7 ms·

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

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...
    - mook 10y ago
      Ah! Thank you, I stand corrected. I didn't realize they actually have those now. Still hard to find, but at least they exist.
  - Caspy7 10y ago
    You mean like the Unbranded builds of Release (and Beta) that allow unsigned extension installs? https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing#Unbranded_Builds https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing#Unbranded... It seems that those very much exist.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  How easy is it to switch to Developer mode? Genuinely asking
detaro 10y ago
But Mozilla cares about average users, not about making something for power-users only. That seems to be the big conflict here: power users saying "you've lost the masses, so make something for us" while Mozilla's mission is making something that would be good for the masses, and they'd rather fail trying than failing that mission by abandoning it.
- hlandau 10y ago
  Except this doesn't make sense. The set of clueless users who would install arbitrary malicious extensions and the set of clueless users who would download and run arbitrary executables is basically the same. Yet if they do the latter, any extention sandboxing is completely and utterly moot. It's the same issue as with mandatory extension signing; requiring signing for extensions while nothing stops someone from downloading an unsigned .exe (which could memory-patch Firefox if it so wished) is absurd.
  - yuhong 10y ago
    I think the difference is that they want to try to prevent installers from installing unapproved extensions, which even many of the software that looks more legitimate often does. See https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/AMO/Policy/Reviews https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/AMO/Policy/Revie...
    - hlandau 10y ago
      Yes, and the point of this is what, exactly?
      - yuhong 10y ago
        In particular, all the checked by default boxes to install things like the Ask Toolbar.
- alphapapa 10y ago
  The power users are saying, Firefox became successful by being powerful. When it ceases to be powerful, it will cease to be successful. People will just use Chrome.
callahad 10y ago
> I want the addons to have full control over my browser I can assure you that you only want this if you can guarantee that your add-ons only do what they claim, don't have security vulnerabilities, and are never acquired and maliciously updated. Otherwise, a permissionless add-on model means a bug in TreeStyleTabs could potentially be used to exfiltrate your entire password database, plant malicious binaries on your system, and destroy local data. If TST had limited permissions along the lines of only being able to manipulate tabs and their UI, that wouldn't be a problem. > Have you seen "treestyletabs" implementation on chrome? It's a whole other window that has to be started an placed on the left of the screen by user because of the addon limitations. Firefox will not have this limitation.
- darklajid 10y ago
  > Firefox will not have this limitation Is that a statement about future Firefox visions or Firefox 57? I assume you know the gritty details while I'm a rather confused Firefox power user / fan / advocate (using .. addons that are affected, vertical tabs/tree style tabs plus vimperator/pentadactyl mostly). The outrage The Internet™ seems to feel is probably not about XUL being deprecated/killed. I'd say no user cares about the technology, the only people even caring are probably the addon developers. From what I can tell, the outrage is mostly due to the impression (and I dearly hope that you will dismiss this as wrong, just like the 'addon limitation' reference above) that the web extension switch happens before popular, polarizing addons are even remotely possible given the new API. "Will not have this limitation", as in "it won't support that use case in 57 at all" or as in "you can do better than this Chrome extension you describe"?
  - pseudalopex 10y ago
    Firefox 54 will support WebExtension sidebars.[1] You're basically correct about the APIs, though. Developers of some popular add-ons don't know when or if the APIs they need will be implemented. Support for migrating gradually (embedded WebExtensions) was just released in 51 and will be gone in 57 -- not even a full ESR cycle. Developer burnout is a problem, too. This comes right after many of them put in significant work making their now-deprecated code multiprocess-compatible, which came after mandatory extension signing, which came after a bunch of UI changes. It's not surprising some of them have quit. [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1208596 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1208596
kibwen 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. Owning the code that runs on your machine is your right as a user of open-source software, but there's no right that says that Mozilla must be the one to maintain that code. And nobody's asking you to maintain your own personal fork either: find all the other people who care about unlimited (if fragile) browser extensibility via unrestricted addons and form a community (or hell, a corporation) to collectively make the browser you want, starting from a fork of Firefox (or Chromium, or Midori). If you believe that there are enough people in your position to make such a collaboration successful, then you're all set. And if you don't believe that there are enough people out there who care about unrestricted addons to make such a project viable, then--while I sympathize with your plight--maybe it makes business sense for Mozilla to drop support for unrestricted addons, especially due to the ways that this feature hinders all the other features that Firefox users are clamoring for: speed, reduced memory usage, speed, HTML5 adoption, speed, ES6+ adoption, speed, speed, security, and speed.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  > but there's no right that says that Mozilla must be the one to maintain that code. And there's no right that says I have to use FF. They are giving up one of their big advantages.
  - kibwen 10y ago
    From where I stand, it looks like they're trading one of their big advantages for a massively reduced maintenance burden which will unquestionably allow them to compete better on every other front. It may or may not pan out, but I think we can all agree that some change of trajectory from the past few years is needed if Firefox hopes to stay relevant. You're free to think that Mozilla leadership is incompetent, but in this particular instance I think their stance is grounded in sound reasoning, as inconvenient as it is undoubtedly is for some power users.
    - CaptSpify 10y ago

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...
  - mook 10y ago
    Ah! Thank you, I stand corrected. I didn't realize they actually have those now. Still hard to find, but at least they exist.
- Caspy7 10y ago
  You mean like the Unbranded builds of Release (and Beta) that allow unsigned extension installs? https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing#Unbranded_Builds https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing#Unbranded... It seems that those very much exist.
CaptSpify 10y ago
How easy is it to switch to Developer mode? Genuinely asking

detaro 10y ago

But Mozilla cares about average users, not about making something for power-users only. That seems to be the big conflict here: power users saying "you've lost the masses, so make something for us" while Mozilla's mission is making something that would be good for the masses, and they'd rather fail trying than failing that mission by abandoning it.

hlandau 10y ago
Except this doesn't make sense. The set of clueless users who would install arbitrary malicious extensions and the set of clueless users who would download and run arbitrary executables is basically the same. Yet if they do the latter, any extention sandboxing is completely and utterly moot. It's the same issue as with mandatory extension signing; requiring signing for extensions while nothing stops someone from downloading an unsigned .exe (which could memory-patch Firefox if it so wished) is absurd.
- yuhong 10y ago
  I think the difference is that they want to try to prevent installers from installing unapproved extensions, which even many of the software that looks more legitimate often does. See https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/AMO/Policy/Reviews https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/AMO/Policy/Revie...
  - hlandau 10y ago
    Yes, and the point of this is what, exactly?
    - yuhong 10y ago
      In particular, all the checked by default boxes to install things like the Ask Toolbar.
alphapapa 10y ago
The power users are saying, Firefox became successful by being powerful. When it ceases to be powerful, it will cease to be successful. People will just use Chrome.

callahad 10y ago

> I want the addons to have full control over my browser I can assure you that you only want this if you can guarantee that your add-ons only do what they claim, don't have security vulnerabilities, and are never acquired and maliciously updated. Otherwise, a permissionless add-on model means a bug in TreeStyleTabs could potentially be used to exfiltrate your entire password database, plant malicious binaries on your system, and destroy local data. If TST had limited permissions along the lines of only being able to manipulate tabs and their UI, that wouldn't be a problem. > Have you seen "treestyletabs" implementation on chrome? It's a whole other window that has to be started an placed on the left of the screen by user because of the addon limitations. Firefox will not have this limitation.

darklajid 10y ago
> Firefox will not have this limitation Is that a statement about future Firefox visions or Firefox 57? I assume you know the gritty details while I'm a rather confused Firefox power user / fan / advocate (using .. addons that are affected, vertical tabs/tree style tabs plus vimperator/pentadactyl mostly). The outrage The Internet™ seems to feel is probably not about XUL being deprecated/killed. I'd say no user cares about the technology, the only people even caring are probably the addon developers. From what I can tell, the outrage is mostly due to the impression (and I dearly hope that you will dismiss this as wrong, just like the 'addon limitation' reference above) that the web extension switch happens before popular, polarizing addons are even remotely possible given the new API. "Will not have this limitation", as in "it won't support that use case in 57 at all" or as in "you can do better than this Chrome extension you describe"?
- pseudalopex 10y ago
  Firefox 54 will support WebExtension sidebars.[1] You're basically correct about the APIs, though. Developers of some popular add-ons don't know when or if the APIs they need will be implemented. Support for migrating gradually (embedded WebExtensions) was just released in 51 and will be gone in 57 -- not even a full ESR cycle. Developer burnout is a problem, too. This comes right after many of them put in significant work making their now-deprecated code multiprocess-compatible, which came after mandatory extension signing, which came after a bunch of UI changes. It's not surprising some of them have quit. [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1208596 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1208596

kibwen 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. Owning the code that runs on your machine is your right as a user of open-source software, but there's no right that says that Mozilla must be the one to maintain that code. And nobody's asking you to maintain your own personal fork either: find all the other people who care about unlimited (if fragile) browser extensibility via unrestricted addons and form a community (or hell, a corporation) to collectively make the browser you want, starting from a fork of Firefox (or Chromium, or Midori). If you believe that there are enough people in your position to make such a collaboration successful, then you're all set. And if you don't believe that there are enough people out there who care about unrestricted addons to make such a project viable, then--while I sympathize with your plight--maybe it makes business sense for Mozilla to drop support for unrestricted addons, especially due to the ways that this feature hinders all the other features that Firefox users are clamoring for: speed, reduced memory usage, speed, HTML5 adoption, speed, ES6+ adoption, speed, speed, security, and speed.

CaptSpify 10y ago
> but there's no right that says that Mozilla must be the one to maintain that code. And there's no right that says I have to use FF. They are giving up one of their big advantages.
- kibwen 10y ago
  From where I stand, it looks like they're trading one of their big advantages for a massively reduced maintenance burden which will unquestionably allow them to compete better on every other front. It may or may not pan out, but I think we can all agree that some change of trajectory from the past few years is needed if Firefox hopes to stay relevant. You're free to think that Mozilla leadership is incompetent, but in this particular instance I think their stance is grounded in sound reasoning, as inconvenient as it is undoubtedly is for some power users.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago