20 ms·

Add-ons in 2017

136 points by nachtigall 10y ago

morinted 10y ago
I'd love some figures on whether the main popular extensions will continue working, as well as how many in the Firefox Add-ons site are already web extensions. I'm curious about my mains: - Classic theme restorer - uBlock - DownThemAll - Markdown Here As I'm already using electrolysis, I know Markdown Here basically doesn't work. How I can check whether things will break or not.
- Amezarak 10y ago
  I think it's safe to say that many if not most popular extensions will be provided API support and converted over. I think the real issue is that innovation in the extension space is effectively over - the Firefox extension system is so vibrant because anything was possible. Now Mozilla is reducing the possibility space to that which is provided by the much more limited WebExtensions and adding in support for existing popular extensions. But new extensions, doing things yet undreamed of, will no longer be possible. I'm not sure what the distinguishing features of Firefox will be moving into the future. More and more, I think it's becoming Just Another Browser, with a better ideology behind it. Well, that's not a winning formula. I'm really disappointed and I don't know what to do other than stay on old versions of Firefox as long as I can.
- vanni 10y ago
  About DownThemAll: http://www.downthemall.net/the-likely-end-of-downthemall/ http://www.downthemall.net/the-likely-end-of-downthemall/
  - oblio 10y ago
    That article is more than 1 year old. And Mozilla is going beyond the Chrome APIs, they are implementing shims and additional APIs to port almost everything over.
    - detaro 10y ago
      Is there a statement otherwise from DownThemAll? I haven't found anything, just references to that blog post.
      - vanni 10y ago
        At least they are releasing new versions yet: http://www.downthemall.net/downthemall-3-0-5/ http://www.downthemall.net/downthemall-3-0-5/ “After a rather long long time, with many new things to address such as Australis, e10s, limited time we could spend on the project, a little lack of motivation after mozilla required mostly pointless signatures and announced to kill XUL add-ons…” - Nils, September 2016
      - odabaxok 10y ago
        There is a reply on a review for the new release from September 1, 2016 which says: "Just to clarify: We did not port it to the WebExtensions API, nor do we think it is possible to port it in any significant manner to the WebExtensions API..." https://addons.mozilla.org/En-us/firefox/addon/downthemall/reviews/?page=3 https://addons.mozilla.org/En-us/firefox/addon/downthemall/r...
      - tn123 10y ago
        I am the DownThemAll! developer. The statement is still current. I communicated to the mozilla people who got in touch with me that there will not be a crippled DownThemAll!, at least not from me.
- detaro 10y ago
  uBlock and Markdown Here also exist for Chrome, so they'll very likely work or be ported. The DownThemAll devs have been very vocal about "WebExtensions being the likely end of DownThemAll", although I don't know if due to understandable unwillingness to redo a lot of their work or actual technical limitations. Classic theme restorer probably relies on XUL/features unlikely to be re-implemented, see dev response to this review https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/classicthemerestorer/reviews/823464/ https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/classicthemerest.... Ironically the long-term ideas of having a HTML based GUI could enable heavy modification again, at least in modified "distributions" of FF? Doesn't solve the now/next year though :/
  - tn123 10y ago
    I am the DownThemAll! developer. First and foremost it's technical limitations, other than that it's also time.
    - detaro 10y ago
      Can/Do you want to comment on Mozilla's efforts to work with extension developers to bring everything needed to WebExtensions? While the promise sounds great, I would expect there are issues that make it not as easy in reality.
      - tn123 10y ago
        They are trying I guess, and may succeed for a bunch of use cases to bring what's required. But certainly not all. Even the add-ons that can be somewhat reasonably be ported will have to deal with limitations, and I think the quality of some of those ported add-ons will take a (major) hit. To elaborate: If you're doing "web stuff", toolbar buttons, and request stuff (adblocking etc), you'll probably be fine. If you're lucky enough that you only need a few additional new things and your name is e.g. Giorgio of NoScript, you also will be probably fine. If your add-on does not have a sizable user base, and you do fancy things like modding the browser UI itself, or doing something else not entirely "webby", your outlook is a lot less rosy.
- bhrgunatha 10y ago
  Mozilla have said they will adapt Web Extensions along with consulting add-on developers in order to bring along the maximum number of add-ons. For me, if DownThemAll isn't one of them, I'll either stay with the last compatible version of firefox or, more likely switch to one of the alternatives that does support it and the others that have become such an integral part of my browsing behaviour. I've been burned so often by the changes made in recent years, so much so that I have next to zero loyalty to them anymore. And I've been using firefox since the browser was still part of the Mozilla suite.
- myfonj 10y ago
  You can consult https://www.arewee10syet.com/ https://www.arewee10syet.com/ ; seems authors are mostly showing some efforts to migrate their extensions. CTR: seems OK, uBlock: uBockO: seems OK, DTA: bug, but at least tries to be e10s compatible, Mardown here: unknown (supposedly not compatible?) You can try yourself: either install https://nightly.mozilla.org/ https://nightly.mozilla.org/ and load it with your addons (it uses different profile) or use your stable one and look at about:support page for "Multiprocess Windows" cell if it states 1/1 and does not mention "(Disabled by add-ons)" you are covered. You can try some about:config alterations [0] to force it if you are adventurous. In this case, it might be nice to install "Add-on Compatibility Reporter" [1] for tracking and sharing your findings. [0] http://superuser.com/questions/1096974/how-to-check-if-multiprocess-e10s-option-is-enabled-in-your-firefox http://superuser.com/questions/1096974/how-to-check-if-multi... [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compatibility-reporter/?src=api https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compat...
  - yoodenvranx 10y ago
    Total Mozilla noob here: Tab Mix Plus shows up as compatible. Does that mean that I will be able to use it with the new extension system?
    - Sylos 10y ago
      No, what this check means is that the recently introduced multiprocess-features of Firefox won't be blocked by Tab Mix Plus. You'll get much better performance, if you have no extensions which block that. The guy seems to be confusing things here, too. But while this doesn't confirm it, it neither confirms the opposite. So, it is very much still possible thst Tab Mix Plus gets ported to WebExtensions before the old add-ons get shut off, i.e. you might very well be able to use it still then, there's just currently no way to know yet. And as far as I can tell, the developer seems to have accepted porting it to WebExtensions and will most likely do it: http://tabmixplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19282 http://tabmixplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19282
  - majewsky 10y ago
    Careful. The e10s transition is a much smaller step than the move to WebExtensions. To witness, notice how (higher up in this thread) the DTA developer once again said that there will be no DTA as a WebExtension.
- gorhill 10y ago
  uBlock Origin was first developed as a Chromium extension, so converting to WebExtensions API is a non-issue. There is currently a dev build for the WebExtension version of uBlock Origin in the latest release.[1] FYI, uBlock is abandonware[2]. [1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases (search for "webext") [2] https://github.com/chrisaljoudi/uBlock/releases https://github.com/chrisaljoudi/uBlock/releases ("released this on 31 May 2015")
  - morinted 10y ago
    Thanks for your comment. I should have specified uBlock Origin; I meant it as, as you said, uBlock is abandonware.
dvh 10y ago
RSS reader, Another RSS reader, Dictionary, something for user scripts, domain white list, Another dictionary, Gmail checker, uBlock origin. 4 of those extensions are my own. NIH much :(
_pdp_ 10y ago
The decline of XUL started around 2009. I spent months building a very complex app around XULRunner only to find out that Mozilla had no interest to support the technology in the future. So I decided to leave the platform and put my efforts on native and web and frankly it was a good decision. The WebExtensions API is no match to XUL and XPCOM but I only hope that now that we have Mozilla behind the technology we will see further API improvements.
- vdfs 10y ago
  Google is behind WebExtensions API (aka Chrome Extension API) Mozilla is behind XUL/XPCOM and look were we are now ;)
- sudshekhar 10y ago
  > I decided to leave the platform and put my efforts on native and web For the sake of curiosity, did you create extensions as side-projects/startup ideas? Do people pay for extensions or are we talking about patreon funds here (Or startups like pocket whose extensions are ways to get more crowds).
  - _pdp_ 10y ago
    It was a desktop app that was based on top of XULRunner and yes it was for profit and people payed for it. I have no experience with selling extensions but I would imagine it is a very hard market to crack unless it is targeted towards enterprise customers. Based on my experience, I can only advise not to base your entire business model on browser extensions as you will become dependent on platform moves (again unless enterprise).
newscracker 10y ago
I hope the "end of 2017" deadline is flexible to change based on what's supported and what's not supported for current extensions. As people have said on the comments on the Mozilla blog post, Firefox will die without the popular extensions, of which there are many. Even today, Firefox extensions are far ahead of extensions on other browsers in what's available and how well they function.
speps 10y ago
Anyone knows about the fate of SeaMonkey? It's still based on XUL as far as I know and supports a lot of existing Firefox extensions.
- mgbmtl 10y ago
  There are constant references on forums to how they want to move away from XUL, for both Firefox and Thunderbird. XUL works, but I feel like very people are able to improve the guts of XUL, and that can be a huge risk for the future of the project. Pale Moon seems to be the main contender willing to maintain XUL, but presumably not improve it (changes to XUL can break extensions). As someone working on another free software project with an aging code base, we see this debate all the time: limited funds, limited interest to maintain the old core, but users rely on it. However, users also want performance improvements, more reliability, new features... not to mention what do you do when security issues pop up. At some point you need to cut your losses and find a model easier to maintain.
  - hsivonen 10y ago
    Has anyone taken the Firefox security advisories since Pale Moon forked and checked how well Pale Moon has addressed the vulnerabilities?
hucker 10y ago
Extensions is currently the only thing FF is better than the competition at, and they scrap it to copy Chrome APIs... I just can't understand why they would scrap XUL-based extensions before their new APIs reach feature parity. The day pentadactyl stops working is the day I stop using firefox.
- laurent123456 10y ago
  I can see where they're coming from though. Today, developers need to create two versions of their extensions - one that works on Safari, Chrome and Opera (and Edge?) and one specifically for Firefox. As the market share of Firefox is not that high, maybe extension developers eventually won't be bothered with supporting that extra version, which means Firefox extensions will be less up-to-date and there will be less of them. That's probably a trade off they have to make, though I imagine they're aware that some add-ons won't work and that users will be annoyed by that.
  - hucker 10y ago
    That's an argument for providing similar/the same APIs as Chrome et al sure, but not for deprecating the old ones.
    - dmethvin 10y ago
      It's quite a burden to maintain two different sets of APIs.
      - alphapapa 10y ago
        I'm sorry, but I hear this all the time--it's the primary argument used for deprecating or removing any functionality in any software. And my response is: so what? Maintaining software is a burden, period. Software exists to be useful. The APIs in question make it useful. The developers have been maintaining it for nearly 20 years. Their employer receives millions of dollars a year to do so. They don't want to maintain this "burden" anymore because it's not fun to maintain old code. It's not glamorous. No one becomes a rock star by unloading the bus. But if you remove the baggage compartments, the bus ceases to be useful, and the show doesn't go on. Chromium is such a cooler project. It was started from scratch (except for the WebKit part), and it's made by Google (which at least used to be cool), and it's got all these modern APIs. They're so great that it only took them 7 years to support resumable HTTP requests[1]. Firefox used to be about the users. Now it's about the developers. (This is not to say that individual developers are selfish, but that the organization as a whole is behaving in a way that disregards the needs of users and prioritizes the desires of the developers.) 1: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=7648 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=7648. Just look at this cleverness: "In the absence of a crypto::SecureHash object, DownloadFile reads the partial file and calculates the partial hash state in a new crypto::SecureHash object. If a prefix hash value is available, then the hash of the partial file is matched against this prefix hash. A mismatch causes a FILE_HASH_MISMATCH error which in turn causes the download to abandon its partial state and restart." Any other software in the world would just restart the download. I mean, they already give it a special ".crdownload" extension, so it's not like any other program is going to mess with it. But no, they can't just resume the download, they have to make 15 hash checks and pass around 7 different objects and find every possible reason to start the download all over again. What could have been a 5-line patch turned into 7 years of waiting, a dozen revisions across 50 files...
anotheryou 10y ago
Old or complex add-ons are what keep me with firefox. Will switch to qutebrowser¹ and probably chrome as my backup for what the cutie can't handle. ¹keyboard goodness: https://github.com/The-Compiler/qutebrowser https://github.com/The-Compiler/qutebrowser
- akkartik 10y ago
  Thanks for that pointer! I've been off Firefox for the past six months since they broke my private feedreader extension[1]. I'd been using Opera but I'm typing this out on qutebrowser. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11287049 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11287049
  - anotheryou 10y ago
    It's still quite young and you feel it at times, beware :)
    - akkartik 10y ago
      Yes, I'm going in with eyes wide open :) Some experiences: a) Copying HN links doesn't work. All you get in the clipboard is "/item". b) Google Drive is utterly unusable. c) Facebook is mildly unusable. Rendering gets easily messed up. d) No password management. But these are fairly minor, I'm happy to use a secondary browser for them.
- aq3cn 10y ago
  You can also try Vivaldi when something does not work in qutebrowser as it has support for single key keyboard shortcut s. I recently voted for native vim mode in Vivaldi reddit feature request thread. Worth checking out.
BoringCode 10y ago
As an addon developer, this annoys me. I've had to port my addons to different APIs twice in the last couple of years. Hopefully this is the end for a while.
wiiittttt 10y ago
Only accepting WebExtension based add-ons while not yet fully implementing the Chrome API seems like it would lead to a large number of unsupported add-ons.
Illniyar 10y ago
As always, the only question for me is whether tree style tabs is going to work with WebExtenstions. If not, then say hello to people staying with firefox 56 for years.
- mistermann 10y ago
  Is there still nothing comparable on Chrome? Is it not possible for some reason?
  - Illniyar 10y ago
    Chrome had it, but they killed the feature a few years back and are intentionally not bringing it back because of the low user adoption. There are some hacks that open a new window with tabs, and resizes the main window to put it side by side, but it doesn't feel right. Or at least that was the case the last time I looked a year or two ago. Edit: also, yes, from what I understand, the WebExtenstions Api in Chrome does not allow these modifications.
- tversteeg 10y ago
  There is a native vertical tab feature in Test Pilot, the downside is that it doesn't support nesting (yet?).
  - Illniyar 10y ago
    What is Test Pilot? Another release channel?
bitL 10y ago
If I can't use Ghostery, Blend In, No Resource Leak (or they are watered down), I see no use for Firefox. Please Mozilla, don't kill some of your biggest attractions! You copied UI from Chrome, now you are copying Add-Ons, why would anyone need to use your product then? Aren't you shooting into your own feet? When are you going to pull off Opera and just skin Chrome differently?
smonff 10y ago
Firefox was supposed to be "slow" and they are trying to fix it radically with projects like e10s and Quantum. If the browser is able to eat my RAM a bit less, I would be quite happy to have my add-ons off for some time.
Aardwolf 10y ago
I'm a bit worried that some lesser known extensions will be unimplementable... Would the following still be implementable? "Open in Browser", which allows ignoring "content-disposition:attachment" to display pdf/image/txt in browser rather than save to disk "Android Text Reflow", which allows wrapping text to fit the screen on Android after zooming in on a web-page "Status-4-Evar", which adds back the status bar at the bottom of firefox Thanks!
jmiserez 10y ago
Wondering if/how Zotero and similar applications will exist beyond 2017. Will they need to fork Firefox?
- _lm_ 10y ago
  Zotero will work the way it does with Chrome now: there will be a plugin that integrates with Zotero Standalone, which will continue to be developed using XULRunner. I think this will be good in the long run--Zotero is complex enough to merit being its own application, and separating Zotero and browser plugins will make it easier to migrate Zotero off XULRunner at some point, if the developers choose to do so.
nv-vn 10y ago
And this is how Mozilla goes out. Their last remaining reason for existence is being destroyed. They've already gotten rid of Thunderbird, Tab Groups, full themes, and more, but left us with the things nobody wanted (Pocket, Hello, etc.). They've also slowly let performance go in many places, seemingly. A few years ago, I switched to Firefox for precisely the set of features they've axed. It was also much faster than the alternatives for me, used much less RAM, and rarely locked up. Since then, I've seen performance decline, RAM usage ramp up, and watched the browser lock up nearly once every hour. At this point, I'm probably just gonna go to Chrome. What's the point if Firefox is just gonna be a shitty clone?
- kigbljnkgk 10y ago
  Try waterfox
- jhasse 10y ago
  What do you mean by "full themes"? There are many different themes available for Firefox which still work with v50.
  - eitland 10y ago
    Not an expert but I think modern themes only style the top of the browser while traditional themes could style anything possibly including content.
    - jhasse 10y ago
      I think that's still possible. I'm using a theme which changes the appearance of TreeStyleTabs for example. And the colors of context menus, etc.
- asddddd 10y ago
  I have to disagree, Firefox is in a much better position than a few years ago. RAM usage is lower, e10s works nicely. Tab Groups was spun out into an addon; a sensible decision for a feature extremely few people used. Test Pilot is a better solution for testing features like this. Very relevant to this thread, addons and plugins are a huge cause of poor performance - I ran into this a while back, where an addon was leaking memory via zombie tabs. Have you tried disabling addons?
Grollicus 10y ago
Man I will be so sad if they finally manage to kill TreeStyleTabs
- Manishearth 10y ago
  See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13031013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13031013 regarding Tree Style Tabs. I suspect it will work in the new system.
HemantPawar 10y ago
So they are going to scrape their best selling feature. I'm just curious to know why you will use Firefox over Chrome? Privacy from Google?
dbalan 10y ago
Slightly OT: There is another problem that most people seems to miss. Add-ons in their current form in ff are tightly coupled to the browser to the point that it's the browser itself. In the modern web, the browser knows too much about you, and so does the add-on, and it's not unheard of them to explore it[1] How does that free webpage to PDF converter add-on make money? By selling your web history of course. [1] https://www.google.de/amp/thehackernews.com/2016/11/web-of-trust-addon.html%3famp=1 https://www.google.de/amp/thehackernews.com/2016/11/web-of-t... EDIT: added OT tag
- jhasse 10y ago
  Web history is also available to WebExtensions, so I don't see how this is relevant to people missing XUL/SDK addons?
  - dbalan 10y ago
    Added OT tag, I was not comparing webextensions, pointing out, this is still an unsolved problem.
pasbesoin 10y ago
There may be a lot of components and interests involved in this change. As a user of, not developer for, Firefox with its extensions, it's this simple for me: The day my existing extensions stop working -- the day neither they nor an alternative under the new paradigm offer equivalent functionality -- is the day I no longer have any reason to stay with Firefox. I'm not saying, "Stop, wait, a user is unhappy!" I'm simply saying that, as a perhaps sophisticated user with some more advanced functionality, security, and privacy concerns, the set of extensions I currently use is my only compelling reason for using Firefox over Chrome. Well, that and Google/Chrome's current trend towards its own version of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish wrapped within a panopticon. I embrace the browser as the user client. I'm glad to have security issues addressed, but I also require that the browser do what I want, and not what -- a la Chrome, for example -- media interests want to dictate. I'm watching 2017 with trepidation, and wonder whether and when something may fork. Not unrealistically, though; I'm skeptical any fork is going to have the resources and commitment to maintain a modern, full-featured browser in the face of current and future... err, developments. Maybe such a fork will, both of desire and of necessity, look instead towards a bit of minimalism. Not doing "everything", but doing core functionality well and securely. I guess then we'd have to see whether the content farms with their Javascript++, DRM delivered content, end up leaving such a fork too much out in the cold for it to maintain sufficient interest and/or usefulness to keep itself going.
brudgers 10y ago
What, if anything, does this mean for GreaseMonkey?
- duskwuff 10y ago
  Tampermonkey works fine on Chrome, so probably very little.
  - brudgers 10y ago
    TamperMonkey is not equivalent to GreaseMonkey in terms of development workflow because TamperMonkey stores scripts in a database and pretty much requires use of its built in editor which is of 'built-in-editor' quality. On the other hand, GreaseMonkey stores scripts in files and therefore allows any editor/IDE to be used in the development workflow. Because scripts are stored in a database, TamperMonkey does not play swimmingly with GIT either. Finally, TamperMonkey is a third party tool that from time to time asks for money. GreaseMonkey is open-source. The TamperMonkey EULA: Your right to use Tampermonkey continues until terminated by the Company, which may terminate this Agreement and your license to use Tampermonkey at any time, without cause and without notice. You may terminate this agreement at any time by uninstalling Tampermonkey. This Agreement will automatically terminate if you fail to comply with any of the terms of this EULA. Upon termination, you agree to stop using and to uninstall Tampermonkey.
Animats 10y ago
"By the end of 2017, and with the release of Firefox 57, we’ll move to WebExtensions exclusively, and will stop loading any other extension types on desktop. To help ensure any new extensions work beyond the end of 2017, AMO will stop accepting any new extensions for signing that are not WebExtensions in Firefox 53." Based on Mozilla's track record, that's too soon. It took about three years after the announcement of the Jetpack API before it worked right.
threepipeproblm 10y ago
People inside institutions tend to have trouble admitting when they're wrong. They basically don't do it. So I fear for the worst with this. Could be some kind of effort to fork the code and have users who care about Firefox rally around a non-hobbled version?

Add-ons in 2017

136 points by nachtigall 10y ago

I'd love some figures on whether the main popular extensions will continue working, as well as how many in the Firefox Add-ons site are already web extensions. I'm curious about my mains: - Classic theme restorer - uBlock - DownThemAll - Markdown Here As I'm already using electrolysis, I know Markdown Here basically doesn't work. How I can check whether things will break or not.

Amezarak 10y ago
I think it's safe to say that many if not most popular extensions will be provided API support and converted over. I think the real issue is that innovation in the extension space is effectively over - the Firefox extension system is so vibrant because anything was possible. Now Mozilla is reducing the possibility space to that which is provided by the much more limited WebExtensions and adding in support for existing popular extensions. But new extensions, doing things yet undreamed of, will no longer be possible. I'm not sure what the distinguishing features of Firefox will be moving into the future. More and more, I think it's becoming Just Another Browser, with a better ideology behind it. Well, that's not a winning formula. I'm really disappointed and I don't know what to do other than stay on old versions of Firefox as long as I can.
vanni 10y ago
About DownThemAll: http://www.downthemall.net/the-likely-end-of-downthemall/ http://www.downthemall.net/the-likely-end-of-downthemall/
- oblio 10y ago
  That article is more than 1 year old. And Mozilla is going beyond the Chrome APIs, they are implementing shims and additional APIs to port almost everything over.
  - detaro 10y ago
    Is there a statement otherwise from DownThemAll? I haven't found anything, just references to that blog post.
    - vanni 10y ago
      At least they are releasing new versions yet: http://www.downthemall.net/downthemall-3-0-5/ http://www.downthemall.net/downthemall-3-0-5/ “After a rather long long time, with many new things to address such as Australis, e10s, limited time we could spend on the project, a little lack of motivation after mozilla required mostly pointless signatures and announced to kill XUL add-ons…” - Nils, September 2016
    - odabaxok 10y ago
      There is a reply on a review for the new release from September 1, 2016 which says: "Just to clarify: We did not port it to the WebExtensions API, nor do we think it is possible to port it in any significant manner to the WebExtensions API..." https://addons.mozilla.org/En-us/firefox/addon/downthemall/reviews/?page=3 https://addons.mozilla.org/En-us/firefox/addon/downthemall/r...
    - tn123 10y ago
      I am the DownThemAll! developer. The statement is still current. I communicated to the mozilla people who got in touch with me that there will not be a crippled DownThemAll!, at least not from me.
detaro 10y ago
uBlock and Markdown Here also exist for Chrome, so they'll very likely work or be ported. The DownThemAll devs have been very vocal about "WebExtensions being the likely end of DownThemAll", although I don't know if due to understandable unwillingness to redo a lot of their work or actual technical limitations. Classic theme restorer probably relies on XUL/features unlikely to be re-implemented, see dev response to this review https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/classicthemerestorer/reviews/823464/ https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/classicthemerest.... Ironically the long-term ideas of having a HTML based GUI could enable heavy modification again, at least in modified "distributions" of FF? Doesn't solve the now/next year though :/
- tn123 10y ago
  I am the DownThemAll! developer. First and foremost it's technical limitations, other than that it's also time.
  - detaro 10y ago
    Can/Do you want to comment on Mozilla's efforts to work with extension developers to bring everything needed to WebExtensions? While the promise sounds great, I would expect there are issues that make it not as easy in reality.
    - tn123 10y ago
      They are trying I guess, and may succeed for a bunch of use cases to bring what's required. But certainly not all. Even the add-ons that can be somewhat reasonably be ported will have to deal with limitations, and I think the quality of some of those ported add-ons will take a (major) hit. To elaborate: If you're doing "web stuff", toolbar buttons, and request stuff (adblocking etc), you'll probably be fine. If you're lucky enough that you only need a few additional new things and your name is e.g. Giorgio of NoScript, you also will be probably fine. If your add-on does not have a sizable user base, and you do fancy things like modding the browser UI itself, or doing something else not entirely "webby", your outlook is a lot less rosy.
bhrgunatha 10y ago
Mozilla have said they will adapt Web Extensions along with consulting add-on developers in order to bring along the maximum number of add-ons. For me, if DownThemAll isn't one of them, I'll either stay with the last compatible version of firefox or, more likely switch to one of the alternatives that does support it and the others that have become such an integral part of my browsing behaviour. I've been burned so often by the changes made in recent years, so much so that I have next to zero loyalty to them anymore. And I've been using firefox since the browser was still part of the Mozilla suite.
myfonj 10y ago
You can consult https://www.arewee10syet.com/ https://www.arewee10syet.com/ ; seems authors are mostly showing some efforts to migrate their extensions. CTR: seems OK, uBlock: uBockO: seems OK, DTA: bug, but at least tries to be e10s compatible, Mardown here: unknown (supposedly not compatible?) You can try yourself: either install https://nightly.mozilla.org/ https://nightly.mozilla.org/ and load it with your addons (it uses different profile) or use your stable one and look at about:support page for "Multiprocess Windows" cell if it states 1/1 and does not mention "(Disabled by add-ons)" you are covered. You can try some about:config alterations [0] to force it if you are adventurous. In this case, it might be nice to install "Add-on Compatibility Reporter" [1] for tracking and sharing your findings. [0] http://superuser.com/questions/1096974/how-to-check-if-multiprocess-e10s-option-is-enabled-in-your-firefox http://superuser.com/questions/1096974/how-to-check-if-multi... [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compatibility-reporter/?src=api https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compat...
- yoodenvranx 10y ago
  Total Mozilla noob here: Tab Mix Plus shows up as compatible. Does that mean that I will be able to use it with the new extension system?
  - Sylos 10y ago
    No, what this check means is that the recently introduced multiprocess-features of Firefox won't be blocked by Tab Mix Plus. You'll get much better performance, if you have no extensions which block that. The guy seems to be confusing things here, too. But while this doesn't confirm it, it neither confirms the opposite. So, it is very much still possible thst Tab Mix Plus gets ported to WebExtensions before the old add-ons get shut off, i.e. you might very well be able to use it still then, there's just currently no way to know yet. And as far as I can tell, the developer seems to have accepted porting it to WebExtensions and will most likely do it: http://tabmixplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19282 http://tabmixplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19282
- majewsky 10y ago
  Careful. The e10s transition is a much smaller step than the move to WebExtensions. To witness, notice how (higher up in this thread) the DTA developer once again said that there will be no DTA as a WebExtension.
gorhill 10y ago
uBlock Origin was first developed as a Chromium extension, so converting to WebExtensions API is a non-issue. There is currently a dev build for the WebExtension version of uBlock Origin in the latest release.[1] FYI, uBlock is abandonware[2]. [1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases (search for "webext") [2] https://github.com/chrisaljoudi/uBlock/releases https://github.com/chrisaljoudi/uBlock/releases ("released this on 31 May 2015")
- morinted 10y ago
  Thanks for your comment. I should have specified uBlock Origin; I meant it as, as you said, uBlock is abandonware.

dvh 10y ago

RSS reader, Another RSS reader, Dictionary, something for user scripts, domain white list, Another dictionary, Gmail checker, uBlock origin. 4 of those extensions are my own. NIH much :(

_pdp_ 10y ago

The decline of XUL started around 2009. I spent months building a very complex app around XULRunner only to find out that Mozilla had no interest to support the technology in the future. So I decided to leave the platform and put my efforts on native and web and frankly it was a good decision. The WebExtensions API is no match to XUL and XPCOM but I only hope that now that we have Mozilla behind the technology we will see further API improvements.

vdfs 10y ago
Google is behind WebExtensions API (aka Chrome Extension API) Mozilla is behind XUL/XPCOM and look were we are now ;)
sudshekhar 10y ago
> I decided to leave the platform and put my efforts on native and web For the sake of curiosity, did you create extensions as side-projects/startup ideas? Do people pay for extensions or are we talking about patreon funds here (Or startups like pocket whose extensions are ways to get more crowds).
- _pdp_ 10y ago
  It was a desktop app that was based on top of XULRunner and yes it was for profit and people payed for it. I have no experience with selling extensions but I would imagine it is a very hard market to crack unless it is targeted towards enterprise customers. Based on my experience, I can only advise not to base your entire business model on browser extensions as you will become dependent on platform moves (again unless enterprise).

newscracker 10y ago

I hope the "end of 2017" deadline is flexible to change based on what's supported and what's not supported for current extensions. As people have said on the comments on the Mozilla blog post, Firefox will die without the popular extensions, of which there are many. Even today, Firefox extensions are far ahead of extensions on other browsers in what's available and how well they function.

speps 10y ago

Anyone knows about the fate of SeaMonkey? It's still based on XUL as far as I know and supports a lot of existing Firefox extensions.

mgbmtl 10y ago
There are constant references on forums to how they want to move away from XUL, for both Firefox and Thunderbird. XUL works, but I feel like very people are able to improve the guts of XUL, and that can be a huge risk for the future of the project. Pale Moon seems to be the main contender willing to maintain XUL, but presumably not improve it (changes to XUL can break extensions). As someone working on another free software project with an aging code base, we see this debate all the time: limited funds, limited interest to maintain the old core, but users rely on it. However, users also want performance improvements, more reliability, new features... not to mention what do you do when security issues pop up. At some point you need to cut your losses and find a model easier to maintain.
- hsivonen 10y ago
  Has anyone taken the Firefox security advisories since Pale Moon forked and checked how well Pale Moon has addressed the vulnerabilities?

hucker 10y ago

Extensions is currently the only thing FF is better than the competition at, and they scrap it to copy Chrome APIs... I just can't understand why they would scrap XUL-based extensions before their new APIs reach feature parity. The day pentadactyl stops working is the day I stop using firefox.

laurent123456 10y ago
I can see where they're coming from though. Today, developers need to create two versions of their extensions - one that works on Safari, Chrome and Opera (and Edge?) and one specifically for Firefox. As the market share of Firefox is not that high, maybe extension developers eventually won't be bothered with supporting that extra version, which means Firefox extensions will be less up-to-date and there will be less of them. That's probably a trade off they have to make, though I imagine they're aware that some add-ons won't work and that users will be annoyed by that.
- hucker 10y ago
  That's an argument for providing similar/the same APIs as Chrome et al sure, but not for deprecating the old ones.
  - dmethvin 10y ago
    It's quite a burden to maintain two different sets of APIs.
    - alphapapa 10y ago
      I'm sorry, but I hear this all the time--it's the primary argument used for deprecating or removing any functionality in any software. And my response is: so what? Maintaining software is a burden, period. Software exists to be useful. The APIs in question make it useful. The developers have been maintaining it for nearly 20 years. Their employer receives millions of dollars a year to do so. They don't want to maintain this "burden" anymore because it's not fun to maintain old code. It's not glamorous. No one becomes a rock star by unloading the bus. But if you remove the baggage compartments, the bus ceases to be useful, and the show doesn't go on. Chromium is such a cooler project. It was started from scratch (except for the WebKit part), and it's made by Google (which at least used to be cool), and it's got all these modern APIs. They're so great that it only took them 7 years to support resumable HTTP requests[1]. Firefox used to be about the users. Now it's about the developers. (This is not to say that individual developers are selfish, but that the organization as a whole is behaving in a way that disregards the needs of users and prioritizes the desires of the developers.) 1: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=7648 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=7648. Just look at this cleverness: "In the absence of a crypto::SecureHash object, DownloadFile reads the partial file and calculates the partial hash state in a new crypto::SecureHash object. If a prefix hash value is available, then the hash of the partial file is matched against this prefix hash. A mismatch causes a FILE_HASH_MISMATCH error which in turn causes the download to abandon its partial state and restart." Any other software in the world would just restart the download. I mean, they already give it a special ".crdownload" extension, so it's not like any other program is going to mess with it. But no, they can't just resume the download, they have to make 15 hash checks and pass around 7 different objects and find every possible reason to start the download all over again. What could have been a 5-line patch turned into 7 years of waiting, a dozen revisions across 50 files...

anotheryou 10y ago

Old or complex add-ons are what keep me with firefox. Will switch to qutebrowser¹ and probably chrome as my backup for what the cutie can't handle. ¹keyboard goodness: https://github.com/The-Compiler/qutebrowser https://github.com/The-Compiler/qutebrowser

akkartik 10y ago
Thanks for that pointer! I've been off Firefox for the past six months since they broke my private feedreader extension[1]. I'd been using Opera but I'm typing this out on qutebrowser. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11287049 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11287049
- anotheryou 10y ago
  It's still quite young and you feel it at times, beware :)
  - akkartik 10y ago
    Yes, I'm going in with eyes wide open :) Some experiences: a) Copying HN links doesn't work. All you get in the clipboard is "/item". b) Google Drive is utterly unusable. c) Facebook is mildly unusable. Rendering gets easily messed up. d) No password management. But these are fairly minor, I'm happy to use a secondary browser for them.
aq3cn 10y ago
You can also try Vivaldi when something does not work in qutebrowser as it has support for single key keyboard shortcut s. I recently voted for native vim mode in Vivaldi reddit feature request thread. Worth checking out.

BoringCode 10y ago

As an addon developer, this annoys me. I've had to port my addons to different APIs twice in the last couple of years. Hopefully this is the end for a while.

wiiittttt 10y ago

Only accepting WebExtension based add-ons while not yet fully implementing the Chrome API seems like it would lead to a large number of unsupported add-ons.

Illniyar 10y ago

As always, the only question for me is whether tree style tabs is going to work with WebExtenstions. If not, then say hello to people staying with firefox 56 for years.

mistermann 10y ago
Is there still nothing comparable on Chrome? Is it not possible for some reason?
- Illniyar 10y ago
  Chrome had it, but they killed the feature a few years back and are intentionally not bringing it back because of the low user adoption. There are some hacks that open a new window with tabs, and resizes the main window to put it side by side, but it doesn't feel right. Or at least that was the case the last time I looked a year or two ago. Edit: also, yes, from what I understand, the WebExtenstions Api in Chrome does not allow these modifications.
tversteeg 10y ago
There is a native vertical tab feature in Test Pilot, the downside is that it doesn't support nesting (yet?).
- Illniyar 10y ago
  What is Test Pilot? Another release channel?

bitL 10y ago

If I can't use Ghostery, Blend In, No Resource Leak (or they are watered down), I see no use for Firefox. Please Mozilla, don't kill some of your biggest attractions! You copied UI from Chrome, now you are copying Add-Ons, why would anyone need to use your product then? Aren't you shooting into your own feet? When are you going to pull off Opera and just skin Chrome differently?

smonff 10y ago

Firefox was supposed to be "slow" and they are trying to fix it radically with projects like e10s and Quantum. If the browser is able to eat my RAM a bit less, I would be quite happy to have my add-ons off for some time.

Aardwolf 10y ago

I'm a bit worried that some lesser known extensions will be unimplementable... Would the following still be implementable? "Open in Browser", which allows ignoring "content-disposition:attachment" to display pdf/image/txt in browser rather than save to disk "Android Text Reflow", which allows wrapping text to fit the screen on Android after zooming in on a web-page "Status-4-Evar", which adds back the status bar at the bottom of firefox Thanks!

jmiserez 10y ago

Wondering if/how Zotero and similar applications will exist beyond 2017. Will they need to fork Firefox?

_lm_ 10y ago
Zotero will work the way it does with Chrome now: there will be a plugin that integrates with Zotero Standalone, which will continue to be developed using XULRunner. I think this will be good in the long run--Zotero is complex enough to merit being its own application, and separating Zotero and browser plugins will make it easier to migrate Zotero off XULRunner at some point, if the developers choose to do so.

nv-vn 10y ago

And this is how Mozilla goes out. Their last remaining reason for existence is being destroyed. They've already gotten rid of Thunderbird, Tab Groups, full themes, and more, but left us with the things nobody wanted (Pocket, Hello, etc.). They've also slowly let performance go in many places, seemingly. A few years ago, I switched to Firefox for precisely the set of features they've axed. It was also much faster than the alternatives for me, used much less RAM, and rarely locked up. Since then, I've seen performance decline, RAM usage ramp up, and watched the browser lock up nearly once every hour. At this point, I'm probably just gonna go to Chrome. What's the point if Firefox is just gonna be a shitty clone?

kigbljnkgk 10y ago
Try waterfox
jhasse 10y ago
What do you mean by "full themes"? There are many different themes available for Firefox which still work with v50.
- eitland 10y ago
  Not an expert but I think modern themes only style the top of the browser while traditional themes could style anything possibly including content.
  - jhasse 10y ago
    I think that's still possible. I'm using a theme which changes the appearance of TreeStyleTabs for example. And the colors of context menus, etc.
asddddd 10y ago
I have to disagree, Firefox is in a much better position than a few years ago. RAM usage is lower, e10s works nicely. Tab Groups was spun out into an addon; a sensible decision for a feature extremely few people used. Test Pilot is a better solution for testing features like this. Very relevant to this thread, addons and plugins are a huge cause of poor performance - I ran into this a while back, where an addon was leaking memory via zombie tabs. Have you tried disabling addons?

Grollicus 10y ago

Man I will be so sad if they finally manage to kill TreeStyleTabs

Manishearth 10y ago
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13031013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13031013 regarding Tree Style Tabs. I suspect it will work in the new system.

HemantPawar 10y ago

So they are going to scrape their best selling feature. I'm just curious to know why you will use Firefox over Chrome? Privacy from Google?

dbalan 10y ago

Slightly OT: There is another problem that most people seems to miss. Add-ons in their current form in ff are tightly coupled to the browser to the point that it's the browser itself. In the modern web, the browser knows too much about you, and so does the add-on, and it's not unheard of them to explore it[1] How does that free webpage to PDF converter add-on make money? By selling your web history of course. [1] https://www.google.de/amp/thehackernews.com/2016/11/web-of-trust-addon.html%3famp=1 https://www.google.de/amp/thehackernews.com/2016/11/web-of-t... EDIT: added OT tag

jhasse 10y ago
Web history is also available to WebExtensions, so I don't see how this is relevant to people missing XUL/SDK addons?
- dbalan 10y ago
  Added OT tag, I was not comparing webextensions, pointing out, this is still an unsolved problem.

pasbesoin 10y ago

There may be a lot of components and interests involved in this change. As a user of, not developer for, Firefox with its extensions, it's this simple for me: The day my existing extensions stop working -- the day neither they nor an alternative under the new paradigm offer equivalent functionality -- is the day I no longer have any reason to stay with Firefox. I'm not saying, "Stop, wait, a user is unhappy!" I'm simply saying that, as a perhaps sophisticated user with some more advanced functionality, security, and privacy concerns, the set of extensions I currently use is my only compelling reason for using Firefox over Chrome. Well, that and Google/Chrome's current trend towards its own version of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish wrapped within a panopticon. I embrace the browser as the user client. I'm glad to have security issues addressed, but I also require that the browser do what I want, and not what -- a la Chrome, for example -- media interests want to dictate. I'm watching 2017 with trepidation, and wonder whether and when something may fork. Not unrealistically, though; I'm skeptical any fork is going to have the resources and commitment to maintain a modern, full-featured browser in the face of current and future... err, developments. Maybe such a fork will, both of desire and of necessity, look instead towards a bit of minimalism. Not doing "everything", but doing core functionality well and securely. I guess then we'd have to see whether the content farms with their Javascript++, DRM delivered content, end up leaving such a fork too much out in the cold for it to maintain sufficient interest and/or usefulness to keep itself going.

brudgers 10y ago

What, if anything, does this mean for GreaseMonkey?

duskwuff 10y ago
Tampermonkey works fine on Chrome, so probably very little.
- brudgers 10y ago
  TamperMonkey is not equivalent to GreaseMonkey in terms of development workflow because TamperMonkey stores scripts in a database and pretty much requires use of its built in editor which is of 'built-in-editor' quality. On the other hand, GreaseMonkey stores scripts in files and therefore allows any editor/IDE to be used in the development workflow. Because scripts are stored in a database, TamperMonkey does not play swimmingly with GIT either. Finally, TamperMonkey is a third party tool that from time to time asks for money. GreaseMonkey is open-source. The TamperMonkey EULA: Your right to use Tampermonkey continues until terminated by the Company, which may terminate this Agreement and your license to use Tampermonkey at any time, without cause and without notice. You may terminate this agreement at any time by uninstalling Tampermonkey. This Agreement will automatically terminate if you fail to comply with any of the terms of this EULA. Upon termination, you agree to stop using and to uninstall Tampermonkey.

Animats 10y ago

"By the end of 2017, and with the release of Firefox 57, we’ll move to WebExtensions exclusively, and will stop loading any other extension types on desktop. To help ensure any new extensions work beyond the end of 2017, AMO will stop accepting any new extensions for signing that are not WebExtensions in Firefox 53." Based on Mozilla's track record, that's too soon. It took about three years after the announcement of the Jetpack API before it worked right.

threepipeproblm 10y ago

People inside institutions tend to have trouble admitting when they're wrong. They basically don't do it. So I fear for the worst with this. Could be some kind of effort to fork the code and have users who care about Firefox rally around a non-hobbled version?