5 ms·

Quite a few add-on authors say the direct opposite, that an WebExtensions only future will kill their add-ons and that there is no way mozilla will be able to p

Quite a few add-on authors say the direct opposite, that an WebExtensions only future will kill their add-ons and that there is no way mozilla will be able to provide enough APIs to stop that from happening. Some examples: - https://github.com/hultmann/multifox https://github.com/hultmann/multifox - http://www.chrisfinke.com/2015/08/21/my-future-of-developing-firefox-add-ons/ http://www.chrisfinke.com/2015/08/21/my-future-of-developing... - http://www.downthemall.net/the-likely-end-of-downthemall/ http://www.downthemall.net/the-likely-end-of-downthemall/ PS: It goes without saying that Giorgio and NoScript due to their popularity and because Giorgio is very well networked within mozilla get a lot of special treatment an add-on that has only a couple of hundred or thousand users will not. This isn't a bad thing, for NoScript at least, but does not help other add-on developers.

clouddrover 11y ago
> This isn't a bad thing, for NoScript at least, but does not help other add-on developers. You should read Giorgio's blog post. The API features NoScript needs also help FlashGot, Ghostery, RequestPolicy Continued, ad blockers, and similar add-ons. Both multifox and Chris Finke's blog posts are not saying their add-ons aren't possible with the new API, just that they don't want to rewrite them for the new API. Chris Finke is looking for new maintainers for his add-ons. Why don't you become the new maintainer for, say, RSS Ticker (or another of his add-ons) and port it to the new API? See RSS Ticker's page: http://www.chrisfinke.com/addons/rss-ticker/ http://www.chrisfinke.com/addons/rss-ticker/
- rndgermandude 11y ago
  Yes, try to spin it all you like, it does not change the facts, which are: * NoScript is getting preferential treatment. That this also has positive outcomes for a handful other (block something) add-ons does not change this or address the situation at large. Add-ons on Firefox are so much more than just fiddling with some web requests. * Not all add-on authors are happy with WebExtensions or think they will be able to "port" their add-ons, if not for lack of APIs then for time constraints. * Thousands of add-ons will be broken. While many can be "ported" as you put it (which is usually an entire rewrite), it is far from clear how many will be actually rewritten by the original developers or somebody else, and how many will be just abandoned or cannot be ported at all.
  - clouddrover 11y ago
    There is no "spin". You're seeing grand conspiracies where there simply aren't any. If you're not going to contribute to add-on or API development then relax and don't worry about it. The prophecies of doom will go unfulfilled and the world will keep on turning (or spinning if you like).
    - rndgermandude 11y ago
      What are you talking about? Conspiracies? The spin I was referring to is you trying your hardest in all the threads to make it look like everything is great and peachy in the add-on space, including broadly stamping differing opinions as FUD. While I contend the actual picture is a lot more complicated.
  - lewisl9029 11y ago
    The transition to WebExtensions is absolutely necessary though, from both a security standpoint and developer friendliness standpoint. The current Firefox extension model is simply too powerful. The API surface (and thus attack surface) is humongous, and extensions can literally change and replace any part of the browser's native UI with little restrictions, leaving the browser open to all sorts of phishing attacks from extensions and making it a nightmare to ensure extensions compatibility because any change whatsoever to the UI can break something. This is a large part of the reason why Firefox extensions still require manual audits while Chrome extensions don't. The status quo is not simply sustainable for Firefox, especially when considering how little resources Mozilla has to spare compared to tech giants like Google. In addition, XUL is an archaic technology that should eventually be replaced by proper web standards in order to leverage the skills and knowledge of the entire web development community like Chrome has done. Quite a few of my web developer colleagues maintain Chrome extensions in their spare time, and when I ask why they don't offer a Firefox version as well, 9 out of 10 times the answer boils down to not wanting to work with XUL. WebExtensions will alleviate not only the problems with XUL itself, but will also offer great compatibility for building extensions that work across browsers, making the lives of extension developers even better, which will only help make the extension ecosystem even more vibrant than it is today. The people at Mozilla have been working with extension developers however they can to enable them to port extensions to WebExtensions. If some extension developers simply choose to abandon their extensions instead of working with Mozilla to port them, that's their decision to make, but I feel it's rather unfair to blame Mozilla for this. I use Firefox as my main browser mostly for the extensions, and needless to say, I'm a huge fan of Firefox's current ecosystem of extensions myself. The potential of losing some of my favorite extensions does suck a lot, so I understand where a lot of the frustration is coming from. However, I'm also extremely optimistic about WebExtensions and the future of the budding cross-browser extension ecosystem, and have no doubt that even if some of my current favorites end up being abandoned, a new wave of great extensions will come to replace them in due time.
- ApplaudPumice 11y ago
  Why don't you? instead.
  - clouddrover 11y ago
    Because I have no interest in RSS Ticker or any of Chris Finke's add-ons. I don't use them and it doesn't matter to me if they're maintained or not. If it matters to you, then the clear way forward is to get involved.

clouddrover 11y ago

> This isn't a bad thing, for NoScript at least, but does not help other add-on developers. You should read Giorgio's blog post. The API features NoScript needs also help FlashGot, Ghostery, RequestPolicy Continued, ad blockers, and similar add-ons. Both multifox and Chris Finke's blog posts are not saying their add-ons aren't possible with the new API, just that they don't want to rewrite them for the new API. Chris Finke is looking for new maintainers for his add-ons. Why don't you become the new maintainer for, say, RSS Ticker (or another of his add-ons) and port it to the new API? See RSS Ticker's page: http://www.chrisfinke.com/addons/rss-ticker/ http://www.chrisfinke.com/addons/rss-ticker/

rndgermandude 11y ago
Yes, try to spin it all you like, it does not change the facts, which are: * NoScript is getting preferential treatment. That this also has positive outcomes for a handful other (block something) add-ons does not change this or address the situation at large. Add-ons on Firefox are so much more than just fiddling with some web requests. * Not all add-on authors are happy with WebExtensions or think they will be able to "port" their add-ons, if not for lack of APIs then for time constraints. * Thousands of add-ons will be broken. While many can be "ported" as you put it (which is usually an entire rewrite), it is far from clear how many will be actually rewritten by the original developers or somebody else, and how many will be just abandoned or cannot be ported at all.
- clouddrover 11y ago
  There is no "spin". You're seeing grand conspiracies where there simply aren't any. If you're not going to contribute to add-on or API development then relax and don't worry about it. The prophecies of doom will go unfulfilled and the world will keep on turning (or spinning if you like).
  - rndgermandude 11y ago
    What are you talking about? Conspiracies? The spin I was referring to is you trying your hardest in all the threads to make it look like everything is great and peachy in the add-on space, including broadly stamping differing opinions as FUD. While I contend the actual picture is a lot more complicated.
- lewisl9029 11y ago
  The transition to WebExtensions is absolutely necessary though, from both a security standpoint and developer friendliness standpoint. The current Firefox extension model is simply too powerful. The API surface (and thus attack surface) is humongous, and extensions can literally change and replace any part of the browser's native UI with little restrictions, leaving the browser open to all sorts of phishing attacks from extensions and making it a nightmare to ensure extensions compatibility because any change whatsoever to the UI can break something. This is a large part of the reason why Firefox extensions still require manual audits while Chrome extensions don't. The status quo is not simply sustainable for Firefox, especially when considering how little resources Mozilla has to spare compared to tech giants like Google. In addition, XUL is an archaic technology that should eventually be replaced by proper web standards in order to leverage the skills and knowledge of the entire web development community like Chrome has done. Quite a few of my web developer colleagues maintain Chrome extensions in their spare time, and when I ask why they don't offer a Firefox version as well, 9 out of 10 times the answer boils down to not wanting to work with XUL. WebExtensions will alleviate not only the problems with XUL itself, but will also offer great compatibility for building extensions that work across browsers, making the lives of extension developers even better, which will only help make the extension ecosystem even more vibrant than it is today. The people at Mozilla have been working with extension developers however they can to enable them to port extensions to WebExtensions. If some extension developers simply choose to abandon their extensions instead of working with Mozilla to port them, that's their decision to make, but I feel it's rather unfair to blame Mozilla for this. I use Firefox as my main browser mostly for the extensions, and needless to say, I'm a huge fan of Firefox's current ecosystem of extensions myself. The potential of losing some of my favorite extensions does suck a lot, so I understand where a lot of the frustration is coming from. However, I'm also extremely optimistic about WebExtensions and the future of the budding cross-browser extension ecosystem, and have no doubt that even if some of my current favorites end up being abandoned, a new wave of great extensions will come to replace them in due time.
ApplaudPumice 11y ago
Why don't you? instead.
- clouddrover 11y ago
  Because I have no interest in RSS Ticker or any of Chris Finke's add-ons. I don't use them and it doesn't matter to me if they're maintained or not. If it matters to you, then the clear way forward is to get involved.