18 ms·

I cannot continue working on my add-ons

235 points by vacri 10y ago

sp332 10y ago
This makes me curious - does Mozilla's new Tab Center experiment use Web Extensions? Or are they refusing to take their own medicine, and using inaccessible internal APIs? https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/tab-center https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/tab-center (Edit: Deprecated, not inaccessible.)
- detaro 10y ago
  From a quick look at the source[0] it uses the deprecated Add-On SDK[1]. [0] https://github.com/bwinton/TabCenter/blob/master/main.js https://github.com/bwinton/TabCenter/blob/master/main.js [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/SDK https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/SDK
  - evilpie 10y ago
    There is a rough version [0] based on the sidebarAction API [1], this is probably going to improved when it actually lands in Firefox Nightly, which should hopefully be soon. [0] https://github.com/bwinton/TabCenter/tree/webext https://github.com/bwinton/TabCenter/tree/webext [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1208596 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1208596
- ianbicking 10y ago
  It uses very inaccessible internal APIs currently (including XUL), but there is an effort to use it to create the necessary APIs so it can be ported to a Web Extension.
protomyth 10y ago
I think there is a niche for a programmer's browser. I often think something half-way between a web browser and the old Lisp and Smalltalk machines.
- navaati 10y ago
  Oh, it's called Emacs (being half-serious here)
  - protomyth 10y ago
    On a fully serious note, Emacs born out of a web browser would be a pretty good goal.
  - rekado 10y ago
    Emacs can already embed a webkit widget, but much more work would be needed to make interaction with the widget "emacsy". At the moment all you can do with it is send JavaScript snippets to it to make it change internal state. It would be great to intertwine this more with Emacs so that e.g. completing-read could be used on the DOM.
    - protomyth 10y ago
      It would be rather fun to download a webpage in "BrowserEmacs" and have a REPL available with the page turned into a S Expression for you to manipulate at your or your plug-ins leisure. Throw in the tools to make plug-ins have there own UI and you have a developer's browser.
      - sp332 10y ago
        Ubiquity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiquity_(Firefox) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiquity_(Firefox) (now defunct) had natural-language commands with localization including subject/verb/object order. It supported subscribing to commands too, so you could keep up with changing APIs automatically. It even understood pronouns, so you could write "email this to Dave" and it would email your selected text to your gmail contact named Dave. The only thing it was missing was a permissions model to limit what untrusted command code could do.
- olejorgenb 10y ago
  Yes please!
mnarayan01 10y ago
I've been praying that Mozilla would rethink this, but that looks increasingly unlikely. I guess switching to a LTS release will tide me over for a time, but this really does feel like the end of an era.
- vacri 10y ago
  This was my thinking as well. I'll probably move to the last ESR ('extended support release') before the cutoff period, just so I can keep using Tab Groups.
stephengillie 10y ago
Isn't Firefox open source? Can't you just fork the project and start your own browser, where all these changes don't get made? Is the real concern about forking the userbase and ecosystem, and the fork won't have the critical user base to become self-sustaining? Edit: added paragraph for clarity.
- iancarroll 10y ago
  Maintaining a fork of a large browser is extremely difficult, especially for coordinating and merging vulnerability fixes.
  - stephengillie 10y ago
    Do no other extension developers have this issue?
    - protomyth 10y ago
      There have been a few articles submitted to HN that indicate some extension developers are giving up.
    - dsr_ 10y ago
      The EPUBreader extension now notifies you on each relaunch that they need donations to fund a complete rewrite to work in future Firefox versions.
    - chr1 10y ago
      They have, many of them gave up earlier, e.g. https://github.com/estivo/Instantfox/issues/129#issuecomment-250919830 https://github.com/estivo/Instantfox/issues/129#issuecomment... https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/classicthemerestorer/reviews/834437/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/classicthemer... http://www.downthemall.net/re-downthemall-and-webextensions-or-why-why-i-am-done-with-mozilla/ http://www.downthemall.net/re-downthemall-and-webextensions-...
    - zyxzkz 10y ago
DashRattlesnake 10y ago
Just curious will the new Web Extensions style allow add-ons like Classic Theme Restorer [1] and Tree-style Tab [2] that change the Firefox UI? [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/classicthemerestorer/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/classicthemer... [2] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta...
- mnarayan01 10y ago
  Previously the WebExtensions wiki mentioned that they were planning to support functionality for TreeStyle tabs. As of https://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=WebExtensions&diff=1134951&oldid=1134950 https://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=WebExtensions&diff=... it no longer does; no idea how much to read into that though.
  - notatoad 10y ago
    the webextensions/future[1] page tracks the new APIs needed to support existing "interesting addons" [1] https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions/Future https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions/Future
    - DashRattlesnake 10y ago
      That page hasn't been updated since 2015. The linked uservoice site[1] for feedback has also been shut down (most of the activity was protest). [1] https://webextensions.uservoice.com/ https://webextensions.uservoice.com/
- guelo 10y ago
  The Classic Theme Restorer page says "CTR will stop working on Firefox 57 (release) when Mozilla drops support for XUL / XPCOM / legacy add-ons, but it will still work on Firefox 52 ESR until Firefox 59 ESR replaces it in 2018 (~Q2)."
  - IChrisI 10y ago
wvenable 10y ago
If this WebExtensions move makes Tab Mix Plus stop working (I use multi-row tabs extensively) then I will no longer have any reason to continue to use Firefox. I put up with it's poor performance and instability merely for this one feature. Nobody needs a clone of Chrome; we already have Chrome.
- MiddleEndian 10y ago
  I would use the last version of Firefox that supported Tab Mix Plus until it no longer worked with the web in general. At that point I don't know what I'd do.
  - sp332 10y ago
    Looks like ESR 52 will continue to support XUL addons, and get regular security updates, well past the release of version 57 which is the estimated version for the cutoff. We can "vote with our feet" somewhat. If a large number of users switch from 56 back to 52 ESR instead of "upgrading" to 57, we will have some actual numbers to show.
- kesselborn 10y ago
  for me it's Tab Groups (actually one of the Extension the author wrote). If that is gone, there is no good reason for Firefox over Safari
- AznHisoka 10y ago
  I also wish chrome would stop prepending http:// http:// everytime i copy an ip from the url bar.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Is it prepending it on copy, or hiding it for display in the url bar?
    - kopijahe 10y ago
      It's both.
fdsfsaa 10y ago
Do you want a fork? Do you want to drive more people to Pale Moon? Do you want to become even less relevant relative to Chrome? Do you want to make the web even less user-centric? A change like this is how you do that. Good job, Mozilla.
elpocko 10y ago
I'm only sticking to Firefox because there's a specific set of extensions I want to keep using. If only one of my key extensions breaks, my last reason to use Firefox vanishes, and I will immediately switch to Chromium/Iridium and never come back.
- aembleton 10y ago
  Same here, if tree style tabs stop working then I'm off to Vivaldi.
- threepipeproblm 10y ago
  Same. I guess Mozilla's stubborn decision makers -- who will never admit being wrong -- can comfort themselves by thinking of all the people who decide to quit using Firefox, when their cherished extensions break, as idiots. It's so sad.
jimmyswimmy 10y ago
I am not familiar with Web Extensions, but I am familiar with the fairly common event in which application vendors severely change functionality, with significant downstream effects. Such behavior seems more common amongst open-source products. Consider Python 3. Asterisk's scripting language. Perl 6. Incompatible version changes drive away users and developers. The uncertainty that comes along with a planned update in which compatibility is not guaranteed makes us all shy away from developing in that application at all, not just on the old version. Microsoft always seemed to do a good job at maintaining compatibility over its versions. Most applications that used to run on Windows still do, although there are a lot of exceptions. Python's change to the print statement broke everything, though the fix was easy; most of the time the fix is not easy - and even when it is, nothing works until someone gets around to the fix. I appreciate the need to move forward, and sometimes you have to break stuff to make it better, but these incompatible changes just destroy momentum. It's a shame to see it happen.
- williamscales 10y ago
  It's not merely an incompatible change, it's an incompatible change that removes significant functionality. People seem to be coming around to Python 3 eventually, as it does offer a much improved experience. I can't see that happening with subsequent versions of Firefox unfortunately.
- syshum 10y ago
  >>I am not familiar with Web Extensions, Chrome.... Mozilla is turning Firefox into just another Chrome Browser... Firefox 57 will like see me stop using FireFox it will be no different than chrome so I might as well just use chrome >>and sometimes you have to break stuff to make it better It is yet to be seen if it will be better, so far everything they are doing in firefox to make it more like chrome I am 1000000% opposed to.
  - a3n 10y ago
    > Firefox 57 will like see me stop using FireFox it will be no different than chrome so I might as well just use chrome Firefox probably won't phone google.
williamscales 10y ago
This is going to kill pentadactyl, which is currently the only reason I'm using Firefox. For those who aren't familiar, pentadactyl is a Firefox extension that transforms the user interface to make it more minimal and vim-like. You get to use standard vim bindings to navigate the web and it even gives you a vim-like command line interface to the browser's functionality.
- a3n 10y ago
  I sympathize. For those who don't mind, or prefer, a less comprehensive vim experience in the browser, I'm very happy with VimFx https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/vimfx/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/vimfx/ It has a ton of vim commands, but I only use hjkl, g and gg. I never can remember whether search with / comes via VimFx or plain FF. Firefox says it's compatible with multiprocess, but I don't know if it will survive through the switch to WebExtensions. It works fine now.
  - swhipple 10y ago
    There's currently a feature freeze and plan to switch to WebExtension after the necessary APIs are added to Firefox: https://github.com/akhodakivskiy/VimFx/issues/860 https://github.com/akhodakivskiy/VimFx/issues/860
- roylez 10y ago
  After discovering cvim for Chrome, I switched and never looked back. Vimium, on the other hand, is a bit different from pentadactyl/vimperator experience.
- jmiserez 10y ago
  And it's going to kill TabGroups too. And a lot of other addons from other authors will probably suffer the same fate.
  - Jaepa 10y ago
    The author of the posted article is the author is TabGroups.
Aardwolf 10y ago
Would those add-ons still work with SeaMonkey? That might be a way to keep them
Animats 10y ago
Firefox has three APIs: XUL, Jetpack, and WebExtensions. XUL has been on the way out for years, and never worked in mobile Firefox anyway. (Almost nobody runs mobile Firefox, so that turned out not to matter much.) Jetpack was introduced in 2013, and by 2014, it was actually usable. It's not clear when and whether Jetpack add-ons will stop working. Mozilla's developer documentation is so confused that you can't tell. WebExtensions and Jetpack are essentially the same functionality with different names.[1] The trouble with Firefox chasing Google Chrome compatibility is that, once they get there, Google will probably change something so some Google service is essential to an add-on. Like Google did with Android. Then compatible add-ons stop working on Firefox. Nobody runs add-ons on Chrome much, anyway; I have the same add-on on both platforms and its 50:1 Firefox over Chrome. But usage is declining, along with Firefox. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Comparison_with_the_Add-on_SDK https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Co...
- darklajid 10y ago
  Reading this on mobile Firefox with > 100 tabs open. We're out there! ;)
- zerocrates 10y ago
  > The trouble with Firefox chasing Google Chrome compatibility is that, once they get there, Google will probably change something so some Google service is essential to an add-on. I'd be more concerned that, once they get to Chrome compatibility, they've simply sacrificed one of the key things that differentiates them from Chrome. Firefox's die-hard adherents use extensions heavily, and many of the most popular, particularly those that are on Firefox and not elsewhere, depend on the old XUL layer or other APIs that have no replacement. I don't think users are going to see it as a great improvement that they have access to Chrome extensions they didn't want in the first place. Instead they're going to focus on the fact that they're losing the functionality that's been keeping them using Firefox. I don't think you'll need Google to act maliciously or really do anything at all to have this end poorly for Mozilla.
  - leeoniya 10y ago
mintplant 10y ago
Oh no! I've become dependent on Tab Groups over the past year or so; even kicked in a donation. Thanks Luís for all your hard work.
mindcrime 10y ago
Sad, but hardly unexpected. The truth is, the mozilla leadership has never had much vision. In the early days of Seamonkey (and then Firefox) there was a slavish devotion to chasing Internet Explorer, and far too much rationalization of feature selection based on "IE has it" or "but IE doesn't support that." Later, with the ascension of Chrome, Firefox began to try and mimic Chrome the same way. Other than MathML support, I'm having a hard time thinking of anything truly unique about Firefox, as compared to Chrome these days.
- abeyer 10y ago
  > The truth is, the mozilla leadership has never had much vision I'm not sure I agree there. I feel like they've had at least a few pretty strong points of vision. The failure has been more on the execution of producing and maintaining useful software in support of that vision.
akjainaj 10y ago
Heh. Funny that I just updated to Firefox Developer Edition 53 and now Tree Style Tab (one of the addons that will go when XUL stuff does) has severe theming issues and weird flickers. It'd be nice if a mod could change the title to "I cannot continue working on my Firefox add-ons"
PetitPrince 10y ago
Aw snap, Beyond Australis and its slim chrome is one of the best way (along with tree style tabs) to regain some vertical space with sub optimal resolution (namely, the 1368x768 of my x220t).
baby 10y ago
If Tree Style Tab doesn't work anymore. What are the reasons to use Firefox? Also what are the alternatives. I tried Chrome but the Tree Style Tab-like plugin is clumsy. Should I just not update firefox and wait until devs realize tabs were meant to be on the side? Honnestly as a power user I can't browse the web without tree style tab anymore.
- jobigoud 10y ago
  I'm the same, I think I'm going to stop updating and secure the last version that support them. Between auto-update, security patches and new web standards support, how long will this approach be viable though?
  - catbird 10y ago
    I might just have to give up on using the internet if treestyle tabs stops working. I'll get a job on a farm or something and lead a simpler life.
- rvern 10y ago
  Mozilla created Tab Center, which is similar to Tree Style Tabs: https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/tab-center https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/tab-center.
  - syshum 10y ago
    It is far far far far far way from replacing TreeStyle, as it has no Tree.... It just moves the tabs from horizontal to vertical, which has similar usability problems It is better than Sidewise on chrome though, however TabCenter is XUL as well I believe, there are no APIS currently for it to be moved to Extensions,
  - mdekkers 10y ago
    rubbish, will also be incompatible after this change. https://github.com/bwinton/TabCenter/issues/868 https://github.com/bwinton/TabCenter/issues/868 Furthermore, "showing tabs on the side" is not "similar to Tree Style Tabs"
throw2016 10y ago
Firefox has literally been kicked by its userbase and Chrome to get into its current semi competitive state. One understands the need to evolve but change just for the sake of change and activity can just be spinning your wheels. We don't need another Chrome clone. Firefox and Chrome's objectives are completely different. We definitely need more browser competition but growing complexity rules out one person or small team efforts like before all over the open source ecosystem. Untill open source users can get their act together and find a way to fund development they will find projects increasingly less accountable to them than their corporate sponsors.
51Cards 10y ago
Once this happens I will leave Firefox after being one of its strongest supporters for years. What makes Firefox worth it is the level to which I can customize it and this will knock out 5 of my must-have add-ons in one shot. When you do that you have nothing but a Chrome clone left and why use a Chrome clone when you can use Chrome. I hate Chrome because I feel locked in on UI design (old-school user here). Once FF takes away my options guaranteed I'll abandon it.
- jdormit 10y ago
  If the only reason you hate Chrome is being locked into the UI, you should switch to Vivaldi. Sure, it's a Chrome clone, but the UI is super configurable (and as far as I'm aware, it doesn't do any opt-out user tracking).
  - yellowapple 10y ago
    Is Vivaldi free software (as in speech, not as in beer)? Last time I gave it a serious go, it didn't seem to be (and it was buggy anyway, but that was when it was first made publicly available, so I'm sure that's improved, right?).
- rvern 10y ago
  > When you do that you have nothing but a Chrome clone left and why use a Chrome clone when you can use Chrome. Why use Chrome when you can use a Chrome clone that better respects your privacy, is open source, and gives you more freedom to configure it? Because it's more secure or faster? It won't be for long: that's exactly what Mozilla is working on. At the expense, yes, of some configurability.
  - Jaepa 10y ago
    Security is debatable. Sand boxing was just introduced. Customizable maybe, but between the australis, xul deprecation, and the limited theming API I don't think Mozilla really cares. Also for a open source browser. Are you aware the is chromium? Or hell any number of electron based web browsers (which is also chromium). Edit and loss of configurability is not the issue. Loss of Functionality is.
hendersoon 10y ago
I completely rely on Firegestures, the premiere mouse gesture addon. Mouse gestures are in my muscle memory. I can't live without them, and every single Webextensions Chrome mouse gestures addon either: a) Sucks. Doesn't work at all on internal pages including new pages (which is not a blocker, but sucks), and more importantly doesn't work _well_ ANYWHERE. Inconsistent behavior, poor performance. Just unacceptable. b) Is actually literally malware. Once Chrome extensions get popular, a shady Chinese or Russian consortium buys them up, adds user tracking, and silently updates the extension so your every move is followed. Chrome has been around for almost 10 years now, so I'm absolutely convinced that Webextensions are unable to support _GOOD_ mouse gestures. Now that Firefox will shortly become hot stinking Chinatown garbage, my only hope will be Vivaldi, a browser using Blink (Chrome's backend). Its mouse gestures are really close to being usable-- it only lacks configurable mouse button chording. https://vivaldi.com/ https://vivaldi.com/
- sedro 10y ago
  I'm with you. I was hooked on mouse gestures after using Opera 12. They came built into the browser, and you could tell. Gestures worked everywhere-- on a new tab, on a loading page, even on the browser window outside a tab. Now I'm using Firefox plus a dozen extensions to poorly replicate a base Opera 12 installation. The e10s update already broke some FireGesture in some minor ways (e.g. wheel gestures scroll the page content now). Other extensions stopped working completely. Time to give Vivaldi another shot...
voidz 10y ago
Ok, so, the only way I seem to be able to vote against this is by not using firefox anymore. Then that's what'll happen.
barrkel 10y ago
Classic Theme Restorer, Tree Style Tabs and Tab Mix Plus are the three extensions that add up to differentiate Firefox from Chrome for me. Unmodified Firefox is just an inferior clone of Chrome. Firefox is pointless without its UI-altering extensions. Quite amazing.
mwill 10y ago
I use Tab Groups constantly, I switched from Chrome to firefox almost entirely for Tab Groups. Runs terribly on my machine, I'll be back on Chrome the second Tab Groups are gone, unfortunately. I've been worried since web extension only announcement we were heading for something like this.
abeyer 10y ago
It's sad, but I am seriously worried that this could be the end for firefox. Add to that the recent refocus/re-prioritization on firefox within mozilla, it could be a first death knell for the organization entirely. I know in my own case, and it seems from comments here and other anecdotal experience, that a significant chunk of remaining firefox users depend on at least one extension that has no migration path, as there simply aren't equivalent APIs implemented or even planned. I really don't understand how they think they are going to maintain a userbase when they remove the last remaining feature that differentiates firefox from the other common browsers. Mozilla starts out in a tough competitive position, as they don't have an OS or platform to bundle a browser with. Alienating the users with the most reason to seek out an alternative seems to just be digging themselves deeper into the hole.
toyg 10y ago
I don't expect much from the leadership who brought us FirefoxOS, and indeed the WebExtension migration is being mismanaged - BUT: the hard truth is that the Chrome extension ecosystem is already on top and growing, while the Firefox one has been waning for a while. If you build a browser extension today, you build it for Chrome; if you have a Mac, you also get a Safari version almost for free; and then eventually, if you have time, if you can be bothered, you port it to FF. This could not go on, something had to be done. And they did it: JetPack/Webextensions, despite the uber-confused documentation, is an almost-complete compatibility layer that makes porting extensions from Chrome much easier. If they'd left it at that, nobody would have complained. Unfortunately, the next step is to gut the old infrastructure. They might have their technical reasons for that, but it seems a suicidal move from a commercial perspective. They are throwing overboard almost 20 years of competitive differentiation and community engagement. It's like Microsoft told people to rewrite their .Net apps in ObjC.
yoasif_ 10y ago
There seem to be a lot of people that are saying "oh, without XUL based extensions, Firefox is just a (worse) Chrome clone, so I might as well just use Chrome." I think what they might be missing is that Mozilla's conclusion is a lot like the people seem to be thinking here -- even though Chrome doesn't have the fancy extensions that are possible in Firefox, many many more people are using Chrome than Firefox, because they see it as a better Firefox. Clearly, that has something to do with either security or performance, where Firefox has a perceived lag. Mozilla is actively working to improve performance, and you may not want to switch to Chrome after all, because Chrome may instead be the poor man's Firefox (I personally think this is already the case, simply because with my 679 open tabs, Chrome would simply kill itself [44 loaded]). This video is one of the most exciting I have seen with regards to web browser performance, and it's Mozilla: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an5abNFba4Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an5abNFba4Q More info on what this means for Firefox: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Quantum https://wiki.mozilla.org/Quantum TL;DR: What if even with the missing XUL extensions, you wouldn't want to switch to Chrome, because Firefox was just plain faster?
- syshum 10y ago
  >>Clearly, that has something to do with either security or performance, where Firefox has a perceived lag. This is completely false It has something to do with MARKETING and the fact the Google is largest marketing company in the world and has the ability to market chrome far far far more effectively than Firefox IE is crap, so Windows users seek a replacement for IE, use to their only option was Firefox. Once Chrome came on the market with a HUGE marketing push people started to migrate It was 80-90% marketing, not technical Even if Firefox is better preforming people are not going to switch as only Technical people give a shit about performance numbers. Edge on windows 10 is starting to eat into Chrome partly because MS is bringing back the IE6 marketing and integration tactics that got them in Anti-trust hot water in the 90's No Firefox, absent Google Discontinuing the chrome Browser, will never break 20% market share again, I do not care how must better it preforms. Mozilla needs to focus on Power Users, and Privacy. They are failing at both with these moves IMO >>you wouldn't want to switch to Chrome, because Firefox was just plain faster? They they take away my TreeStyle Tabs and a few other Extensions I dont care how much faster it is, FF will be removed my all my systems TreeStyle Tabs is the the Main reason I use FF today. I dont understand why browsers have tabs horizontally across the window, it looks stupid and is unusable once you get above 20 or 30 tabs open So you talk about have 100's of tabs open, it is pointless if I do not have TreeStyle or some kind of Vertical Tabs. And no the Stupid Dock style of doing it on Chrome and other WebExtensions based hack is neither desirable or usable
reachtarunhere 10y ago
This is how Firefox dies.
e15ctr0n 10y ago
The developer of the ePubReader add-on for Firefox is looking to raise $26,685 in funds in order to rewrite the add-on for WebExtensions. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/epubreader/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/epubreader/ https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/569473473/epubreader-for-future-firefox https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/569473473/epubreader-fo...
johnny22 10y ago
Am I the only person here who was considering switching away from Firefox a few years back because I didn't think they had a plan to really move their efforts further? Honestly, I'm really impressed with their plans for Servo, WebExtensions and other recently active projects. I plan on sticking it out for the long haul. EDIT: qualified when I wanted to switch.
jhlgkhkhil 10y ago
When vimperiator, Zotero and tree style tabs stop working I will need to find another browser. What a clusterfuck Mozilla is becoming.
131hn 10y ago
Can someone explain me in a simple way the "xul prevent us to switch to multi process" argument ( when i'll naively think - just use one more dedicated process for xul. ?). Xul design & gecko
- kevincox 10y ago
  There isn't one. The actual argument is "multiprocess can break some /classic/ extensions". Then they lumped in "existing extensions can cause bad performance". And now they are using that bandwagon to remove tons of power from extensions. I wish we had both, because I would prefer webextensions (proper permissions) but when I needed to I can still use a powerful /classic/ extension.
tezza 10y ago
mozilla is pulling a nokia here. greasemonkey and add-ons are why people continue to use FF beyond the brief evaluation phase. now mozilla are clearly in the thrall of Abstraction Astronauts and know-nothing UX Design 'gurus'. just like Nokia before the iphone
Grue3 10y ago
Guess I'll have to use an outdated version of Firefox forever. Tab Groups is absolutely indispensable add-on, and Mozilla was idiotic to remove this feature in the first place. And now they're making it impossible for add-on authors to keep working on their add-ons.
sjellis 10y ago
Personally, I use Firefox because Mozilla is a non-profit organization with a mandate to support a free and open Internet, which includes protecting the privacy of Internet users. That sounds like very fine words, but they do the technical work to make these things happen, such as their collaboration with the Tor project: https://blog.torproject.org/blog/tor-heart-firefox https://blog.torproject.org/blog/tor-heart-firefox I use Chrome as well, but ultimately Chrome belongs to Google, just as Edge and Safari belong to rival corporations. Using a corporate Web browser is a reasonable choice, but it's not something that I would do for UI reasons.
ssdev 10y ago
It's time for me to try and deploy everywhere some small WebKit-based browser, like dwb or its clones. Not very sad, but waste of time.
- pvdebbe 10y ago
  Came to say this. Vimperator cannot operate within constrained add-on sandboxes. Chromium already demonstrates how it works -- you get your vi keys on the page but as soon as you open a new tab and start entering your URL, nothing familiar works as Chromium takes ownership for the new tab. I dabbled with DWB a few years back. It shows a lot of promise but it wasn't worth the hassle back then. If firefox is sure to go down, then all bets are off. (Btw, dwb is deemed dying too, on the account of using webkit. uzbl is more maintained but uses webkit as well.)
erikbye 10y ago
For now I prefer Vivaldi. As for tabs I don't require anything more fancy than vertical tabs, pinned tabs, and tab stacks. And Vivaldi's is the only UI I can customize to my liking, and I really like it's quick-command dialog. https://s27.postimg.org/rmbo9jgwx/vivaldi.png https://s27.postimg.org/rmbo9jgwx/vivaldi.png
affected 10y ago
Tree Style Tabs is a true differentiator for Firefox and it is a perfect expression of Mozzilla Mission: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/ "Our mission is to ensure the Internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all. An Internet that truly puts people first, where individuals can shape their own experience and are empowered, safe and independent." Seeing Tree Style Tabs continuity halted and more importantly a developper motivation deeply affected is not a good sign for the community and users who engaged with Mozzilla's goals and with its addon community. Tree Style Tabs empowers the user browsing activity at a level rarely seen. It brings to awareness constant history (tab tree) and allows the user to mature its browsing profile with structure. An deeply thought addon that really shapes the browser into a navigation tool that empowers its users and allows building more mature browsing focus and improves the individual's independence. Mozilla should review carefully the resulting loss of differentiating value by letting a valued and committed add-on developper go and how this diffuse into impacting its mission.
tradesmanhelix 10y ago
FWIW, I created a petition here to see if we can get Mozilla to reconsider this decision: https://www.change.org/p/mozilla-save-mozilla-firefox-s-best-feature https://www.change.org/p/mozilla-save-mozilla-firefox-s-best.... May be a Hail May, but worth a shot if we as Firefox users really care.

235 points by vacri 10y ago

sp332 10y ago

This makes me curious - does Mozilla's new Tab Center experiment use Web Extensions? Or are they refusing to take their own medicine, and using inaccessible internal APIs? https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/tab-center https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/tab-center (Edit: Deprecated, not inaccessible.)

detaro 10y ago
From a quick look at the source[0] it uses the deprecated Add-On SDK[1]. [0] https://github.com/bwinton/TabCenter/blob/master/main.js https://github.com/bwinton/TabCenter/blob/master/main.js [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/SDK https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/SDK
- evilpie 10y ago
  There is a rough version [0] based on the sidebarAction API [1], this is probably going to improved when it actually lands in Firefox Nightly, which should hopefully be soon. [0] https://github.com/bwinton/TabCenter/tree/webext https://github.com/bwinton/TabCenter/tree/webext [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1208596 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1208596
ianbicking 10y ago
It uses very inaccessible internal APIs currently (including XUL), but there is an effort to use it to create the necessary APIs so it can be ported to a Web Extension.

protomyth 10y ago

I think there is a niche for a programmer's browser. I often think something half-way between a web browser and the old Lisp and Smalltalk machines.

navaati 10y ago
Oh, it's called Emacs (being half-serious here)
- protomyth 10y ago
  On a fully serious note, Emacs born out of a web browser would be a pretty good goal.
- rekado 10y ago
  Emacs can already embed a webkit widget, but much more work would be needed to make interaction with the widget "emacsy". At the moment all you can do with it is send JavaScript snippets to it to make it change internal state. It would be great to intertwine this more with Emacs so that e.g. completing-read could be used on the DOM.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    It would be rather fun to download a webpage in "BrowserEmacs" and have a REPL available with the page turned into a S Expression for you to manipulate at your or your plug-ins leisure. Throw in the tools to make plug-ins have there own UI and you have a developer's browser.
    - sp332 10y ago
      Ubiquity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiquity_(Firefox) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiquity_(Firefox) (now defunct) had natural-language commands with localization including subject/verb/object order. It supported subscribing to commands too, so you could keep up with changing APIs automatically. It even understood pronouns, so you could write "email this to Dave" and it would email your selected text to your gmail contact named Dave. The only thing it was missing was a permissions model to limit what untrusted command code could do.
olejorgenb 10y ago
Yes please!

mnarayan01 10y ago

I've been praying that Mozilla would rethink this, but that looks increasingly unlikely. I guess switching to a LTS release will tide me over for a time, but this really does feel like the end of an era.

vacri 10y ago
This was my thinking as well. I'll probably move to the last ESR ('extended support release') before the cutoff period, just so I can keep using Tab Groups.

stephengillie 10y ago

Isn't Firefox open source? Can't you just fork the project and start your own browser, where all these changes don't get made? Is the real concern about forking the userbase and ecosystem, and the fork won't have the critical user base to become self-sustaining? Edit: added paragraph for clarity.

iancarroll 10y ago
Maintaining a fork of a large browser is extremely difficult, especially for coordinating and merging vulnerability fixes.
- stephengillie 10y ago
  Do no other extension developers have this issue?
  - protomyth 10y ago
    There have been a few articles submitted to HN that indicate some extension developers are giving up.
  - dsr_ 10y ago
    The EPUBreader extension now notifies you on each relaunch that they need donations to fund a complete rewrite to work in future Firefox versions.
  - chr1 10y ago
    They have, many of them gave up earlier, e.g. https://github.com/estivo/Instantfox/issues/129#issuecomment-250919830 https://github.com/estivo/Instantfox/issues/129#issuecomment... https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/classicthemerestorer/reviews/834437/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/classicthemer... http://www.downthemall.net/re-downthemall-and-webextensions-or-why-why-i-am-done-with-mozilla/ http://www.downthemall.net/re-downthemall-and-webextensions-...
  - zyxzkz 10y ago

DashRattlesnake 10y ago

Just curious will the new Web Extensions style allow add-ons like Classic Theme Restorer [1] and Tree-style Tab [2] that change the Firefox UI? [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/classicthemerestorer/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/classicthemer... [2] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta...

mnarayan01 10y ago
Previously the WebExtensions wiki mentioned that they were planning to support functionality for TreeStyle tabs. As of https://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=WebExtensions&diff=1134951&oldid=1134950 https://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=WebExtensions&diff=... it no longer does; no idea how much to read into that though.
- notatoad 10y ago
  the webextensions/future[1] page tracks the new APIs needed to support existing "interesting addons" [1] https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions/Future https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions/Future
  - DashRattlesnake 10y ago
    That page hasn't been updated since 2015. The linked uservoice site[1] for feedback has also been shut down (most of the activity was protest). [1] https://webextensions.uservoice.com/ https://webextensions.uservoice.com/
guelo 10y ago
The Classic Theme Restorer page says "CTR will stop working on Firefox 57 (release) when Mozilla drops support for XUL / XPCOM / legacy add-ons, but it will still work on Firefox 52 ESR until Firefox 59 ESR replaces it in 2018 (~Q2)."
- IChrisI 10y ago

wvenable 10y ago

If this WebExtensions move makes Tab Mix Plus stop working (I use multi-row tabs extensively) then I will no longer have any reason to continue to use Firefox. I put up with it's poor performance and instability merely for this one feature. Nobody needs a clone of Chrome; we already have Chrome.

MiddleEndian 10y ago
I would use the last version of Firefox that supported Tab Mix Plus until it no longer worked with the web in general. At that point I don't know what I'd do.
- sp332 10y ago
  Looks like ESR 52 will continue to support XUL addons, and get regular security updates, well past the release of version 57 which is the estimated version for the cutoff. We can "vote with our feet" somewhat. If a large number of users switch from 56 back to 52 ESR instead of "upgrading" to 57, we will have some actual numbers to show.
kesselborn 10y ago
for me it's Tab Groups (actually one of the Extension the author wrote). If that is gone, there is no good reason for Firefox over Safari
AznHisoka 10y ago
I also wish chrome would stop prepending http:// http:// everytime i copy an ip from the url bar.
- grzm 10y ago
  Is it prepending it on copy, or hiding it for display in the url bar?
  - kopijahe 10y ago
    It's both.

fdsfsaa 10y ago

Do you want a fork? Do you want to drive more people to Pale Moon? Do you want to become even less relevant relative to Chrome? Do you want to make the web even less user-centric? A change like this is how you do that. Good job, Mozilla.

elpocko 10y ago

I'm only sticking to Firefox because there's a specific set of extensions I want to keep using. If only one of my key extensions breaks, my last reason to use Firefox vanishes, and I will immediately switch to Chromium/Iridium and never come back.

aembleton 10y ago
Same here, if tree style tabs stop working then I'm off to Vivaldi.
threepipeproblm 10y ago
Same. I guess Mozilla's stubborn decision makers -- who will never admit being wrong -- can comfort themselves by thinking of all the people who decide to quit using Firefox, when their cherished extensions break, as idiots. It's so sad.

jimmyswimmy 10y ago

I am not familiar with Web Extensions, but I am familiar with the fairly common event in which application vendors severely change functionality, with significant downstream effects. Such behavior seems more common amongst open-source products. Consider Python 3. Asterisk's scripting language. Perl 6. Incompatible version changes drive away users and developers. The uncertainty that comes along with a planned update in which compatibility is not guaranteed makes us all shy away from developing in that application at all, not just on the old version. Microsoft always seemed to do a good job at maintaining compatibility over its versions. Most applications that used to run on Windows still do, although there are a lot of exceptions. Python's change to the print statement broke everything, though the fix was easy; most of the time the fix is not easy - and even when it is, nothing works until someone gets around to the fix. I appreciate the need to move forward, and sometimes you have to break stuff to make it better, but these incompatible changes just destroy momentum. It's a shame to see it happen.

williamscales 10y ago
It's not merely an incompatible change, it's an incompatible change that removes significant functionality. People seem to be coming around to Python 3 eventually, as it does offer a much improved experience. I can't see that happening with subsequent versions of Firefox unfortunately.
syshum 10y ago
>>I am not familiar with Web Extensions, Chrome.... Mozilla is turning Firefox into just another Chrome Browser... Firefox 57 will like see me stop using FireFox it will be no different than chrome so I might as well just use chrome >>and sometimes you have to break stuff to make it better It is yet to be seen if it will be better, so far everything they are doing in firefox to make it more like chrome I am 1000000% opposed to.
- a3n 10y ago
  > Firefox 57 will like see me stop using FireFox it will be no different than chrome so I might as well just use chrome Firefox probably won't phone google.

williamscales 10y ago

This is going to kill pentadactyl, which is currently the only reason I'm using Firefox. For those who aren't familiar, pentadactyl is a Firefox extension that transforms the user interface to make it more minimal and vim-like. You get to use standard vim bindings to navigate the web and it even gives you a vim-like command line interface to the browser's functionality.

a3n 10y ago
I sympathize. For those who don't mind, or prefer, a less comprehensive vim experience in the browser, I'm very happy with VimFx https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/vimfx/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/vimfx/ It has a ton of vim commands, but I only use hjkl, g and gg. I never can remember whether search with / comes via VimFx or plain FF. Firefox says it's compatible with multiprocess, but I don't know if it will survive through the switch to WebExtensions. It works fine now.
- swhipple 10y ago
  There's currently a feature freeze and plan to switch to WebExtension after the necessary APIs are added to Firefox: https://github.com/akhodakivskiy/VimFx/issues/860 https://github.com/akhodakivskiy/VimFx/issues/860
roylez 10y ago
After discovering cvim for Chrome, I switched and never looked back. Vimium, on the other hand, is a bit different from pentadactyl/vimperator experience.
jmiserez 10y ago
And it's going to kill TabGroups too. And a lot of other addons from other authors will probably suffer the same fate.
- Jaepa 10y ago
  The author of the posted article is the author is TabGroups.

Aardwolf 10y ago

Would those add-ons still work with SeaMonkey? That might be a way to keep them

Animats 10y ago

Firefox has three APIs: XUL, Jetpack, and WebExtensions. XUL has been on the way out for years, and never worked in mobile Firefox anyway. (Almost nobody runs mobile Firefox, so that turned out not to matter much.) Jetpack was introduced in 2013, and by 2014, it was actually usable. It's not clear when and whether Jetpack add-ons will stop working. Mozilla's developer documentation is so confused that you can't tell. WebExtensions and Jetpack are essentially the same functionality with different names.[1] The trouble with Firefox chasing Google Chrome compatibility is that, once they get there, Google will probably change something so some Google service is essential to an add-on. Like Google did with Android. Then compatible add-ons stop working on Firefox. Nobody runs add-ons on Chrome much, anyway; I have the same add-on on both platforms and its 50:1 Firefox over Chrome. But usage is declining, along with Firefox. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Comparison_with_the_Add-on_SDK https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Co...

darklajid 10y ago
Reading this on mobile Firefox with > 100 tabs open. We're out there! ;)
zerocrates 10y ago
> The trouble with Firefox chasing Google Chrome compatibility is that, once they get there, Google will probably change something so some Google service is essential to an add-on. I'd be more concerned that, once they get to Chrome compatibility, they've simply sacrificed one of the key things that differentiates them from Chrome. Firefox's die-hard adherents use extensions heavily, and many of the most popular, particularly those that are on Firefox and not elsewhere, depend on the old XUL layer or other APIs that have no replacement. I don't think users are going to see it as a great improvement that they have access to Chrome extensions they didn't want in the first place. Instead they're going to focus on the fact that they're losing the functionality that's been keeping them using Firefox. I don't think you'll need Google to act maliciously or really do anything at all to have this end poorly for Mozilla.
- leeoniya 10y ago

mintplant 10y ago

Oh no! I've become dependent on Tab Groups over the past year or so; even kicked in a donation. Thanks Luís for all your hard work.

mindcrime 10y ago

Sad, but hardly unexpected. The truth is, the mozilla leadership has never had much vision. In the early days of Seamonkey (and then Firefox) there was a slavish devotion to chasing Internet Explorer, and far too much rationalization of feature selection based on "IE has it" or "but IE doesn't support that." Later, with the ascension of Chrome, Firefox began to try and mimic Chrome the same way. Other than MathML support, I'm having a hard time thinking of anything truly unique about Firefox, as compared to Chrome these days.

abeyer 10y ago
> The truth is, the mozilla leadership has never had much vision I'm not sure I agree there. I feel like they've had at least a few pretty strong points of vision. The failure has been more on the execution of producing and maintaining useful software in support of that vision.

akjainaj 10y ago

Heh. Funny that I just updated to Firefox Developer Edition 53 and now Tree Style Tab (one of the addons that will go when XUL stuff does) has severe theming issues and weird flickers. It'd be nice if a mod could change the title to "I cannot continue working on my Firefox add-ons"

PetitPrince 10y ago

Aw snap, Beyond Australis and its slim chrome is one of the best way (along with tree style tabs) to regain some vertical space with sub optimal resolution (namely, the 1368x768 of my x220t).

baby 10y ago

If Tree Style Tab doesn't work anymore. What are the reasons to use Firefox? Also what are the alternatives. I tried Chrome but the Tree Style Tab-like plugin is clumsy. Should I just not update firefox and wait until devs realize tabs were meant to be on the side? Honnestly as a power user I can't browse the web without tree style tab anymore.

jobigoud 10y ago
I'm the same, I think I'm going to stop updating and secure the last version that support them. Between auto-update, security patches and new web standards support, how long will this approach be viable though?
- catbird 10y ago
  I might just have to give up on using the internet if treestyle tabs stops working. I'll get a job on a farm or something and lead a simpler life.
rvern 10y ago
Mozilla created Tab Center, which is similar to Tree Style Tabs: https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/tab-center https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/tab-center.
- syshum 10y ago
  It is far far far far far way from replacing TreeStyle, as it has no Tree.... It just moves the tabs from horizontal to vertical, which has similar usability problems It is better than Sidewise on chrome though, however TabCenter is XUL as well I believe, there are no APIS currently for it to be moved to Extensions,
- mdekkers 10y ago
  rubbish, will also be incompatible after this change. https://github.com/bwinton/TabCenter/issues/868 https://github.com/bwinton/TabCenter/issues/868 Furthermore, "showing tabs on the side" is not "similar to Tree Style Tabs"

throw2016 10y ago

Firefox has literally been kicked by its userbase and Chrome to get into its current semi competitive state. One understands the need to evolve but change just for the sake of change and activity can just be spinning your wheels. We don't need another Chrome clone. Firefox and Chrome's objectives are completely different. We definitely need more browser competition but growing complexity rules out one person or small team efforts like before all over the open source ecosystem. Untill open source users can get their act together and find a way to fund development they will find projects increasingly less accountable to them than their corporate sponsors.

51Cards 10y ago

Once this happens I will leave Firefox after being one of its strongest supporters for years. What makes Firefox worth it is the level to which I can customize it and this will knock out 5 of my must-have add-ons in one shot. When you do that you have nothing but a Chrome clone left and why use a Chrome clone when you can use Chrome. I hate Chrome because I feel locked in on UI design (old-school user here). Once FF takes away my options guaranteed I'll abandon it.

jdormit 10y ago
If the only reason you hate Chrome is being locked into the UI, you should switch to Vivaldi. Sure, it's a Chrome clone, but the UI is super configurable (and as far as I'm aware, it doesn't do any opt-out user tracking).
- yellowapple 10y ago
  Is Vivaldi free software (as in speech, not as in beer)? Last time I gave it a serious go, it didn't seem to be (and it was buggy anyway, but that was when it was first made publicly available, so I'm sure that's improved, right?).
rvern 10y ago
> When you do that you have nothing but a Chrome clone left and why use a Chrome clone when you can use Chrome. Why use Chrome when you can use a Chrome clone that better respects your privacy, is open source, and gives you more freedom to configure it? Because it's more secure or faster? It won't be for long: that's exactly what Mozilla is working on. At the expense, yes, of some configurability.
- Jaepa 10y ago
  Security is debatable. Sand boxing was just introduced. Customizable maybe, but between the australis, xul deprecation, and the limited theming API I don't think Mozilla really cares. Also for a open source browser. Are you aware the is chromium? Or hell any number of electron based web browsers (which is also chromium). Edit and loss of configurability is not the issue. Loss of Functionality is.

hendersoon 10y ago

I completely rely on Firegestures, the premiere mouse gesture addon. Mouse gestures are in my muscle memory. I can't live without them, and every single Webextensions Chrome mouse gestures addon either: a) Sucks. Doesn't work at all on internal pages including new pages (which is not a blocker, but sucks), and more importantly doesn't work _well_ ANYWHERE. Inconsistent behavior, poor performance. Just unacceptable. b) Is actually literally malware. Once Chrome extensions get popular, a shady Chinese or Russian consortium buys them up, adds user tracking, and silently updates the extension so your every move is followed. Chrome has been around for almost 10 years now, so I'm absolutely convinced that Webextensions are unable to support _GOOD_ mouse gestures. Now that Firefox will shortly become hot stinking Chinatown garbage, my only hope will be Vivaldi, a browser using Blink (Chrome's backend). Its mouse gestures are really close to being usable-- it only lacks configurable mouse button chording. https://vivaldi.com/ https://vivaldi.com/

sedro 10y ago
I'm with you. I was hooked on mouse gestures after using Opera 12. They came built into the browser, and you could tell. Gestures worked everywhere-- on a new tab, on a loading page, even on the browser window outside a tab. Now I'm using Firefox plus a dozen extensions to poorly replicate a base Opera 12 installation. The e10s update already broke some FireGesture in some minor ways (e.g. wheel gestures scroll the page content now). Other extensions stopped working completely. Time to give Vivaldi another shot...

voidz 10y ago

Ok, so, the only way I seem to be able to vote against this is by not using firefox anymore. Then that's what'll happen.

barrkel 10y ago

Classic Theme Restorer, Tree Style Tabs and Tab Mix Plus are the three extensions that add up to differentiate Firefox from Chrome for me. Unmodified Firefox is just an inferior clone of Chrome. Firefox is pointless without its UI-altering extensions. Quite amazing.

mwill 10y ago

I use Tab Groups constantly, I switched from Chrome to firefox almost entirely for Tab Groups. Runs terribly on my machine, I'll be back on Chrome the second Tab Groups are gone, unfortunately. I've been worried since web extension only announcement we were heading for something like this.

abeyer 10y ago

It's sad, but I am seriously worried that this could be the end for firefox. Add to that the recent refocus/re-prioritization on firefox within mozilla, it could be a first death knell for the organization entirely. I know in my own case, and it seems from comments here and other anecdotal experience, that a significant chunk of remaining firefox users depend on at least one extension that has no migration path, as there simply aren't equivalent APIs implemented or even planned. I really don't understand how they think they are going to maintain a userbase when they remove the last remaining feature that differentiates firefox from the other common browsers. Mozilla starts out in a tough competitive position, as they don't have an OS or platform to bundle a browser with. Alienating the users with the most reason to seek out an alternative seems to just be digging themselves deeper into the hole.

toyg 10y ago

I don't expect much from the leadership who brought us FirefoxOS, and indeed the WebExtension migration is being mismanaged - BUT: the hard truth is that the Chrome extension ecosystem is already on top and growing, while the Firefox one has been waning for a while. If you build a browser extension today, you build it for Chrome; if you have a Mac, you also get a Safari version almost for free; and then eventually, if you have time, if you can be bothered, you port it to FF. This could not go on, something had to be done. And they did it: JetPack/Webextensions, despite the uber-confused documentation, is an almost-complete compatibility layer that makes porting extensions from Chrome much easier. If they'd left it at that, nobody would have complained. Unfortunately, the next step is to gut the old infrastructure. They might have their technical reasons for that, but it seems a suicidal move from a commercial perspective. They are throwing overboard almost 20 years of competitive differentiation and community engagement. It's like Microsoft told people to rewrite their .Net apps in ObjC.

yoasif_ 10y ago

There seem to be a lot of people that are saying "oh, without XUL based extensions, Firefox is just a (worse) Chrome clone, so I might as well just use Chrome." I think what they might be missing is that Mozilla's conclusion is a lot like the people seem to be thinking here -- even though Chrome doesn't have the fancy extensions that are possible in Firefox, many many more people are using Chrome than Firefox, because they see it as a better Firefox. Clearly, that has something to do with either security or performance, where Firefox has a perceived lag. Mozilla is actively working to improve performance, and you may not want to switch to Chrome after all, because Chrome may instead be the poor man's Firefox (I personally think this is already the case, simply because with my 679 open tabs, Chrome would simply kill itself [44 loaded]). This video is one of the most exciting I have seen with regards to web browser performance, and it's Mozilla: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an5abNFba4Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an5abNFba4Q More info on what this means for Firefox: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Quantum https://wiki.mozilla.org/Quantum TL;DR: What if even with the missing XUL extensions, you wouldn't want to switch to Chrome, because Firefox was just plain faster?

syshum 10y ago
>>Clearly, that has something to do with either security or performance, where Firefox has a perceived lag. This is completely false It has something to do with MARKETING and the fact the Google is largest marketing company in the world and has the ability to market chrome far far far more effectively than Firefox IE is crap, so Windows users seek a replacement for IE, use to their only option was Firefox. Once Chrome came on the market with a HUGE marketing push people started to migrate It was 80-90% marketing, not technical Even if Firefox is better preforming people are not going to switch as only Technical people give a shit about performance numbers. Edge on windows 10 is starting to eat into Chrome partly because MS is bringing back the IE6 marketing and integration tactics that got them in Anti-trust hot water in the 90's No Firefox, absent Google Discontinuing the chrome Browser, will never break 20% market share again, I do not care how must better it preforms. Mozilla needs to focus on Power Users, and Privacy. They are failing at both with these moves IMO >>you wouldn't want to switch to Chrome, because Firefox was just plain faster? They they take away my TreeStyle Tabs and a few other Extensions I dont care how much faster it is, FF will be removed my all my systems TreeStyle Tabs is the the Main reason I use FF today. I dont understand why browsers have tabs horizontally across the window, it looks stupid and is unusable once you get above 20 or 30 tabs open So you talk about have 100's of tabs open, it is pointless if I do not have TreeStyle or some kind of Vertical Tabs. And no the Stupid Dock style of doing it on Chrome and other WebExtensions based hack is neither desirable or usable

reachtarunhere 10y ago

This is how Firefox dies.

e15ctr0n 10y ago

The developer of the ePubReader add-on for Firefox is looking to raise $26,685 in funds in order to rewrite the add-on for WebExtensions. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/epubreader/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/epubreader/ https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/569473473/epubreader-for-future-firefox https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/569473473/epubreader-fo...

johnny22 10y ago

Am I the only person here who was considering switching away from Firefox a few years back because I didn't think they had a plan to really move their efforts further? Honestly, I'm really impressed with their plans for Servo, WebExtensions and other recently active projects. I plan on sticking it out for the long haul. EDIT: qualified when I wanted to switch.

jhlgkhkhil 10y ago

When vimperiator, Zotero and tree style tabs stop working I will need to find another browser. What a clusterfuck Mozilla is becoming.

131hn 10y ago

Can someone explain me in a simple way the "xul prevent us to switch to multi process" argument ( when i'll naively think - just use one more dedicated process for xul. ?). Xul design & gecko

kevincox 10y ago
There isn't one. The actual argument is "multiprocess can break some /classic/ extensions". Then they lumped in "existing extensions can cause bad performance". And now they are using that bandwagon to remove tons of power from extensions. I wish we had both, because I would prefer webextensions (proper permissions) but when I needed to I can still use a powerful /classic/ extension.

tezza 10y ago

mozilla is pulling a nokia here. greasemonkey and add-ons are why people continue to use FF beyond the brief evaluation phase. now mozilla are clearly in the thrall of Abstraction Astronauts and know-nothing UX Design 'gurus'. just like Nokia before the iphone

Grue3 10y ago

Guess I'll have to use an outdated version of Firefox forever. Tab Groups is absolutely indispensable add-on, and Mozilla was idiotic to remove this feature in the first place. And now they're making it impossible for add-on authors to keep working on their add-ons.

sjellis 10y ago

Personally, I use Firefox because Mozilla is a non-profit organization with a mandate to support a free and open Internet, which includes protecting the privacy of Internet users. That sounds like very fine words, but they do the technical work to make these things happen, such as their collaboration with the Tor project: https://blog.torproject.org/blog/tor-heart-firefox https://blog.torproject.org/blog/tor-heart-firefox I use Chrome as well, but ultimately Chrome belongs to Google, just as Edge and Safari belong to rival corporations. Using a corporate Web browser is a reasonable choice, but it's not something that I would do for UI reasons.

ssdev 10y ago

It's time for me to try and deploy everywhere some small WebKit-based browser, like dwb or its clones. Not very sad, but waste of time.

pvdebbe 10y ago
Came to say this. Vimperator cannot operate within constrained add-on sandboxes. Chromium already demonstrates how it works -- you get your vi keys on the page but as soon as you open a new tab and start entering your URL, nothing familiar works as Chromium takes ownership for the new tab. I dabbled with DWB a few years back. It shows a lot of promise but it wasn't worth the hassle back then. If firefox is sure to go down, then all bets are off. (Btw, dwb is deemed dying too, on the account of using webkit. uzbl is more maintained but uses webkit as well.)

erikbye 10y ago

For now I prefer Vivaldi. As for tabs I don't require anything more fancy than vertical tabs, pinned tabs, and tab stacks. And Vivaldi's is the only UI I can customize to my liking, and I really like it's quick-command dialog. https://s27.postimg.org/rmbo9jgwx/vivaldi.png https://s27.postimg.org/rmbo9jgwx/vivaldi.png

affected 10y ago

Tree Style Tabs is a true differentiator for Firefox and it is a perfect expression of Mozzilla Mission: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/ "Our mission is to ensure the Internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all. An Internet that truly puts people first, where individuals can shape their own experience and are empowered, safe and independent." Seeing Tree Style Tabs continuity halted and more importantly a developper motivation deeply affected is not a good sign for the community and users who engaged with Mozzilla's goals and with its addon community. Tree Style Tabs empowers the user browsing activity at a level rarely seen. It brings to awareness constant history (tab tree) and allows the user to mature its browsing profile with structure. An deeply thought addon that really shapes the browser into a navigation tool that empowers its users and allows building more mature browsing focus and improves the individual's independence. Mozilla should review carefully the resulting loss of differentiating value by letting a valued and committed add-on developper go and how this diffuse into impacting its mission.

tradesmanhelix 10y ago

FWIW, I created a petition here to see if we can get Mozilla to reconsider this decision: https://www.change.org/p/mozilla-save-mozilla-firefox-s-best-feature https://www.change.org/p/mozilla-save-mozilla-firefox-s-best.... May be a Hail May, but worth a shot if we as Firefox users really care.