5 ms·

[Disclaimer: I work for Mozilla, but I'm not involved in Firefox decision making] > Mozilla wants to make Firefox look like Chrome, probably to replicate feat

[Disclaimer: I work for Mozilla, but I'm not involved in Firefox decision making] > Mozilla wants to make Firefox look like Chrome, probably to replicate features which seem to draw users in This is false IMO > by changing the extensions API to make it less powerful This is not about copying Chrome. This is about moving off of an API which was effectively "our entire codebase is your public API, here, have fun", which is horrible for making it easy to evolve the codebase. We had this problem with electrolysis (multiprocess firefox) already, lots of addons broke because of it. Additionally, the base of this API is XUL, which is a technology many want to phase out. Firefox is using the same base extension API as Chrome. It's a sensible choice -- if you're going to design an extensions API from scratch, why not standardize the base so that many extensions become interoperable. The base manifest format and most of the normal APIs from Chrome are the same, however the new system has many other APIs which chrome doesn't have, and the intent is to continue adding these so that most of the former very powerful extensions are still possible. But I'm already using extensions that won't work in Chrome because Chrome doesn't expose that functionality. > by supporting standardised DRM in the browser If Netflix didn't work in the browser Firefox would not have any users left. Mozilla fought this battle, and lost.

CaptSpify 9y ago
Then what is the real story? I have the same impression as OP: FF seems to spend most of it's time playing "me too" with Chrome, while blatantly ignoring what the users are requesting. It's frustrating because I really want FF to succeed, but they keep shooting themselves in the foot. If they aren't following with Chrome, they why do so many of their decisions end up mirroring Chrome after Chrome has made their decision?
- Manishearth 9y ago
  Which decisions? The only one I can think of is Web Extensions, and like I said, the reason behind that is not to copy Chrome, but because the old system was _terrible_ and hindered progress, and since they needed something new anyway, basing it off of Chrome was a way to get a large set of new addons working on it off the bat.
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    In addition to web-extensions (which could have been handled waaaaay better IMO if that was their goal): The general UI and their overall design philosophy shelling out data to places that I don't approve of (pocket/ga) rapid releases toggle-able options
    - Manishearth 9y ago
      > The general UI and their overall design philosophy https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14805761 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14805761 > shelling out data to places that I don't approve of (pocket/ga) Pocket was not shelling out data, Pocket was an addition of an add on by default, one which did nothing unless you tried to use it (and if you did you'd have to sign in to a 3rd party site -- it's all pretty obvious) Mozilla has a deal with GA that restricts the data collected. https://github.com/mozilla/addons-frontend/issues/2785#issuecomment-314769510 https://github.com/mozilla/addons-frontend/issues/2785#issue... The data collected is IIRC only aggregate numbers. Neither of these are "copying Chrome", they're just "things you don't like" > rapid releases The web is evolving pretty fast too. This has become necessary over time. > toggle-able options no idea what you mean here
      - CaptSpify 9y ago
        Just because they are making one change that isn't exactly like Chrome doesn't mean that they aren't generally copying Chrome . That very much looks like the general design philosophy that they are borrowing from Chrome. I know you had to "turn on" pocket. That doesn't counter my argument. I also don't care what agreement FF with Chrome. It's still shitty to do, especially if your selling point is privacy. Having a special agreement doesn't make doing shady things with your user's data OK. But I don't see how they aren't "copying Chrome". One of them is using another product that is made by the same creator as Chrome, the other copying the "here's a feature that nobody wants that sends your data elsewhere" which, AFAIK, they didn't do before Chrome started doing it. I strongly disagree that rapid releases are necessary. What issue came up that needed to be implemented within one FF release cycle? toggle-able options were way back when FF used to have different settings in the options page where you could make changes to the UI, functionality, etc. Almost all of those are gone now for a "simplified" set of options.
the8472 9y ago
> > by changing the extensions API to make it less powerful > This is not about copying Chrome. This is about moving off of an API which was effectively "our entire codebase is your public API, here, have fun" But at the same time it also breaks access to non-mozilla things, i.e. external libraries and the operating system (e.v. via js-ctypes). Which means it becomes more difficult to interact with native, which turns the browser more into a non-interoperating silo. It also prevents valid use-cases such as modifying the UI, download management, implementing novel network protocols (think ipfs) and integrating it with the internal network request APIs. While the arguments for webextensions are clear to me the no-compromise approach is not. There are no escape hatches that are conceptually comparable to sudo, rust's unsafe blocks, phone unlocking or whatever. Mozilla was fairly loudly warned by developers that this will hurt specific addons and exclude entire categories of addon features and they went ahead anyway. In other words they did choose to make their addon system less useful. I don't think this can be argued away.
- Manishearth 9y ago
  > I don't think this can be argued away. I'm not arguing that away. I'm saying that it doesn't imply firefox is copying Chrome. There are tradeoffs here. The team weighed them and made a decision. It was not about copying Chrome. > It also prevents valid use-cases such as modifying the UI, download management, implementing novel network protocols (think ipfs) and integrating it with the internal network request APIs. Not necessarily, webextension APIs that provide better scoped hooks to this can be added. Except perhaps the novel network protocols one. But it depends.
  - the8472 9y ago
    > Not necessarily, webextension APIs that provide better scoped hooks to this can be added. That mere possibility does not alter the fact that upon release of FF57 a long-tail set of features will unavailable at that given point, in other words there will be a decline and mozilla might work over time to win back some fraction of that decline. The net effect compared to today is still a decline in features, which is what will be perceived. Without escape hatches this system will always be inferior in its versatility. Which is why most runtimes do have escape hatches, they admit that any provided APIs will never be sufficient for all valid uses.

CaptSpify 9y ago

Then what is the real story? I have the same impression as OP: FF seems to spend most of it's time playing "me too" with Chrome, while blatantly ignoring what the users are requesting. It's frustrating because I really want FF to succeed, but they keep shooting themselves in the foot. If they aren't following with Chrome, they why do so many of their decisions end up mirroring Chrome after Chrome has made their decision?

Manishearth 9y ago
Which decisions? The only one I can think of is Web Extensions, and like I said, the reason behind that is not to copy Chrome, but because the old system was _terrible_ and hindered progress, and since they needed something new anyway, basing it off of Chrome was a way to get a large set of new addons working on it off the bat.
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  In addition to web-extensions (which could have been handled waaaaay better IMO if that was their goal): The general UI and their overall design philosophy shelling out data to places that I don't approve of (pocket/ga) rapid releases toggle-able options
  - Manishearth 9y ago
    > The general UI and their overall design philosophy https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14805761 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14805761 > shelling out data to places that I don't approve of (pocket/ga) Pocket was not shelling out data, Pocket was an addition of an add on by default, one which did nothing unless you tried to use it (and if you did you'd have to sign in to a 3rd party site -- it's all pretty obvious) Mozilla has a deal with GA that restricts the data collected. https://github.com/mozilla/addons-frontend/issues/2785#issuecomment-314769510 https://github.com/mozilla/addons-frontend/issues/2785#issue... The data collected is IIRC only aggregate numbers. Neither of these are "copying Chrome", they're just "things you don't like" > rapid releases The web is evolving pretty fast too. This has become necessary over time. > toggle-able options no idea what you mean here
    - CaptSpify 9y ago
      Just because they are making one change that isn't exactly like Chrome doesn't mean that they aren't generally copying Chrome . That very much looks like the general design philosophy that they are borrowing from Chrome. I know you had to "turn on" pocket. That doesn't counter my argument. I also don't care what agreement FF with Chrome. It's still shitty to do, especially if your selling point is privacy. Having a special agreement doesn't make doing shady things with your user's data OK. But I don't see how they aren't "copying Chrome". One of them is using another product that is made by the same creator as Chrome, the other copying the "here's a feature that nobody wants that sends your data elsewhere" which, AFAIK, they didn't do before Chrome started doing it. I strongly disagree that rapid releases are necessary. What issue came up that needed to be implemented within one FF release cycle? toggle-able options were way back when FF used to have different settings in the options page where you could make changes to the UI, functionality, etc. Almost all of those are gone now for a "simplified" set of options.

the8472 9y ago

> > by changing the extensions API to make it less powerful > This is not about copying Chrome. This is about moving off of an API which was effectively "our entire codebase is your public API, here, have fun" But at the same time it also breaks access to non-mozilla things, i.e. external libraries and the operating system (e.v. via js-ctypes). Which means it becomes more difficult to interact with native, which turns the browser more into a non-interoperating silo. It also prevents valid use-cases such as modifying the UI, download management, implementing novel network protocols (think ipfs) and integrating it with the internal network request APIs. While the arguments for webextensions are clear to me the no-compromise approach is not. There are no escape hatches that are conceptually comparable to sudo, rust's unsafe blocks, phone unlocking or whatever. Mozilla was fairly loudly warned by developers that this will hurt specific addons and exclude entire categories of addon features and they went ahead anyway. In other words they did choose to make their addon system less useful. I don't think this can be argued away.

Manishearth 9y ago
> I don't think this can be argued away. I'm not arguing that away. I'm saying that it doesn't imply firefox is copying Chrome. There are tradeoffs here. The team weighed them and made a decision. It was not about copying Chrome. > It also prevents valid use-cases such as modifying the UI, download management, implementing novel network protocols (think ipfs) and integrating it with the internal network request APIs. Not necessarily, webextension APIs that provide better scoped hooks to this can be added. Except perhaps the novel network protocols one. But it depends.
- the8472 9y ago
  > Not necessarily, webextension APIs that provide better scoped hooks to this can be added. That mere possibility does not alter the fact that upon release of FF57 a long-tail set of features will unavailable at that given point, in other words there will be a decline and mozilla might work over time to win back some fraction of that decline. The net effect compared to today is still a decline in features, which is what will be perceived. Without escape hatches this system will always be inferior in its versatility. Which is why most runtimes do have escape hatches, they admit that any provided APIs will never be sufficient for all valid uses.