4 ms·

I don't get it. If Mozilla thinks this is the best route for them they should do it. Input on features like that shouldnt be taken from users who will not have

by yalogin 10y ago

I don't get it. If Mozilla thinks this is the best route for them they should do it. Input on features like that shouldnt be taken from users who will not have the long term view of firefox.

SAI_Peregrinus 10y ago
The only reason I use Firefox is the TreeStyle Tabs addon. Everything else I could get from Chromium or another browser. If WebExtensions don't get the needed features, I'll simply end up dumping Firefox. That said, there's still time and WebExt might get such features.
- DiThi 10y ago
  Tree Style Tabs is also the #1 reason for me.
  - taivare 10y ago
    are Tree Style Tabs an extension or now built-in.
    - detaro 10y ago
      extension: https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/tree-style-tabs https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/tree-style-tabs
- atopal 10y ago
  Can you say why you would drop Firefox for Chromium?
  - barrkel 10y ago
    Firefox-now: TreeStyleTabs + ok browser Chromium-now: fast browser Firefox-future: ok browser Chromium-future: fast browser As long as TreeStyleTabs > (fast browser - ok browser), then Firefox is a better choice. Without TreeStyleTabs, Chromium (or Chrome, or whatever fork is better at protecting privacy) is the better choice.
    - nandhp 10y ago
      I believe one of the key reasons for dropping XUL extensions is because they don't work very well with e10s (multiprocess Firefox). I recently had occasion to use a fresh Firefox without any e10s-incompatible extensions installed, and it really felt much faster, so I think Firefox-future may also qualify as "fast browser".
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 10y ago
    I perceive it as more polished, and think it is more secure (built-in Flash that gets extremely fast updates, and I believe more/better sandboxing). With the key advantage of Firefox (customizability) gone, the question turns into "why NOT drop Firefox for Chrome/Chromium".
    - atopal 10y ago
      But Mozilla claims that it's exactly the old add-on system that keeps Firefox from being more secure. What if they were just as secure as Chrome after giving up on the old add-on system? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to compete without the disadvantage of being the less secure browser?
      - protomyth 10y ago
        I get the feeling that a lot of users really don't believe XUL, etc. is inherently less secure. I cannot say either way myself, but without the capability of the old plugin system Firefox has no real advantage over Chrome. It probably doesn't help that they are going with something compatible with Chrome which leads to a "why not just use the original" thought process. I get the feeling that they could have got the new system done and as capable as the old before deleting the old. Transition periods are brutal as Python and Perl have found out.
      - krakensden 10y ago
        That's not really true. Chrome is more secure because it's designed better, they have very good and mature sandboxing for the parts of the browser that work with data from the internet, and because they work very hard at improving their codebase. They have their own LLVM fork! WebExtensions can still read all your data on all websites and inject whatever they want into all websites. Not a lot of security there. That is OK though, I am fine trusting Google and Gorhill instead of just Google.
nocman 10y ago
"If Mozilla thinks this is the best route for them they should do it" I'm all for Mozilla having the power to make good technical decisions, but it sounds like you are suggesting that Mozilla ignore their user base completely. That's a recipe for the death of Firefox, IMHO. I know there are technical reasons that Mozilla is wanting to get rid of XUL, and those reasons look legitimate to me. The problem I see is that they don't have a replacement for XUL that affords the same level of customizability that it does. I've done a little work with XUL, and yes, it's no picnic. I would welcome an alternative that was simpler, and better designed. However, if the replacement only offers a fraction of the flexibility of XUL, then addon developers aren't going to like it. "Input on features like that shouldnt be taken from users who will not have the long term view of firefox." ^ That's a pretty broad brush you are painting with there. There are a huge number of us who have been using Firefox since it was released in 2004 (and Netscape Navigator before that). I haven't taken a formal survey, but the feedback I've seen from the long-term users is that the depth of customizability available via Firefox's addons is one of the primary reasons they continue to use the browser after all of these years. Also, I would venture to guess that the people most likely to continue using Firefox are these dedicated long-term users. But if Mozilla insists on ignoring the wishes of these users, they will lose the strongest advocates in their user base. Ignoring your users is a terrible idea. Again, I welcome a replacement for XUL. Just make it a full-featured replacement, and don't cut off XUL development until said replacement is indeed full-featured and reasonably stable. Maybe Mozilla can't pull that off, but I would certainly like to see them try.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  They tend to follow their wider userbase quite closely. It's a small fraction of advanced users that think Mozilla ignores them.
  - anotheryou 10y ago
    Can you give an example? The only FF people I know love extentions (to be honest I don't know many anymore, even here in germany), the others are on chrome or safari.
  - 10y ago

by yalogin 10y ago

I don't get it. If Mozilla thinks this is the best route for them they should do it. Input on features like that shouldnt be taken from users who will not have the long term view of firefox.

SAI_Peregrinus 10y ago

The only reason I use Firefox is the TreeStyle Tabs addon. Everything else I could get from Chromium or another browser. If WebExtensions don't get the needed features, I'll simply end up dumping Firefox. That said, there's still time and WebExt might get such features.

DiThi 10y ago
Tree Style Tabs is also the #1 reason for me.
- taivare 10y ago
  are Tree Style Tabs an extension or now built-in.
  - detaro 10y ago
    extension: https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/tree-style-tabs https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/tree-style-tabs
atopal 10y ago
Can you say why you would drop Firefox for Chromium?
- barrkel 10y ago
  Firefox-now: TreeStyleTabs + ok browser Chromium-now: fast browser Firefox-future: ok browser Chromium-future: fast browser As long as TreeStyleTabs > (fast browser - ok browser), then Firefox is a better choice. Without TreeStyleTabs, Chromium (or Chrome, or whatever fork is better at protecting privacy) is the better choice.
  - nandhp 10y ago
    I believe one of the key reasons for dropping XUL extensions is because they don't work very well with e10s (multiprocess Firefox). I recently had occasion to use a fresh Firefox without any e10s-incompatible extensions installed, and it really felt much faster, so I think Firefox-future may also qualify as "fast browser".
- tgsovlerkhgsel 10y ago
  I perceive it as more polished, and think it is more secure (built-in Flash that gets extremely fast updates, and I believe more/better sandboxing). With the key advantage of Firefox (customizability) gone, the question turns into "why NOT drop Firefox for Chrome/Chromium".
  - atopal 10y ago
    But Mozilla claims that it's exactly the old add-on system that keeps Firefox from being more secure. What if they were just as secure as Chrome after giving up on the old add-on system? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to compete without the disadvantage of being the less secure browser?
    - protomyth 10y ago
      I get the feeling that a lot of users really don't believe XUL, etc. is inherently less secure. I cannot say either way myself, but without the capability of the old plugin system Firefox has no real advantage over Chrome. It probably doesn't help that they are going with something compatible with Chrome which leads to a "why not just use the original" thought process. I get the feeling that they could have got the new system done and as capable as the old before deleting the old. Transition periods are brutal as Python and Perl have found out.
    - krakensden 10y ago
      That's not really true. Chrome is more secure because it's designed better, they have very good and mature sandboxing for the parts of the browser that work with data from the internet, and because they work very hard at improving their codebase. They have their own LLVM fork! WebExtensions can still read all your data on all websites and inject whatever they want into all websites. Not a lot of security there. That is OK though, I am fine trusting Google and Gorhill instead of just Google.

nocman 10y ago

"If Mozilla thinks this is the best route for them they should do it" I'm all for Mozilla having the power to make good technical decisions, but it sounds like you are suggesting that Mozilla ignore their user base completely. That's a recipe for the death of Firefox, IMHO. I know there are technical reasons that Mozilla is wanting to get rid of XUL, and those reasons look legitimate to me. The problem I see is that they don't have a replacement for XUL that affords the same level of customizability that it does. I've done a little work with XUL, and yes, it's no picnic. I would welcome an alternative that was simpler, and better designed. However, if the replacement only offers a fraction of the flexibility of XUL, then addon developers aren't going to like it. "Input on features like that shouldnt be taken from users who will not have the long term view of firefox." ^ That's a pretty broad brush you are painting with there. There are a huge number of us who have been using Firefox since it was released in 2004 (and Netscape Navigator before that). I haven't taken a formal survey, but the feedback I've seen from the long-term users is that the depth of customizability available via Firefox's addons is one of the primary reasons they continue to use the browser after all of these years. Also, I would venture to guess that the people most likely to continue using Firefox are these dedicated long-term users. But if Mozilla insists on ignoring the wishes of these users, they will lose the strongest advocates in their user base. Ignoring your users is a terrible idea. Again, I welcome a replacement for XUL. Just make it a full-featured replacement, and don't cut off XUL development until said replacement is indeed full-featured and reasonably stable. Maybe Mozilla can't pull that off, but I would certainly like to see them try.

maxerickson 10y ago
They tend to follow their wider userbase quite closely. It's a small fraction of advanced users that think Mozilla ignores them.
- anotheryou 10y ago
  Can you give an example? The only FF people I know love extentions (to be honest I don't know many anymore, even here in germany), the others are on chrome or safari.
- 10y ago