6 ms·

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'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.

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.