4 ms·

This is being done before replacements of equivalent capability have been added to the new API XUL support isn't removed yet, and the bugs and requests for fee

by gcp 10y ago

This is being done before replacements of equivalent capability have been added to the new API XUL support isn't removed yet, and the bugs and requests for feedback are open and out there. It's also possible to implement new WebExtension APIs (WebExtension Experiments) and inject them as an add-on, in order to test replacement APIs. Most of the major addon authors have engaged there, and many already have a WebExtension port. (For those that had Chrome versions, that should be no surprise - the APIs are essentially compatible) And there doesn't seem to be signs of awareness of the risks of destroying an add-ons platform in the Mozilla team's public representations, or in their reactions to bugs reported by some fairly significant add-on authors considering rewriting to the new API. It's very well understood that some kinds of very invasive add-ons may no longer be possible, and Mozilla is very well aware of that - to some extent it's very much intentional as it's an essential step to improve the quality on browser upgrades and prevent the continuous breakage that exists now, as well as get some things like Sandboxing working at all. The requirements of the most popular add-ons are tracked, and bugs are filed for the missing parts. But it's not because one popular add-on author whines that he should be allowed some random invasive API hooks, that it will be added. (cough DownThemAll cough) It's silly to claim the add-on platform will die out when in reality we now have an extension system that works across all major browsers. At least one of those browsers has a (now essentially compatible) add-on collection that has been gradually dwarfing Firefox's. Arguments that add-ons are competitive advantage for Firefox have had no base in reality for the last few years. XUL add-ons and the idea that an addon should interact directly with browser internals have been a stone around Firefox' neck in terms of quality and reliability, and I'll gladly cut the noose.

asymmetric 10y ago
Interesting. Can you provide some links to the DTA situation?
- gcp 10y ago
  Start here, I guess: https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/dev-addons/2016-December/002367.html https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/dev-addons/2016-December/... (I've had to troubleshoot issues with Firefoxes being subtly broken due to how DTA injects into the network stack. That made for a rather biased reading of the above thread.)
j3097736 10y ago
The only characteristic unique to firefox is a customizable UI, everything else can be done by existing browsers.
- abiox 10y ago
  afaik, firefox is an "existing browser"
barrkel 10y ago
Arguments that add-ons are competitive advantage for Firefox have had no base in reality for the last few years. Maybe. We'll see. All I know is that if I could get a menu bar and tree style tabs in Chrome, I'd have switched 5 years ago.
- gcp 10y ago
  All I know is that if I could get a menu bar and tree style tabs in Chrome, I'd have switched 5 years ago. Right, so the only reason why you use Firefox is that you're being held hostage by add-ons. Isn't that terrible? We'd rather make a browser you actually WANT to use and if that requires pouring gasoline over the add-on ecosystem and setting the thing on fire, I'll be first in line to bring the matches.
  - barrkel 10y ago
    There's no hostage situation. I'm not chafing against Firefox; I'd like it to be more responsive and less janky - it's a lot more janky than Chrome, there's a lot more variance in pauses for whatever reason. That's my primary problem with it. I'm not yearning to be free, given what Chrome is. Chrome is almost unusable in its current form. It's like a toy; it becomes completely unwieldy after opening a few dozen tabs. It doesn't scale to my browsing usage. I only use it for development. I also don't like its text selection algorithm, being a selection reader. If Firefox approaches Chrome's toy-like non-scaling nature, and retains all its other disadvantages, then I'll look and see what other options I have.

by gcp 10y ago

asymmetric 10y ago

Interesting. Can you provide some links to the DTA situation?

gcp 10y ago
Start here, I guess: https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/dev-addons/2016-December/002367.html https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/dev-addons/2016-December/... (I've had to troubleshoot issues with Firefoxes being subtly broken due to how DTA injects into the network stack. That made for a rather biased reading of the above thread.)

j3097736 10y ago

The only characteristic unique to firefox is a customizable UI, everything else can be done by existing browsers.

abiox 10y ago
afaik, firefox is an "existing browser"

barrkel 10y ago

Arguments that add-ons are competitive advantage for Firefox have had no base in reality for the last few years. Maybe. We'll see. All I know is that if I could get a menu bar and tree style tabs in Chrome, I'd have switched 5 years ago.

gcp 10y ago
All I know is that if I could get a menu bar and tree style tabs in Chrome, I'd have switched 5 years ago. Right, so the only reason why you use Firefox is that you're being held hostage by add-ons. Isn't that terrible? We'd rather make a browser you actually WANT to use and if that requires pouring gasoline over the add-on ecosystem and setting the thing on fire, I'll be first in line to bring the matches.
- barrkel 10y ago
  There's no hostage situation. I'm not chafing against Firefox; I'd like it to be more responsive and less janky - it's a lot more janky than Chrome, there's a lot more variance in pauses for whatever reason. That's my primary problem with it. I'm not yearning to be free, given what Chrome is. Chrome is almost unusable in its current form. It's like a toy; it becomes completely unwieldy after opening a few dozen tabs. It doesn't scale to my browsing usage. I only use it for development. I also don't like its text selection algorithm, being a selection reader. If Firefox approaches Chrome's toy-like non-scaling nature, and retains all its other disadvantages, then I'll look and see what other options I have.