3 ms·

> Then you have the deprecation of the Firefox extension model in favor of, essentially, chrome's. This comes up every time as an example of Firefox copying Ch

> Then you have the deprecation of the Firefox extension model in favor of, essentially, chrome's. This comes up every time as an example of Firefox copying Chrome. It's not. Firefox's extension model wasn't a model, it was a wide open API hole which you could reach into and tweak whatever internals you want with. That's not great -- each update is bound to break things, and architectural changes like electrolysis are even harder to make. This needs to go. What can it be replaced with? A web standard! Web extensions are this web standard. Now is an ideal time to do this replacement because electrolysis already broke a large part of the addons ecosystem, so you can piggyback on this breaking change. Chrome and Opera both use the same API. It makes sense to use this as a base for a standard. The old XUL API in Firefox can't really be used as a base since there was no API boundary. However, Firefox plans to implement a more powerful version, such that most extensions that worked with the old API will continue to work after upgrading. So while code will break, the new API will still expose the same functionality. Well, it can't expose all of the same functionality since we're back to square one in that case, but it can expose enough to make most extensions still work. As an end user, I suspect you will just have to upgrade your addons and otherwise not feel a thing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12579388 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12579388 I don't know of any other features being dropped to be more in line with Chrome. The UI is at most superficially similar to chrome wrt the tabs (and you can go back to square tabs if you like with a setting, one which is enabled by default in dev edition). The rest of the UI changes (e.g. the customizeable UI) that landed then are nothing like Chrome.

Amezarak 10y ago
> Firefox's extension model wasn't a model, it was a wide open API hole which you could reach into and tweak whatever internals you want with. That's not great It was great for the extension ecosystem, which, of course, could literally do anything. Did it have drawbacks? Of course it did. Nothing in life is free. The fact that extensions could do anything was one of the key features that made Firefox stand out, almost since the beginning. Now, aren't able to, because Mozilla wants to make the same trade-off Chrome made. In fact, they want to make almost the exact same trade-off. They are attempting to ameliorate the issue, by, essentially, adding to the API to grandfather in many popular Firefox extensions. The fact you mention Opera has another adopter of this 'standard' pretty much only helps emphasize the point. Opera dropped everything that made Opera Opera and turned into, essentially, a reskinned Chrome. That's why you don't see the very vocal Opera fans posting anymore - they abandoned Opera (or the later versions of Opera) because they didn't want a reskinned Chrome. > I don't know of any other features being dropped to be more in line with Chrome. The UI is at most superficially similar to chrome wrt the tabs (and you can go back to square tabs if you like with a setting, one which is enabled by default in dev edition). The rest of the UI changes (e.g. the customizeable UI) that landed then are nothing like Chrome. It's been going for on for years, and sometimes Mozilla developers literally cite Chrome as the reason they're doing it. My friend's big complaint is that Panorama was dropped, which had been around since Firefox 4, if I recall correctly. Panorama, and many other features, have been dropped because, supposedly, not enough people used it. But that's exactly what you expect from power user features: 80% of the people use 20% of the features, but they all use different sets of features. What killed Firefox for me was "unifiedcomplete." This feature is a move towards having a unified search bar and address bar. While at the time I last used it there still were separate UI elements for the address bar and the search bar, the first result in the address bar was always "Search $SEARCH_ENGINE for X", which meant that every single time I used the address bar, I had to hit tab at least one extra time. Additionally, it crippled the Awesomebar - my address bar results no longer bore much resemblance to what they had been, so I had to do a lot more typing or tabbing to get where I wanted to go. But there are plenty of examples going back years. It's rare, now, that a release doesn't drop something or change functionality to be more like Chrome. That was just the last straw for me. There was a very vocal group of users that hated Australis for being too Chrome like (was that when we got the hamburger menu? and when the status bar went away? I don't remember). Another example is the six-week release cycle, or multi-process browsing. Though these are sold as uniformly good, they come with tradeoffs, and Mozilla is choosing to make the same tradeoffs as Chrome. Not all of it has been explicit Chromification - some of it has been the attitude, apparently prevalent, that as much configurability as possible should be removed lest it confuse someone. For example, the removal of the "disable Javascript" checkbox. > Well, it can't expose all of the same functionality since we're back to square one in that case, but it can expose enough to make most extensions still work. As an end user, I suspect you will just have to upgrade your addons and otherwise not feel a thing. As a user, I disabled Firefox updates many versions ago to retain a working Firefox, so no, I won't. In the long term, I will have to switch to something else, because I'm not getting security updates, and I know NoScript doesn't give me 100% coverage. Which is really incredible - I spent years contributing to Mozilla and evangelizing Firefox, because I believed it was the best browser. Now, I don't recommend it (or anything in particular) because...why? I don't know what I can tell people that would justify me recommending it. "Free and open web" is not a reason I can use with the average user. I can't really see any real differences between Chrome and Firefox anymore, from a user functionality standpoint. More websites ask that you use Chrome or IE for compatibility. Chrome is generally ahead on "standards", if only because Google invents new ones that it then uses on its web properties.
- Manishearth 10y ago
  > It was great for the extension ecosystem, which, of course, could literally do anything. Right, and that helped keep the rest of the browser stuck and slow. I think electrolysis really drove this realization home. > While at the time I last used it there still were separate UI elements for the address bar and the search bar As far as the "hitting tab one extra time" is concerned, yeah, that should be customizeable. You can get rid of the search bar (which I do), but in case you have both visible you really don't need the awesomebar to do searches. I wonder if I can add customization easily. In my personal workflow half of the time I need search but I get that that's not for everyone. > Though these are sold as uniformly good, they come with tradeoffs, and Mozilla is choosing to make the same tradeoffs as Chrome Fair. However, they both seem to address the needs of the majority of the user base (fast browser that works with modern websites and modern browser usage, not something that can be easily done with single process or a slow release cycle). This does mean that some users lose out. Totally agree with the power users point. I was annoyed with the removal of Panorama as well. I now use Vertical Tabs (and may switch to Tree Style) and it is good enough, but if my tab usage was even higher it wouldn't be. > In the long term, I will have to switch to something else Sorry to hear that. I personally used to use Chrome (since around 2010) even when I started contributing to Firefox (I contributed to Firefox because it was easier; Chromium didn't have a great build/contribution process). I later stopped contributing to Firefox because I didn't have time, but I switched over to it around last year because it got much better. I'm surprised that folks find that it got worse in that time period, but I suspect it's just that the changes I liked were disliked by others.
- Manishearth 10y ago
  Regarding the search thing, filed bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1306847 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1306847. I have an idea of how to fix it.
  - Amezarak 10y ago
    Thank you. I appreciate your efforts. If it helps, when the feature was first introduced (43, I believe), the pref to control it was browser.urlbar.unifiedcomplete. It was later removed. In addition to the search with, I believe it also changed up how the awesomebar search itself worked, weighting url contents, for example, much higher than page titles, and (I want to say just based on end user experience) throwing away page visit frequency information. Strangely, it would also recommend pages I had never visited, if that page was top level and something I had visited was further down.
syshum 10y ago
>>>architectural changes like electrolysis People always being that up like it is a good thing... I like Firefox the way it is, I do not like electrolysis or the way chrome does it processes >>Firefox's extension model wasn't a model, it was a wide open API hole which you could reach into and tweak whatever internals you want with. That's not great Actually it was/is Awesome, It is what made Firefox great.

Amezarak 10y ago

> Firefox's extension model wasn't a model, it was a wide open API hole which you could reach into and tweak whatever internals you want with. That's not great It was great for the extension ecosystem, which, of course, could literally do anything. Did it have drawbacks? Of course it did. Nothing in life is free. The fact that extensions could do anything was one of the key features that made Firefox stand out, almost since the beginning. Now, aren't able to, because Mozilla wants to make the same trade-off Chrome made. In fact, they want to make almost the exact same trade-off. They are attempting to ameliorate the issue, by, essentially, adding to the API to grandfather in many popular Firefox extensions. The fact you mention Opera has another adopter of this 'standard' pretty much only helps emphasize the point. Opera dropped everything that made Opera Opera and turned into, essentially, a reskinned Chrome. That's why you don't see the very vocal Opera fans posting anymore - they abandoned Opera (or the later versions of Opera) because they didn't want a reskinned Chrome. > I don't know of any other features being dropped to be more in line with Chrome. The UI is at most superficially similar to chrome wrt the tabs (and you can go back to square tabs if you like with a setting, one which is enabled by default in dev edition). The rest of the UI changes (e.g. the customizeable UI) that landed then are nothing like Chrome. It's been going for on for years, and sometimes Mozilla developers literally cite Chrome as the reason they're doing it. My friend's big complaint is that Panorama was dropped, which had been around since Firefox 4, if I recall correctly. Panorama, and many other features, have been dropped because, supposedly, not enough people used it. But that's exactly what you expect from power user features: 80% of the people use 20% of the features, but they all use different sets of features. What killed Firefox for me was "unifiedcomplete." This feature is a move towards having a unified search bar and address bar. While at the time I last used it there still were separate UI elements for the address bar and the search bar, the first result in the address bar was always "Search $SEARCH_ENGINE for X", which meant that every single time I used the address bar, I had to hit tab at least one extra time. Additionally, it crippled the Awesomebar - my address bar results no longer bore much resemblance to what they had been, so I had to do a lot more typing or tabbing to get where I wanted to go. But there are plenty of examples going back years. It's rare, now, that a release doesn't drop something or change functionality to be more like Chrome. That was just the last straw for me. There was a very vocal group of users that hated Australis for being too Chrome like (was that when we got the hamburger menu? and when the status bar went away? I don't remember). Another example is the six-week release cycle, or multi-process browsing. Though these are sold as uniformly good, they come with tradeoffs, and Mozilla is choosing to make the same tradeoffs as Chrome. Not all of it has been explicit Chromification - some of it has been the attitude, apparently prevalent, that as much configurability as possible should be removed lest it confuse someone. For example, the removal of the "disable Javascript" checkbox. > Well, it can't expose all of the same functionality since we're back to square one in that case, but it can expose enough to make most extensions still work. As an end user, I suspect you will just have to upgrade your addons and otherwise not feel a thing. As a user, I disabled Firefox updates many versions ago to retain a working Firefox, so no, I won't. In the long term, I will have to switch to something else, because I'm not getting security updates, and I know NoScript doesn't give me 100% coverage. Which is really incredible - I spent years contributing to Mozilla and evangelizing Firefox, because I believed it was the best browser. Now, I don't recommend it (or anything in particular) because...why? I don't know what I can tell people that would justify me recommending it. "Free and open web" is not a reason I can use with the average user. I can't really see any real differences between Chrome and Firefox anymore, from a user functionality standpoint. More websites ask that you use Chrome or IE for compatibility. Chrome is generally ahead on "standards", if only because Google invents new ones that it then uses on its web properties.

Manishearth 10y ago
> It was great for the extension ecosystem, which, of course, could literally do anything. Right, and that helped keep the rest of the browser stuck and slow. I think electrolysis really drove this realization home. > While at the time I last used it there still were separate UI elements for the address bar and the search bar As far as the "hitting tab one extra time" is concerned, yeah, that should be customizeable. You can get rid of the search bar (which I do), but in case you have both visible you really don't need the awesomebar to do searches. I wonder if I can add customization easily. In my personal workflow half of the time I need search but I get that that's not for everyone. > Though these are sold as uniformly good, they come with tradeoffs, and Mozilla is choosing to make the same tradeoffs as Chrome Fair. However, they both seem to address the needs of the majority of the user base (fast browser that works with modern websites and modern browser usage, not something that can be easily done with single process or a slow release cycle). This does mean that some users lose out. Totally agree with the power users point. I was annoyed with the removal of Panorama as well. I now use Vertical Tabs (and may switch to Tree Style) and it is good enough, but if my tab usage was even higher it wouldn't be. > In the long term, I will have to switch to something else Sorry to hear that. I personally used to use Chrome (since around 2010) even when I started contributing to Firefox (I contributed to Firefox because it was easier; Chromium didn't have a great build/contribution process). I later stopped contributing to Firefox because I didn't have time, but I switched over to it around last year because it got much better. I'm surprised that folks find that it got worse in that time period, but I suspect it's just that the changes I liked were disliked by others.
Manishearth 10y ago
Regarding the search thing, filed bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1306847 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1306847. I have an idea of how to fix it.
- Amezarak 10y ago
  Thank you. I appreciate your efforts. If it helps, when the feature was first introduced (43, I believe), the pref to control it was browser.urlbar.unifiedcomplete. It was later removed. In addition to the search with, I believe it also changed up how the awesomebar search itself worked, weighting url contents, for example, much higher than page titles, and (I want to say just based on end user experience) throwing away page visit frequency information. Strangely, it would also recommend pages I had never visited, if that page was top level and something I had visited was further down.

syshum 10y ago

>>>architectural changes like electrolysis People always being that up like it is a good thing... I like Firefox the way it is, I do not like electrolysis or the way chrome does it processes >>Firefox's extension model wasn't a model, it was a wide open API hole which you could reach into and tweak whatever internals you want with. That's not great Actually it was/is Awesome, It is what made Firefox great.