5 ms·

I am honestly starting to believe that Mozilla is trying to run Firefox into the ground. I am not sure if it's just bad decision making or if the decision maker

I am honestly starting to believe that Mozilla is trying to run Firefox into the ground. I am not sure if it's just bad decision making or if the decision makers themselves had been bought off by competition, but it sure does feel like this. Why do we need one more Chrome like browser out there? I specifically use Firefox because it's a) not chrome, b) has better addons. If you hamstring the addons and make everything chrome/chromium like, what's the reasons to use FF then?

bastawhiz 10y ago
> has better addons The add-ons might be better, but XUL-based Firefox add-ons are not better. They essentially give full control of your computer to the developer of the add-on. There's no permission model. The "APIs" are mostly the internals of Firefox itself, and when Firefox updates, lots of add-ons break. Most add-ons can be ported to webextensions. The ones that can't probably shouldn't have ever been add-ons to begin with. Lots of other browsers used to do the same thing Firefox does, and chose to use a webextension-like model instead. Why? Because those screenshots of folks with half their screen consumed by toolbars, weird popups, overlays in the browser viewport, extensions that sneakily inject ads into pages, and track user behavior _still exist_. And there's really nothing Mozilla can do to stop them. Do you know how Firefox add-ons get approved? A human sits down and sifts through the obfuscated source code. I helped build these tools years ago, I can tell you it's hell. Beyond being error-prone, it causes months-long delays in add-ons getting approved. Firefox will be better off for only supporting webextensions.
- fjdlwlv 10y ago
  Firefox isn't a webextension. Why should I trust it and nobody else?
- icebraining 10y ago
  Lots of other browsers used to do the same thing Firefox does, and chose to use a webextension-like model instead. Really? Name three. Your arguments may be true, yet they fail to answer the question: "If you hamstring the addons and make everything chrome/chromium like, what's the reasons to use FF then?" If Chrome made all the right decisions, we might as well kill off the Firefox project.
  - untog 10y ago
    Your comment assumes that add-ons are the only reason anyone would ever use Firefox. Personally, I don't use many add-ons, and if Firefox is faster or more battery optimised than Chrome, I'll use it.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      Addons are what makes Firefox different. Trading loyal users for those who switch based on circumstantial positions seems absurd to me.
  - acdha 10y ago
    Internet Explorer followed the same path. Edge is more restrictive for the same reasons which the Mozilla developers have discussed at length: security and reliability suffered and users inevitably blame the browser for the results. Here's a comparison: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/extensions/microsoft-browser-extension-policy https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/extensions/m...
- falcolas 10y ago
  > Firefox will be better off for only supporting webextensions. Sounds like Firefox developers will be better off. Everyone else will suffer. I'm a developer, I understand how much the job sucks sometimes (that's why it's a job). But if you want a product to succeed, can't afford to put the comfort of your developers over that of the end user.
  - JeremyBanks 10y ago
    Did you get even read the post you just responded to? It had nothing to do with developer comfort.
    - falcolas 10y ago
      Oh? > A human sits down and sifts through the obfuscated source code. > when Firefox updates, lots of add-ons break > I can tell you it's hell
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - untog 10y ago
    No, security threats make both developers and users worse off. It's undoubtedly true that power users will lose a little of the functionality they like in Firefox, but that normal users will have a more secure browser. I'm sure someone will fork Firefox to keep a version alive for those power users. You might not agree with it, but the logic is sound.
    - falcolas 10y ago
      So, fix the problem instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I get it, it's a hard problem to fix. There would be a lot of pain in getting there, both for Mozilla and addon developers. But throwing in the towel feels like a cop-out. The logic is sound, but so is closing down every theater because someone got shot in one of them. After all, everyone has TVs and blu-ray players now, and you can't get shot in a theater if there are no theaters...
- chr1 10y ago
  > weird popups, overlays in the browser viewport, extensions that sneakily inject ads into pages, and track user behavior _still exist_ all of this is possible to do with webextensions, just add a contentscript for all_urls. Of course webextensions help with some security issues, but not with the ones you mention.
- dagenleg 10y ago
  But I want the addons to have full control over my browser, that's the whole point! It's my browser and I've tailored it to myself and my requirements. The one thing that is striking every time I try to use chrome/chromium is just how limited the addon functionality is and how much less freedom the user has. Have you seen "treestyletabs" implementation on chrome? It's a whole other window that has to be started and placed side-by-side with the browser window by user because of the addon limitations. There are also some keybindings which are fixed forever and not allowed to be changed (<C-W>, <C-N> etc). Of course you can justify the restrictions by bringing up the case of the poor average user who will get abused by his browser having more functionality that he will ever need. But the thing is - I really don't care for the "average user" and its problems. Average user is a beast that is perfectly happy to be contained in the walled garden, but we already have Chrome and Android for that.
  - shard972 10y ago
    While i agree with the idea of being able to install whatever you want. What's wrong with it being behind a developer mode? I would bet that 99%~ people don't need or even want that kind of absolute freedom. As a chrome user, the only plugin I have that I can't get on the play store is one for downloading youtube videos but I can still install it from the author website, just takes a few extra clicks.
    - mook 10y ago
      > What's wrong with it being behind a developer mode? The fact that one doesn't exist. "Developer edition" is really just their alpha build, they don't have release builds that allow unsigned extension installs.
      - mnordhoff 10y ago
        There are some release builds that do. https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing#Unbranded_Builds https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing#Unbranded...
- hlandau 10y ago
  >The add-ons might be better, but XUL-based Firefox add-ons are not better. This statement is contradictory. >They essentially give full control of your computer to the developer of the add-on. There's no permission model. Yes. I know. That's why it's better. >Most add-ons can be ported to webextensions. The ones that can't probably shouldn't have ever been add-ons to begin with. You're pushing a worldview here in which some entity - Mozilla, presumably - sees fit to decide in what way I should, or should not be able to extend my web browser. I reject this premise. The whole point of XUL/XPCOM, as you yourself seem to realise, is that it naturally exposes browser internals and thereby enables permissionless innovation. The only reason WebExtensions can even support the use cases it can is because Mozilla basically looked at the popular addons and defined it to be able to support corresponding functionality. Extension developers finding gaps in WebExtensions APIs were invited to communicate this to Mozilla - that is, to ask Mozilla for permission to extend the browser in a certain way (and for them to allocate manpower to adding that API, etc.) The idea is to make WebExtensions politically palatable by happening to support what's popular, but that very approach proves the impracticality of the premise. If ad blockers were invented tomorrow, would there be a WebExtensions API? Probably not. Would Mozilla bother to allocate manpower to adding an API for it when one person has the idea and asks? Probably not. If Firefox (and before that, Mozilla Suite, etc.) had had only WebExtensions-like APIs from day one, would ad blockers exist today? Probably not. Ergo, we can conclude that future, yet unconceived innovations will be prevented by this change. The "ask us to add an API for it" approach is not acceptable, given that the technology to make this a non-issue (XUL/XPCOM) already exists and is in use. >Lots of other browsers used to do the same thing Firefox does, and chose to use a webextension-like model instead. Why? Because those screenshots of folks with half their screen consumed by toolbars, weird popups, overlays in the browser viewport, extensions that sneakily inject ads into pages, and track user behavior _still exist_. And there's really nothing Mozilla can do to stop them. This isn't Mozilla's problem, and as you yourself acknowledge, trying to save users from themselves is a futile effort. >Do you know how Firefox add-ons get approved? A human sits down and sifts through the obfuscated source code. I helped build these tools years ago, I can tell you it's hell. Beyond being error-prone, it causes months-long delays in add-ons getting approved. If this upsets Mozilla, they could get out of the extension approval business. Nothing obliges them to intermediate themselves in this way. No version of Firefox which implements restrictive code signing practices will ever touch any system I control. Currently I use Firefox Developer Edition. It doesn't appear it will be updated after version 56.
- masklinn 10y ago
  > They essentially give full control of your computer to the developer of the add-on. That's the entire point. Firebug could not have existed as a WebExtension, and thus without XUL addons the entire web development field could still be on Venkman or Script Editor rather than where it is now. The XUL extensions model allows extensions in ways unmatched by WE, and yes the development experience isn't tremendous and it's a serious security risk, but that means it's possible to experiment or customise in ways WE don't allow. Users could get things like NoScript and greasemonkey and ad blockers and tree-style tabs without having to demonstrate its value to the browser developer and needing to get the tool itself or some necessary API integrated and merged into the browser. > Most add-ons can be ported to webextensions. The ones that can't probably shouldn't have ever been add-ons to begin with. That is utter garbage.
  - frik 10y ago
    Exactly. Now they killed Firebug. And their newer DevTool has a Firebug skin - just a skin. Very bad devision. So now I reverted back to an older Firebug version, which is actually the true Firebug addon. This means I will now have a zoo of old outdated browsers. Safari 5.1 Win32, Firefox 56 Win32 with Firebug addon, IE11 on Win7 (plus Chrome, Vivaldi and Servo alpha) I have hope in a lightweight reboot of Firefox based on Servo with HTML based UI (like Firefox was a lightweight reboot of Mozilla Suite; funny that Firefox is now many times more bloated than Mozilla Suite (now called SeaMonkey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeaMonkey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeaMonkey ) and has less features)
    - pikzen 10y ago
      The question "Why would you use Firebug considering both Firefox Dev Tools and Chome Dev Tools have more features and don't cause the entire browser to horribly lag?" remains.
      - frik 10y ago
        I use all three tools. But Firebug still has features that aren't implemented in both other tools. You can read the Bugzilla entries, sadly Mozilla cut off Firebug too early, many minor features (eg DOM tab) were just recently added to Firefox DevTools and aren't working 100% because of glitches and bugs. And Chrome DevTools don't has those features at all. (I use a separate Firefox instance for development, and it's not my number one browser for years because it can't handle hundreds of open tabs - IE and Chrome excel on that (my) requirement for 10 years.)
- tyingq 10y ago
  >XUL-based Firefox add-ons are not better. They essentially give full control of your computer to the developer of the add-on XUL does open up more attack surface than a web extension. However, web extensions open up enough that you're already in the business of trusting the creator of the extension. A web extension is fully capable of stealing my online banking credentials, for example.
  - weaksauce 10y ago
    Web extensions are vetted by amo reviewers if they come from that channel. Is it going to catch every single malicious extension? Doubtful. Is it better than nothing? Yes.
    - tyingq 10y ago
      I suppose. The whole idea just seems to miss that for many, online data is more important than my local pc. A web extension that deleted my google account would be more disruptive than an XUL extension that formatted my hard drive. XUL is a superset, but restricting to "web only" leaves you with the most significant subset...at least for me.
    - Amezarak 10y ago
      XUL extensions are also vetted by AMO reviewers if they come from that channel, so that's no change, except to the extent they're easier to review.
    - stewbrew 10y ago
      All add-ons are vetted by amo reviewers -- unless explicitly stated otherwise. That's no argument pro web extensions.
    - fuzzy2 10y ago
      > Web extensions are vetted by amo reviewers [...] But so is every other type of add-on. You even need to upload source code for binary components. (A XUL extension can include DLLs or their cross-platform equivalents.)
- alphapapa 10y ago
  > The add-ons might be better, but XUL-based Firefox add-ons are not better. They essentially give full control of your computer to the developer of the add-on. IOW, the addons are software, just like Firefox is. That is what makes them useful. > Most add-ons can be ported to webextensions. The ones that can't probably shouldn't have ever been add-ons to begin with. I hope you realize that this attitude is 100% the opposite of the original Mozilla team, and that Firefox and Mozilla would not exist today if it had been. Firefox became what it is today because of its customizability and its empowerment of users. > Firefox will be better off for only supporting webextensions. On the contrary, it will no longer be Firefox. That is the point that we 15-plus-year, loyal users have been trying to drive through the thick heads at Mozilla. If I wanted to use a browser like Chrome, I would use Chrome. What kind of product manager thinks he can beat his competitor by essentially duplicating their product, when there is no differentiation on price? Both browsers are free. People are already using Chrome because Google has what is essentially a Microsoft, IE-style de facto monopoly. People can still use Firefox if they prefer it--but if it ceases to be unique, why would they bother? Firefox 56 will be the last version of Firefox I use, because Firefox 57 will no longer be useful to me. That is the bottom line.
willemmali 10y ago
For now using Firefox ESR might be a good stopgap measure for you? That way you can use an old version with the old add-on ecosystem for at least a year longer, and still get security updates. I usually work on Debian Jessie which ships (a variant of) Firefox ESR, and it's very well-usable. I haven't noticed any differences between the latest Firefox on Windows and Firefox-ESR on Debian. The latest LastPass, XMarks, VimFX, uBlock Origin and uMatrix run on it, though I haven't managed to get RES (Reddit Enhancement Suite) to work.
- dagenleg 10y ago
  Yes, I an using it already since Vimperator is broken on the latest release of FF.
  - vinc 10y ago
    The situation with Vimperator is so sad, I can't use Firefox without it. I don't like all those toolbars that clutter my screen estate, I prefer to browse the web full screen. There are a lot of projects using Webkit, and I also use elinks a lot, but I'd rather support Mozilla and Firefox by using the later when I need a graphical browser.
JohnTHaller 10y ago
Badly performing addons are the main reason behind Firefox crashes. The majority of users don't use addons. Of those who use addons, the vast majority use just one: an ad blocker. Those addons work fine under new Firefox. There are lots of reasons to use Firefox over Chrome. It's not designed to drive traffic to a search engine. It has far better privacy out of the box. It's a standalone browser that isn't tied to the operating system for things like personal certificates. It doesn't lock its settings to the operating system so you lose all your passwords, extensions, and extension settings if you move it from one PC to another like Chrome does. Etc.

bastawhiz 10y ago

> has better addons The add-ons might be better, but XUL-based Firefox add-ons are not better. They essentially give full control of your computer to the developer of the add-on. There's no permission model. The "APIs" are mostly the internals of Firefox itself, and when Firefox updates, lots of add-ons break. Most add-ons can be ported to webextensions. The ones that can't probably shouldn't have ever been add-ons to begin with. Lots of other browsers used to do the same thing Firefox does, and chose to use a webextension-like model instead. Why? Because those screenshots of folks with half their screen consumed by toolbars, weird popups, overlays in the browser viewport, extensions that sneakily inject ads into pages, and track user behavior _still exist_. And there's really nothing Mozilla can do to stop them. Do you know how Firefox add-ons get approved? A human sits down and sifts through the obfuscated source code. I helped build these tools years ago, I can tell you it's hell. Beyond being error-prone, it causes months-long delays in add-ons getting approved. Firefox will be better off for only supporting webextensions.

fjdlwlv 10y ago
Firefox isn't a webextension. Why should I trust it and nobody else?
icebraining 10y ago
Lots of other browsers used to do the same thing Firefox does, and chose to use a webextension-like model instead. Really? Name three. Your arguments may be true, yet they fail to answer the question: "If you hamstring the addons and make everything chrome/chromium like, what's the reasons to use FF then?" If Chrome made all the right decisions, we might as well kill off the Firefox project.
- untog 10y ago
  Your comment assumes that add-ons are the only reason anyone would ever use Firefox. Personally, I don't use many add-ons, and if Firefox is faster or more battery optimised than Chrome, I'll use it.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Addons are what makes Firefox different. Trading loyal users for those who switch based on circumstantial positions seems absurd to me.
- acdha 10y ago
  Internet Explorer followed the same path. Edge is more restrictive for the same reasons which the Mozilla developers have discussed at length: security and reliability suffered and users inevitably blame the browser for the results. Here's a comparison: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/extensions/microsoft-browser-extension-policy https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/extensions/m...
falcolas 10y ago
> Firefox will be better off for only supporting webextensions. Sounds like Firefox developers will be better off. Everyone else will suffer. I'm a developer, I understand how much the job sucks sometimes (that's why it's a job). But if you want a product to succeed, can't afford to put the comfort of your developers over that of the end user.
- JeremyBanks 10y ago
  Did you get even read the post you just responded to? It had nothing to do with developer comfort.
  - falcolas 10y ago
    Oh? > A human sits down and sifts through the obfuscated source code. > when Firefox updates, lots of add-ons break > I can tell you it's hell
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- untog 10y ago
  No, security threats make both developers and users worse off. It's undoubtedly true that power users will lose a little of the functionality they like in Firefox, but that normal users will have a more secure browser. I'm sure someone will fork Firefox to keep a version alive for those power users. You might not agree with it, but the logic is sound.
  - falcolas 10y ago
    So, fix the problem instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I get it, it's a hard problem to fix. There would be a lot of pain in getting there, both for Mozilla and addon developers. But throwing in the towel feels like a cop-out. The logic is sound, but so is closing down every theater because someone got shot in one of them. After all, everyone has TVs and blu-ray players now, and you can't get shot in a theater if there are no theaters...
chr1 10y ago
> weird popups, overlays in the browser viewport, extensions that sneakily inject ads into pages, and track user behavior _still exist_ all of this is possible to do with webextensions, just add a contentscript for all_urls. Of course webextensions help with some security issues, but not with the ones you mention.
dagenleg 10y ago
But I want the addons to have full control over my browser, that's the whole point! It's my browser and I've tailored it to myself and my requirements. The one thing that is striking every time I try to use chrome/chromium is just how limited the addon functionality is and how much less freedom the user has. Have you seen "treestyletabs" implementation on chrome? It's a whole other window that has to be started and placed side-by-side with the browser window by user because of the addon limitations. There are also some keybindings which are fixed forever and not allowed to be changed (<C-W>, <C-N> etc). Of course you can justify the restrictions by bringing up the case of the poor average user who will get abused by his browser having more functionality that he will ever need. But the thing is - I really don't care for the "average user" and its problems. Average user is a beast that is perfectly happy to be contained in the walled garden, but we already have Chrome and Android for that.
- shard972 10y ago
  While i agree with the idea of being able to install whatever you want. What's wrong with it being behind a developer mode? I would bet that 99%~ people don't need or even want that kind of absolute freedom. As a chrome user, the only plugin I have that I can't get on the play store is one for downloading youtube videos but I can still install it from the author website, just takes a few extra clicks.
  - mook 10y ago
    > What's wrong with it being behind a developer mode? The fact that one doesn't exist. "Developer edition" is really just their alpha build, they don't have release builds that allow unsigned extension installs.
    - mnordhoff 10y ago
      There are some release builds that do. https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing#Unbranded_Builds https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing#Unbranded...
hlandau 10y ago
>The add-ons might be better, but XUL-based Firefox add-ons are not better. This statement is contradictory. >They essentially give full control of your computer to the developer of the add-on. There's no permission model. Yes. I know. That's why it's better. >Most add-ons can be ported to webextensions. The ones that can't probably shouldn't have ever been add-ons to begin with. You're pushing a worldview here in which some entity - Mozilla, presumably - sees fit to decide in what way I should, or should not be able to extend my web browser. I reject this premise. The whole point of XUL/XPCOM, as you yourself seem to realise, is that it naturally exposes browser internals and thereby enables permissionless innovation. The only reason WebExtensions can even support the use cases it can is because Mozilla basically looked at the popular addons and defined it to be able to support corresponding functionality. Extension developers finding gaps in WebExtensions APIs were invited to communicate this to Mozilla - that is, to ask Mozilla for permission to extend the browser in a certain way (and for them to allocate manpower to adding that API, etc.) The idea is to make WebExtensions politically palatable by happening to support what's popular, but that very approach proves the impracticality of the premise. If ad blockers were invented tomorrow, would there be a WebExtensions API? Probably not. Would Mozilla bother to allocate manpower to adding an API for it when one person has the idea and asks? Probably not. If Firefox (and before that, Mozilla Suite, etc.) had had only WebExtensions-like APIs from day one, would ad blockers exist today? Probably not. Ergo, we can conclude that future, yet unconceived innovations will be prevented by this change. The "ask us to add an API for it" approach is not acceptable, given that the technology to make this a non-issue (XUL/XPCOM) already exists and is in use. >Lots of other browsers used to do the same thing Firefox does, and chose to use a webextension-like model instead. Why? Because those screenshots of folks with half their screen consumed by toolbars, weird popups, overlays in the browser viewport, extensions that sneakily inject ads into pages, and track user behavior _still exist_. And there's really nothing Mozilla can do to stop them. This isn't Mozilla's problem, and as you yourself acknowledge, trying to save users from themselves is a futile effort. >Do you know how Firefox add-ons get approved? A human sits down and sifts through the obfuscated source code. I helped build these tools years ago, I can tell you it's hell. Beyond being error-prone, it causes months-long delays in add-ons getting approved. If this upsets Mozilla, they could get out of the extension approval business. Nothing obliges them to intermediate themselves in this way. No version of Firefox which implements restrictive code signing practices will ever touch any system I control. Currently I use Firefox Developer Edition. It doesn't appear it will be updated after version 56.
masklinn 10y ago
> They essentially give full control of your computer to the developer of the add-on. That's the entire point. Firebug could not have existed as a WebExtension, and thus without XUL addons the entire web development field could still be on Venkman or Script Editor rather than where it is now. The XUL extensions model allows extensions in ways unmatched by WE, and yes the development experience isn't tremendous and it's a serious security risk, but that means it's possible to experiment or customise in ways WE don't allow. Users could get things like NoScript and greasemonkey and ad blockers and tree-style tabs without having to demonstrate its value to the browser developer and needing to get the tool itself or some necessary API integrated and merged into the browser. > Most add-ons can be ported to webextensions. The ones that can't probably shouldn't have ever been add-ons to begin with. That is utter garbage.
- frik 10y ago
  Exactly. Now they killed Firebug. And their newer DevTool has a Firebug skin - just a skin. Very bad devision. So now I reverted back to an older Firebug version, which is actually the true Firebug addon. This means I will now have a zoo of old outdated browsers. Safari 5.1 Win32, Firefox 56 Win32 with Firebug addon, IE11 on Win7 (plus Chrome, Vivaldi and Servo alpha) I have hope in a lightweight reboot of Firefox based on Servo with HTML based UI (like Firefox was a lightweight reboot of Mozilla Suite; funny that Firefox is now many times more bloated than Mozilla Suite (now called SeaMonkey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeaMonkey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeaMonkey ) and has less features)
  - pikzen 10y ago
    The question "Why would you use Firebug considering both Firefox Dev Tools and Chome Dev Tools have more features and don't cause the entire browser to horribly lag?" remains.
    - frik 10y ago
      I use all three tools. But Firebug still has features that aren't implemented in both other tools. You can read the Bugzilla entries, sadly Mozilla cut off Firebug too early, many minor features (eg DOM tab) were just recently added to Firefox DevTools and aren't working 100% because of glitches and bugs. And Chrome DevTools don't has those features at all. (I use a separate Firefox instance for development, and it's not my number one browser for years because it can't handle hundreds of open tabs - IE and Chrome excel on that (my) requirement for 10 years.)
tyingq 10y ago
>XUL-based Firefox add-ons are not better. They essentially give full control of your computer to the developer of the add-on XUL does open up more attack surface than a web extension. However, web extensions open up enough that you're already in the business of trusting the creator of the extension. A web extension is fully capable of stealing my online banking credentials, for example.
- weaksauce 10y ago
  Web extensions are vetted by amo reviewers if they come from that channel. Is it going to catch every single malicious extension? Doubtful. Is it better than nothing? Yes.
  - tyingq 10y ago
    I suppose. The whole idea just seems to miss that for many, online data is more important than my local pc. A web extension that deleted my google account would be more disruptive than an XUL extension that formatted my hard drive. XUL is a superset, but restricting to "web only" leaves you with the most significant subset...at least for me.
  - Amezarak 10y ago
    XUL extensions are also vetted by AMO reviewers if they come from that channel, so that's no change, except to the extent they're easier to review.
  - stewbrew 10y ago
    All add-ons are vetted by amo reviewers -- unless explicitly stated otherwise. That's no argument pro web extensions.
  - fuzzy2 10y ago
    > Web extensions are vetted by amo reviewers [...] But so is every other type of add-on. You even need to upload source code for binary components. (A XUL extension can include DLLs or their cross-platform equivalents.)
alphapapa 10y ago
> The add-ons might be better, but XUL-based Firefox add-ons are not better. They essentially give full control of your computer to the developer of the add-on. IOW, the addons are software, just like Firefox is. That is what makes them useful. > Most add-ons can be ported to webextensions. The ones that can't probably shouldn't have ever been add-ons to begin with. I hope you realize that this attitude is 100% the opposite of the original Mozilla team, and that Firefox and Mozilla would not exist today if it had been. Firefox became what it is today because of its customizability and its empowerment of users. > Firefox will be better off for only supporting webextensions. On the contrary, it will no longer be Firefox. That is the point that we 15-plus-year, loyal users have been trying to drive through the thick heads at Mozilla. If I wanted to use a browser like Chrome, I would use Chrome. What kind of product manager thinks he can beat his competitor by essentially duplicating their product, when there is no differentiation on price? Both browsers are free. People are already using Chrome because Google has what is essentially a Microsoft, IE-style de facto monopoly. People can still use Firefox if they prefer it--but if it ceases to be unique, why would they bother? Firefox 56 will be the last version of Firefox I use, because Firefox 57 will no longer be useful to me. That is the bottom line.

willemmali 10y ago

For now using Firefox ESR might be a good stopgap measure for you? That way you can use an old version with the old add-on ecosystem for at least a year longer, and still get security updates. I usually work on Debian Jessie which ships (a variant of) Firefox ESR, and it's very well-usable. I haven't noticed any differences between the latest Firefox on Windows and Firefox-ESR on Debian. The latest LastPass, XMarks, VimFX, uBlock Origin and uMatrix run on it, though I haven't managed to get RES (Reddit Enhancement Suite) to work.

dagenleg 10y ago
Yes, I an using it already since Vimperator is broken on the latest release of FF.
- vinc 10y ago
  The situation with Vimperator is so sad, I can't use Firefox without it. I don't like all those toolbars that clutter my screen estate, I prefer to browse the web full screen. There are a lot of projects using Webkit, and I also use elinks a lot, but I'd rather support Mozilla and Firefox by using the later when I need a graphical browser.

JohnTHaller 10y ago

Badly performing addons are the main reason behind Firefox crashes. The majority of users don't use addons. Of those who use addons, the vast majority use just one: an ad blocker. Those addons work fine under new Firefox. There are lots of reasons to use Firefox over Chrome. It's not designed to drive traffic to a search engine. It has far better privacy out of the box. It's a standalone browser that isn't tied to the operating system for things like personal certificates. It doesn't lock its settings to the operating system so you lose all your passwords, extensions, and extension settings if you move it from one PC to another like Chrome does. Etc.