way to work, or build my own. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html
  - javajosh 11y ago
    Apropos of nothing it occurs to me that one way to make it lucrative to build totally open and freely distributed software is to invent a caustic software environment. E.g. keep changing the hardware and software dependencies so that anything you did build and give away has to be built again. And again and again. That's one way to make a living from software in the long term, but it sure does seem wasteful. And if the technology truly hits an asymptote, then it's not clear what will drive the decay apart from programmer self-interest.
- eloisant 11y ago
  It's not about XUL, it's about having no limit on what you can do to the browser. Old-school extensions can change entire parts of the browser, remove features, there really is no limit because the extension code is dumped inside the browser code without any kind of interface or security limitation. So it's powerful, but potentially destructive as a bug in an extension can impact the whole browser, and same goes for performances. On the other hand, the new API is more like Chrome where you have defined entry points to plug your extension. The new API approach has limitations, but it's a much better way to do extensions. Not only it limits the damage a poorly written extension can do, but it will make extensions more robust to version upgrades of Firefox.
viraptor 11y ago
I really want to be on the authors' side here, but both posted very vague "new api is coming, stuff won't work". Where are at least the links to bugzilla where they request appropriate bits in extensions API to be implemented? This seems very short: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?component=WebExtensions&bug_status=__open__ https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?component=WebExtens... For all the outrage about extensions not working in the future, I've not seen one blog post about a proposed api which they need and which was rejected.
- Mindless2112 11y ago
  <Firefox> New API coming. You'll have to rewrite your add-ons for sandboxing, etc. <Add-on Dev> Oh, okay. -_- <Firefox> By the way, the APIs aren't all there yet, so what do you need? <Add-on Dev> Yeah, forget it. I've other things to do. Both sides are reasonable. Firefox needs this to move forward, but there's only so much effort that people are willing to put into it. I do hope that Web Extensions will become powerful enough to make the great add-ons we have now, but I'm afraid it's not going to be a nice ride.
  - Qantourisc 11y ago
    <Firefox> By the way, the APIs aren't all there yet, so what do you need? Mozilla already know (for a large part) what APIs they need; they keep stats on the extensions: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/extensions/?sort=users https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/extensions/?sort=us... So at least enough to implement the top 50 ? Preferably the top 500 :)
zouhair 11y ago
I can't live without TST.
Qantourisc 11y ago
I smell forks, or alternative versions of Firefox getting more traction.

javajosh 11y ago

Oh come now, that's not fair. Sure XUL can't be the key to a good extension mechanism. If devs stop writing (or choose not to port) it's because of the economics of Firefox extensions, which is to say, there are no economics to writing Firefox extensions. Except some minor reputation points and feel-good points. (The exception, of course, being those add-ons that make a SaaS more usable.) Out of curiosity, if there was a Firefox App Store, how much would you pay for Tree Style Tabs?

yellowapple 11y ago
> Out of curiosity, if there was a Firefox App Store, how much would you pay for Tree Style Tabs? Probably a few bucks. TST is pretty fundamental to my Firefox workflow.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Qantourisc 11y ago
  Well according to Mozilla TST has 100 000 users. At a few bucks that's 300 000$ I suppose that could be enough :) With that money you can even maintain a separate Firefox patch-set to allow the plugin to work.
mafuyu 11y ago
I would pay a significant amount of money for pentadactyl + Tree Style Tabs that just worked, without bugs. It's a significant part of my workflow, and I'm not sure if either will survive XUL deprecation. :(
- silon7 11y ago
  FF will be forked if that happens (also for classic theme restore, and others).
Illniyar 11y ago
From what I understand its not for lack of commitment that these extensions arent porting, its because XUL had basically the ability to run native code and modify everything. That is the new web extension api does not replicate all the features of XUL (by design). Look at the sorry state that is Tree Style Tabs clone in chrome - which is because Chrome's extension api is just not powerful enough.
- Springtime 11y ago
  For those interested the relevant previous HN discussion on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10097630 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10097630
Mindless2112 11y ago
> there are no economics to writing Firefox extensions. The same could be said of most free software. But see [1]. > Out of curiosity, if there was a Firefox App Store, how much would you pay for Tree Style Tabs? I don't know. I keep dozens of tabs of reference materials open at work, which becomes unmanageable without it. I'd either pay for it, find a new way to work, or build my own. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html
- javajosh 11y ago
  Apropos of nothing it occurs to me that one way to make it lucrative to build totally open and freely distributed software is to invent a caustic software environment. E.g. keep changing the hardware and software dependencies so that anything you did build and give away has to be built again. And again and again. That's one way to make a living from software in the long term, but it sure does seem wasteful. And if the technology truly hits an asymptote, then it's not clear what will drive the decay apart from programmer self-interest.
eloisant 11y ago
It's not about XUL, it's about having no limit on what you can do to the browser. Old-school extensions can change entire parts of the browser, remove features, there really is no limit because the extension code is dumped inside the browser code without any kind of interface or security limitation. So it's powerful, but potentially destructive as a bug in an extension can impact the whole browser, and same goes for performances. On the other hand, the new API is more like Chrome where you have defined entry points to plug your extension. The new API approach has limitations, but it's a much better way to do extensions. Not only it limits the damage a poorly written extension can do, but it will make extensions more robust to version upgrades of Firefox.

viraptor 11y ago

I really want to be on the authors' side here, but both posted very vague "new api is coming, stuff won't work". Where are at least the links to bugzilla where they request appropriate bits in extensions API to be implemented? This seems very short: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?component=WebExtensions&bug_status=__open__ https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?component=WebExtens... For all the outrage about extensions not working in the future, I've not seen one blog post about a proposed api which they need and which was rejected.

Mindless2112 11y ago
<Firefox> New API coming. You'll have to rewrite your add-ons for sandboxing, etc. <Add-on Dev> Oh, okay. -_- <Firefox> By the way, the APIs aren't all there yet, so what do you need? <Add-on Dev> Yeah, forget it. I've other things to do. Both sides are reasonable. Firefox needs this to move forward, but there's only so much effort that people are willing to put into it. I do hope that Web Extensions will become powerful enough to make the great add-ons we have now, but I'm afraid it's not going to be a nice ride.
- Qantourisc 11y ago
  <Firefox> By the way, the APIs aren't all there yet, so what do you need? Mozilla already know (for a large part) what APIs they need; they keep stats on the extensions: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/extensions/?sort=users https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/extensions/?sort=us... So at least enough to implement the top 50 ? Preferably the top 500 :)

zouhair 11y ago

I can't live without TST.

Qantourisc 11y ago

I smell forks, or alternative versions of Firefox getting more traction.