6 ms·

Add-ons will still work, but only the new WebExtensions. In Firefox 57 XUL extensions will stop working so Mozilla can finally start doing work on the internals

Add-ons will still work, but only the new WebExtensions. In Firefox 57 XUL extensions will stop working so Mozilla can finally start doing work on the internals of Firefox. Plugins like Java applets and Silverlight stopped working in Firefox 52 (not the ESR)

protomyth 9y ago
Yes, new stuff will work, but not the stuff we have been using for years (which for a time will be much more capable than the WebExtensions add-ons). That would be noticeable, unlike what the title suggests.
- moron4hire 9y ago
  Only to the few people who use those extensions. Most user's don't use any extensions at all.
  - tux1968 9y ago
    What are you basing that on? A quick google suggests that at one point 85% of users used extensions.. and as of last year it was still 60% https://www.ghacks.net/2016/01/06/surprise-40-of-firefox-users-dont-use-add-ons/ https://www.ghacks.net/2016/01/06/surprise-40-of-firefox-use...
    - gpm 9y ago
      And how many of those 60% just use ublock or something similar, which will continue working, and no other extensions?
      - tux1968 9y ago
        That really wasn't the point of my post. The claim made by the parent post was that "Most user's don't use any extensions at all."
        gpm 9y ago
        My apologies, I didn't mean to come across as disagreeing with what you said, but just to put it in better context for the larger discussion of how noticeable disabling non-web extensions will be to the average user.
      - carussell 9y ago
        You're moving the goalposts.
- hashhar 9y ago
  Instead of crying about it, WE can add suggested APIs to be included in the WebExtensions extension Firefox is using. They recently added the Sidebar API which allows a form for vertical tabs but nobody has implemented trees yet.
  - jplayer01 9y ago
    They've shown themselves to be quite reluctant to accommodate the needs of vim extension authors (such as Vimperator). They can get bent.
    - Etzos 9y ago
      As someone who hasn't followed the actual specifics here, do you happen to have any links to those discussions/issues or other places these things happened? I'd really like to see their reasoning.
    - semi-extrinsic 9y ago
      Theres also been quite heated discussions (and hostility from Mozilla devs, to be frank) around the Zotero plugin, see e.g. Dan Stillman's 2015 blog post and email-list-threads linked there. https://danstillman.com/2015/11/23/firefox-extension-scanning-is-security-theater?firefox-against-censorship https://danstillman.com/2015/11/23/firefox-extension-scannin... Edit: for those who don't want to dig, a random quote: "Shortly before we left AMO [Firefox's integrated addon channel], an AMO editor publicly told someone asking a technical question about Zotero that Zotero was “evil”, adding, “They submit a new version every week, with thousands of lines of changes, nearly always additions. Every time I review it I hope they’ll go bankrupt”" It seems (from many signals) very much like Mozilla would prefer it if most Firefox addons were tiny 200 line hobby projects that got updated once a blue moon.
      - callahad 9y ago
        Many AMO Editors are volunteers, and all are human. We've significantly adjusted the AMO review guidelines and processes to avoid that sort of mishap in the future, as acknowledged at the end of that post. We're working hard on further changes to the process to reduce the stress and delays associated with manual review, including moving the review process to a post-publication check, instead of a pre-publication requirement. The heavy-handed review process was necessary with the old model of add-ons which had unrestricted access to the browser and to the host system. The new, permissions-based WebExtension model is dramatically easier to audit.
maxxxxx 9y ago
I wonder if they are driving people away by disabling things that worked for years. At work I have to use Java and Silverlight. In addition our IT department doesn't seem to be able to keep their certificates up to date. With chrome and Firefox being so strict they are almost unusable so I am using IE. In theory this should pressure suppliers to get rid of Java and our IT department should have better certificates but in practice I don't see this happening.
- simion314 9y ago
  I discovered now you need to have your extensions sign by Mozilla, we had such an extension that worked only with our product, you needed an account and we did not had many users, but now the extension will not work(you can make it work only on dev version of Firefox) until we get it signed by Mozilla.
  - callahad 9y ago
    You can automatically sign your add-on by calling `jpm sign` (SDK add-ons), `web-ext sign` (WebExtensions), or by manually hitting our API: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/Distribution#Signing_API https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/Distribution#Sig...
    - apostacy 9y ago
      Requiring signing of web extensions is still ludicrous. It makes sense for Google to do it. It makes zero sense for Mozilla to do it. Google wants to make money by developing a platform. Mozilla (should) want to make technology that empowers people. Mozilla does not have to provide technical support. Mozilla isn't making money off of it. I think that the only reason they did it was because Google did it. Should emacs or Autocad require signing of extensions? Why not? Because it would go directly against the grain of what those tools are for. And users should be smart enough to handle their own security. I would like someone to justify Firefox extension signing, while also explaining why nobody cares if other software has signed extensions.

protomyth 9y ago

Yes, new stuff will work, but not the stuff we have been using for years (which for a time will be much more capable than the WebExtensions add-ons). That would be noticeable, unlike what the title suggests.

moron4hire 9y ago
Only to the few people who use those extensions. Most user's don't use any extensions at all.
- tux1968 9y ago
  What are you basing that on? A quick google suggests that at one point 85% of users used extensions.. and as of last year it was still 60% https://www.ghacks.net/2016/01/06/surprise-40-of-firefox-users-dont-use-add-ons/ https://www.ghacks.net/2016/01/06/surprise-40-of-firefox-use...
  - gpm 9y ago
    And how many of those 60% just use ublock or something similar, which will continue working, and no other extensions?
    - tux1968 9y ago
      That really wasn't the point of my post. The claim made by the parent post was that "Most user's don't use any extensions at all."
      - gpm 9y ago
        My apologies, I didn't mean to come across as disagreeing with what you said, but just to put it in better context for the larger discussion of how noticeable disabling non-web extensions will be to the average user.
    - carussell 9y ago
      You're moving the goalposts.
hashhar 9y ago
Instead of crying about it, WE can add suggested APIs to be included in the WebExtensions extension Firefox is using. They recently added the Sidebar API which allows a form for vertical tabs but nobody has implemented trees yet.
- jplayer01 9y ago
  They've shown themselves to be quite reluctant to accommodate the needs of vim extension authors (such as Vimperator). They can get bent.
  - Etzos 9y ago
    As someone who hasn't followed the actual specifics here, do you happen to have any links to those discussions/issues or other places these things happened? I'd really like to see their reasoning.
  - semi-extrinsic 9y ago
    Theres also been quite heated discussions (and hostility from Mozilla devs, to be frank) around the Zotero plugin, see e.g. Dan Stillman's 2015 blog post and email-list-threads linked there. https://danstillman.com/2015/11/23/firefox-extension-scanning-is-security-theater?firefox-against-censorship https://danstillman.com/2015/11/23/firefox-extension-scannin... Edit: for those who don't want to dig, a random quote: "Shortly before we left AMO [Firefox's integrated addon channel], an AMO editor publicly told someone asking a technical question about Zotero that Zotero was “evil”, adding, “They submit a new version every week, with thousands of lines of changes, nearly always additions. Every time I review it I hope they’ll go bankrupt”" It seems (from many signals) very much like Mozilla would prefer it if most Firefox addons were tiny 200 line hobby projects that got updated once a blue moon.
    - callahad 9y ago
      Many AMO Editors are volunteers, and all are human. We've significantly adjusted the AMO review guidelines and processes to avoid that sort of mishap in the future, as acknowledged at the end of that post. We're working hard on further changes to the process to reduce the stress and delays associated with manual review, including moving the review process to a post-publication check, instead of a pre-publication requirement. The heavy-handed review process was necessary with the old model of add-ons which had unrestricted access to the browser and to the host system. The new, permissions-based WebExtension model is dramatically easier to audit.

maxxxxx 9y ago

I wonder if they are driving people away by disabling things that worked for years. At work I have to use Java and Silverlight. In addition our IT department doesn't seem to be able to keep their certificates up to date. With chrome and Firefox being so strict they are almost unusable so I am using IE. In theory this should pressure suppliers to get rid of Java and our IT department should have better certificates but in practice I don't see this happening.

simion314 9y ago
I discovered now you need to have your extensions sign by Mozilla, we had such an extension that worked only with our product, you needed an account and we did not had many users, but now the extension will not work(you can make it work only on dev version of Firefox) until we get it signed by Mozilla.
- callahad 9y ago
  You can automatically sign your add-on by calling `jpm sign` (SDK add-ons), `web-ext sign` (WebExtensions), or by manually hitting our API: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/Distribution#Signing_API https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/Distribution#Sig...
  - apostacy 9y ago
    Requiring signing of web extensions is still ludicrous. It makes sense for Google to do it. It makes zero sense for Mozilla to do it. Google wants to make money by developing a platform. Mozilla (should) want to make technology that empowers people. Mozilla does not have to provide technical support. Mozilla isn't making money off of it. I think that the only reason they did it was because Google did it. Should emacs or Autocad require signing of extensions? Why not? Because it would go directly against the grain of what those tools are for. And users should be smart enough to handle their own security. I would like someone to justify Firefox extension signing, while also explaining why nobody cares if other software has signed extensions.