7 ms·

Legacy extensions disabled by default on Firefox Nightly 57 starting August 11

57 points by ronjouch 9y ago

tradesmanhelix 9y ago
Really hoping that Mozilla reconsiders: https://www.change.org/p/mozilla-save-mozilla-firefox-s-best-feature https://www.change.org/p/mozilla-save-mozilla-firefox-s-best.... The full-stop disabling of legacy extensions will absolutely wreck my current workflow (Tab Groups, Vertical Tabs, Tile Tabs, etc.), to the point where I may need to explore alternatives. I don't like that thought, but I also don't see Mozilla giving power users like me much choice.
- moosingin3space 9y ago
  They won't. This is a necessary move in the Quantum push. Can't expose the browser's internal API (like XUL extensions) and put it through a big refactor.
- DKnoll 9y ago
  Use Firefox ESR. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/
  - tradesmanhelix 9y ago
    I do, but what to do when ESR hits version 57?
    - moosingin3space 9y ago
      You can start now by filing issues with your favorite extensions, trying to see if WebExtensions is on their radar. If so, they'll lobby Mozilla's WebExtensions group to get the missing features implemented.
- Jaepa 9y ago
  Tab groups is possible with the WebEx system, Vertical Tabs might work, but yeah Tile Tabs is probably out. I'm kind of in the same boat as you. Vimperator is how is how I use my browser. Vimperator is pretty amazing in terms of functionality, but is also a good illustration why the WebEx migration is needed. Vimperator can reload every tab every 10 seconds, create a temp buffer and open it in vim for textareas, control other extensions, modify headers or content of the HTML, control the chrome, and so on. From a developer or security standpoint having a plugin that can do this is insane. That being said, I don't know what I'm going to do when the legacy stuff is fully deprecated. The plugins I use have become so involved in my workflow that I can't really picture Foxfire without them.
  - andrepd 9y ago
    Then disable it by default. Don't show non-WebEx addons in the mozilla website. If a user tries to enable it, put up a big red warning sign saying how dangerous it is and a checkbox saying "I understand". But in the end, let the users do what they want. This way 99% of the users will never use unsafe addons, the 99% who won't even miss them. But power user who understand and want to, let them ultimately have the freedom to do "stupid" things (what you consider as stupid).
    - Animats 9y ago
      The underlying XUL machinery that XUL-type add-ons access is going away. It's never been there in mobile Firefox. That's why they have to go. Whether Firefox add-ons should be restricted to what Google Chrome supports is another issue.
      - yoasif_ 9y ago
        > Whether Firefox add-ons should be restricted to what Google Chrome supports is another issue. It's not, though. See: https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/support-ublock-origin/6746/451 https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/support-ublock-origin/6746/4...
    - kuschku 9y ago
- bbatha 9y ago
  There's a replacement tab groups addon already: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tab-groups https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tab-groups Its not quiet as powerful, but provides the basics. There are other replacements for common tab management addons too: - Tree Tabs: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-tabs/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-tabs/ - Tab Center Redux: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/tab-center-redux https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/tab-center-re... The most significant missing feature is the ability to hide the native, horizontal tab strip. That's being tracked in https://bugzil.la/1332447 https://bugzil.la/1332447.
  - callahad 9y ago
    You seem to have copied much of my earlier comment verbatim from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14983976 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14983976 Also, the Tab Groups add-on you've linked still uses legacy APIs, and will not work as-is in Firefox 57, though we're actively trying to design an API that will allow it to work in 57 and beyond.
- floatingatoll 9y ago
  Reconsidering will not happen. You have a variety of options, as a power user of indeterminate nature: 0) Accept the loss, grieve, then move on to 57+. 1) Use ESR until 57+ becomes ESR someday. 2) Fork Firefox, rebasing your patch onto upstream. 3) Write a WebExtension, requesting APIs if necessary. 4) Stop updating Firefox, surf the web unsafely. As a power user, each of these is within your theoretical capabilities. I cannot predict which is the appropriate tradeoff, though.
- yborg 9y ago
  Seconding Tile Tabs, would be a major advantage of FF if they made it a first-class native feature, and would be far more used than 'WebVR' will ever be. The WebExtension 'version' is really a tiling window manager within the browser and not the same animal at all.
berberous 9y ago
Can someone please post any information on what this means for TreeStyleTabs? Will it stop working? Have they managed to work with Mozilla to build enough hooks to keep it working with the new restrictions? Thanks.
- callahad 9y ago
  It will stop working in Firefox Nightly tomorrow. It will continue working in normal Firefox until November, and in Firefox ESR until June next year. Tree Style Tabs itself will need to be redeveloped, but the necessary APIs are more or less available, and there are already similar add-ons that work in Firefox 57: - Tree Tabs: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-tabs/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-tabs/ - Tab Center Redux: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/tab-center-redux/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/tab-center-re... The most significant missing feature is the ability to hide the native, horizontal tab strip. That's being tracked in https://bugzil.la/1332447 https://bugzil.la/1332447.
  - idle_zealot 9y ago
    You can block it by changing userChrome.css
- moosingin3space 9y ago
  https://github.com/piroor/treestyletab/issues/1224 https://github.com/piroor/treestyletab/issues/1224 At the beginning of this thread, the main dev states interest in migrating to WebExtensions, then cites all the bugs that prevent that. Towards the end of the thread, an extension dev (`nt1m`) states that the APIs have been approved, and simply need implementation in Firefox. There's definitely a chance they won't make it into 57, but the rapid-release cycle will help them land in a release not too long after 57. If TST is essential to your workflow, you may wish to consider using 52 ESR until these APIs are finished in mainline, or contribute implementations of the APIs (time permitting, of course).
  - Elhana 9y ago
antman 9y ago
Anyone know how Firefox upgrades can be disabled on an Ubuntu system?
- callahad 9y ago
  Please do not do that. Browsers have a massive attack surface, and you absolutely want to ensure that you're up to date with security patches. If you want to slow down the rate of UI / UX / product changes, consider trying Firefox ESR: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/
  - btrask 9y ago
    You can mitigate the security concerns through other sandboxing techniques (e.g. Qubes, VMs). It's not like up-to-date Firefox is really that secure either. Web developers stand the most to lose from people opting to run old browsers. Back in the IE6 days, it was justified, but by now, web APIs are already about as powerful as they're going to get, and we're reaching (or are long past) the point of decadence, churn, and bloat. If you want to run old Firefox, take reasonable precautions, and you'll be fine. Edit: down to -4. FWIW you can also securely run IE6 or literal malware.
pmoriarty 9y ago
Firefox permanently breaking Pentadactyl is one of its biggest disappointments. I really hope some other extension steps in to take its place, but from what I've read that's deliberately not possible anymore, as what Pentadactyl does is too powerful, and Firefox has deliberately chosen to reduce the power extensions have to overhaul how it works.
- brians 9y ago
  Perhaps that belongs not as an extension, but as a fork?
- mafuyu 9y ago
  I'd recommend Qutebrowser as a replacement: https://qutebrowser.org/ https://qutebrowser.org/ I switched over from Pentadactyl to Qutebrowser last year and it's way snappier. And with the experimental WebEngine backend, I haven't run into any rendering or performance issues at all. It also has a vertical tab mode, although it isn't possible to have sub-tabs like Tree Style Tabs.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - pvdebbe 9y ago
    I'm going with luakit or qutebrowser when I feel I can't continue using firefox 50 that I have on update freeze. Those projects are so promising and can't say I dislike the idea of having a hackable browser on my fingertips. I'm planning to keep Vivaldi as my secondary browser for multimedia and other similar needs.
- sametmax 9y ago
  I've been using Firefox for so long it was called phoenix at the time. I used a LOT of extensions, take part of the testing of unstable versions and test pilots and everything. I've never heard of Pentadactyl to this day. So my guess you are a small user base, and Mozilla can safely accept to loose you. You can't satisfy everybody. What everybody want's right now is a faster browser. That's the main requested feature. That what's everyone agree on. The new extension model is an important step to do that. There is no way around it. XUL extensions drag the browser down. So if in order to satisfy most user FF has to let you down, it makes sense. It's sad. I understand your frustration. But it's the logical choice.
retox 9y ago
I understand the reasoning behind the decision and Mozilla did the decent thing by announcing it early enough to give plenty of time for developers, I just hope this doesn't have too negative an impact on their user numbers. The browser situation at the moment is pretty dire.
- djsumdog 9y ago
  I'm excited about Firefox 57. I've been trying out Vivaldi this year. It's been faster, but there are many features I miss from Firefox. It looks like uBlock works with the new API, and there are Tree Style Tab replacements until TST gets the API changes it needs as well.
finnn 9y ago
I wonder if we'll see an increase in the number of out of date/vulnerable Firefox instances after a while
pasbesoin 9y ago
Fuck this. Sorry, but that about sums it up, for me. Firefox's extensions are a good part of what has kept the browser "the client", for me -- as in, software that works on the client's behalf as well as being the requesting functionality in the interaction. I have no interest in moving to a client who is, more or less, working for the other end. Already had that in the past with Microsoft, and seem to be experiencing it again, more and more, with Google. No thanks.
Animats 9y ago
I just finished porting an extension from the Jetpack API to the WebExtension API. It's not that bad. I only had to file two bug reports, and I only had to write one line of workaround code. This is far better than the first years of Jetpack. Jetpack didn't work right until about three years after release. AMO finally seems to be getting their act together. The big problems are with really old extensions that used the antiquated XUL format. That's been on the way out for six or seven years, and it never worked on Firefox Mobile ("Fennec"). It's not like this was a surprise.
- sametmax 9y ago
  Thank you. We hear a lot of complaining about people not having problems, but wanting to predict there will be. It's refreshing to have the perspective of somebody who actually had the problem. Also, the stance of the ublock origin maintainer on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14973424 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14973424 He clearly states why FF is NOT becoming a chrome clone as everyone says.
  - Animats 9y ago
    Here are the issues I ran into: - In Webextensions, retrieving something from local storage is an async operation. In Jetpack, it was a sync operation. This has the potential to create race conditions if you're updating a cache. It's OK in my application, because a double update is harmless. - Webextensions, by default, will run in incognito mode. That's because the "incognito" key in manifest.json doesn't support "not allowed" yet. ([1], table "Browser compatibility") That should have been both supported and the default, as it was in Jetpack, because it's a form of permission. Requires a one line workaround. - The use of "id" requires a better explanation. When upgrading, you have to use the same ID your previous non-Webextension used, even though that ID ends with "jetpack". The documentation doesn't indicate anything like that. But the AMO uploader detects this and gives a good error message. The new development and debugging environment on desktop is nice. The add-on worked the first time on Android, so I didn't have to use the more difficult environment for mobile debugging. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/manifest.json/incognito https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/ma...
avaer 9y ago
The internet could really use a non-profit lobbying for the _open_ web. We already have actors locking browsers down for (according to party line) the user's own good. Yet it seems Firefox is on the path to becoming Chrome, and not even extensions functionality will be a differentiation point. So what even is the "why" of Firefox?
- eridius 9y ago
  I don't understand your comment. Firefox is transitioning to an extensions model that is cross-browser and defined as a W3C draft. Their old extensions were Firefox-specific and could not be used by anyone else. This change seems very much in spirit with the open web.
  - avaer 9y ago
    It's not about Firefox-only vs standard, but about control. When your extension does not or cannot work anymore due to lockout by browser consortium agreement, the control isn't with the user or the developer -- it's with the browser vendor. It kind of defeats the essence of extensions in the first place, which started out as a technique to give users and developers power over their user agents, and that's being reversed. If what your user agent can do is dictated entirely by a consensus of a small number of browser vendors, the web becomes less open. Neither users nor developers wanted this.
    - eridius 9y ago
      > Neither users nor developers wanted this. That's a very broad statement to make, and I don't think you're in a position to say something like that. For any extension that can be written with WebEx, this move is unambiguously a good thing. The developer can now just write their extension once and deploy it to multiple browsers. And for their users this is also a good thing, not just because reducing maintenance burden on the developer is more likely to lead to faster development, but also because AIUI WebEx has a much better permissions model than the old extensions. The only real problem is the subset of extensions that cannot be rewritten with WebEx. Losing these extensions sucks, to be sure, but it's a tradeoff. You just can't claim that this move is strictly negative.
CaptSpify 9y ago
I understand why FF is moving this direction, and I actually think they should. But they should have a plan of action for people who want extensions's that flat-out won't work with the new system. By just telling people "lol no", they are really going to get some backlash, and Mozilla absolutely deserves it. It's frustrating to see the only browser that cares throwing their user's concerns to the wind like that.
- ohthehugemanate 9y ago
  That's what we've all been using for the last year. Legacy extensions were marked as "legacy," and no one cared. They're tagged as "deprecated", and "incompatible with Firefox <57", and still no one cares. Developers are only now switching because the deadline is fast approaching. That's just human nature, unfortunately. Though I kind of wish Mozilla had gone all the way to labeling them "for fucks sake stahp"
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    But from what I've read, that's not the case. There are some extensions that can't be upgraded, like vimperator. I'd love to be wrong on that though
- kuschku 9y ago
  They continue to work in Developer Mode, just FYI.
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    But isn't that going away eventually? > We will continue to honor this preference in Nightly builds and in unbranded builds, but when 57 (and later versions) go to beta and eventually to release, that preference will be ignored. Unless I'm mis-understanding that? Additionally, aren't they are removing access to a lot of the internals even for legacy addons as well?
    - yoasif_ 9y ago
akavel 9y ago
Is NoScript expected to be ported over to the WebExtension API? I know there were numerous bugzilla tickets tracking its feasibility, but not sure what's the final verdict and expectation?
- moosingin3space 9y ago
  Yes. There was a recent blog post about it: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/08/01/noscripts-migration-to-webextensions-apis/comment-page-1/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/08/01/noscripts-migrati...
  - akavel 9y ago
    Thanks!
hexmiles 9y ago
A bit OT: If i want to propose a webextension, what is the correct procedure, it seem i do have to open a bug in bugzilla, but in the documentation i did not find the instruction on how to open a feature request, only bugreport. I read this document: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/QA/Bug_writing_guidelines https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/QA/Bug_writ... Does anybody have some suggestion on how to open a feature request for a webextension, it is better to first hop on an irc channel and ask there?
- moosingin3space 9y ago
  In my experience, Mozilla IRC has always been quite friendly and helpful. I'd start with the #addons or #introduction channel.
- yoasif_ 9y ago
  If you simply want to request a WebExtensions API [1], please file a bug. These will be triaged and processed in a bi-weekly public meeting [2]. [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Toolkit&component=WebExtensions:%20Untriaged https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Toolkit&c... [2] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Contribute/Triage https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Contribute/Triage
jvzr 9y ago
FWIW I've switched back to Firefox from Opera/Chrome because of FF 57. The speed improvements made in 55 and 56 are simply mind-blowing, and I'm sure this will continue improving in the following versions as well. I'm running Nightly without any issue. And there's that feel-good vibe of supporting a positive actor of the internet, which is always a nice feeling :)
FrozenVoid 9y ago
This is going to hurt firefox badly. Many extensions authors don't maintain their extensions or find the migration to webextensions too hard(with lack of some equivalent apis). Firefox remaining userbase depends on these extensions. The questionable allocation of time and resources in recent years towards irrelevant (to wider userbase) side projects make it seem firefox will lose the "second place" in market share. With a marketshare below 3% sites will start ignoring it in favor of Chrome monoculture and subservience to Google.
- sametmax 9y ago
  > This is going to hurt firefox badly. Speculation. I have only one extension I miss from the transition (lazarus), and I use tons of them. Most extensions of crap. Most important ones will be ported. I only see people going crazy over it in the tech saavy-complaining-experts crowd like HN comments. > Firefox remaining userbase depends on these extensions. I install Firefox on 20 to 30 machines every years. Most people just want ad block. Sometime last pass. The rest a rounding errors. > With a marketshare below 3% sites will start ignoring it in favor of Chrome monoculture and subservience to Google. 3 %. LOL. You are one those dooms day persons right ?
  - FrozenVoid 9y ago
    http://gs.statcounter.com/ http://gs.statcounter.com/ Browser Market Share Worldwide Browsers Percentage Market Share July 2017 Chrome 54.27% Safari 14.17% UC Browser 8.59% Firefox 5.72% Opera 3.99% IE 3.73%
    - sametmax 9y ago
      Still 30% on my porn websites. Hum, who do i trust, some people making money with stats or my trafic composed of the less tech saavy user ever ?
      - Mathnerd314 9y ago
        Those could just be video-scraping bots with a Firefox UA
Moshe_Silnorin 9y ago
These are unsafe. Very sensible default.

57 points by ronjouch 9y ago

Really hoping that Mozilla reconsiders: https://www.change.org/p/mozilla-save-mozilla-firefox-s-best-feature https://www.change.org/p/mozilla-save-mozilla-firefox-s-best.... The full-stop disabling of legacy extensions will absolutely wreck my current workflow (Tab Groups, Vertical Tabs, Tile Tabs, etc.), to the point where I may need to explore alternatives. I don't like that thought, but I also don't see Mozilla giving power users like me much choice.

moosingin3space 9y ago
They won't. This is a necessary move in the Quantum push. Can't expose the browser's internal API (like XUL extensions) and put it through a big refactor.
DKnoll 9y ago
Use Firefox ESR. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/
- tradesmanhelix 9y ago
  I do, but what to do when ESR hits version 57?
  - moosingin3space 9y ago
    You can start now by filing issues with your favorite extensions, trying to see if WebExtensions is on their radar. If so, they'll lobby Mozilla's WebExtensions group to get the missing features implemented.
Jaepa 9y ago
Tab groups is possible with the WebEx system, Vertical Tabs might work, but yeah Tile Tabs is probably out. I'm kind of in the same boat as you. Vimperator is how is how I use my browser. Vimperator is pretty amazing in terms of functionality, but is also a good illustration why the WebEx migration is needed. Vimperator can reload every tab every 10 seconds, create a temp buffer and open it in vim for textareas, control other extensions, modify headers or content of the HTML, control the chrome, and so on. From a developer or security standpoint having a plugin that can do this is insane. That being said, I don't know what I'm going to do when the legacy stuff is fully deprecated. The plugins I use have become so involved in my workflow that I can't really picture Foxfire without them.
- andrepd 9y ago
  Then disable it by default. Don't show non-WebEx addons in the mozilla website. If a user tries to enable it, put up a big red warning sign saying how dangerous it is and a checkbox saying "I understand". But in the end, let the users do what they want. This way 99% of the users will never use unsafe addons, the 99% who won't even miss them. But power user who understand and want to, let them ultimately have the freedom to do "stupid" things (what you consider as stupid).
  - Animats 9y ago
    The underlying XUL machinery that XUL-type add-ons access is going away. It's never been there in mobile Firefox. That's why they have to go. Whether Firefox add-ons should be restricted to what Google Chrome supports is another issue.
    - yoasif_ 9y ago
      > Whether Firefox add-ons should be restricted to what Google Chrome supports is another issue. It's not, though. See: https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/support-ublock-origin/6746/451 https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/support-ublock-origin/6746/4...
  - kuschku 9y ago
bbatha 9y ago
There's a replacement tab groups addon already: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tab-groups https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tab-groups Its not quiet as powerful, but provides the basics. There are other replacements for common tab management addons too: - Tree Tabs: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-tabs/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-tabs/ - Tab Center Redux: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/tab-center-redux https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/tab-center-re... The most significant missing feature is the ability to hide the native, horizontal tab strip. That's being tracked in https://bugzil.la/1332447 https://bugzil.la/1332447.
- callahad 9y ago
  You seem to have copied much of my earlier comment verbatim from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14983976 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14983976 Also, the Tab Groups add-on you've linked still uses legacy APIs, and will not work as-is in Firefox 57, though we're actively trying to design an API that will allow it to work in 57 and beyond.
floatingatoll 9y ago
Reconsidering will not happen. You have a variety of options, as a power user of indeterminate nature: 0) Accept the loss, grieve, then move on to 57+. 1) Use ESR until 57+ becomes ESR someday. 2) Fork Firefox, rebasing your patch onto upstream. 3) Write a WebExtension, requesting APIs if necessary. 4) Stop updating Firefox, surf the web unsafely. As a power user, each of these is within your theoretical capabilities. I cannot predict which is the appropriate tradeoff, though.
yborg 9y ago
Seconding Tile Tabs, would be a major advantage of FF if they made it a first-class native feature, and would be far more used than 'WebVR' will ever be. The WebExtension 'version' is really a tiling window manager within the browser and not the same animal at all.

berberous 9y ago

Can someone please post any information on what this means for TreeStyleTabs? Will it stop working? Have they managed to work with Mozilla to build enough hooks to keep it working with the new restrictions? Thanks.

callahad 9y ago
It will stop working in Firefox Nightly tomorrow. It will continue working in normal Firefox until November, and in Firefox ESR until June next year. Tree Style Tabs itself will need to be redeveloped, but the necessary APIs are more or less available, and there are already similar add-ons that work in Firefox 57: - Tree Tabs: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-tabs/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-tabs/ - Tab Center Redux: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/tab-center-redux/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/tab-center-re... The most significant missing feature is the ability to hide the native, horizontal tab strip. That's being tracked in https://bugzil.la/1332447 https://bugzil.la/1332447.
- idle_zealot 9y ago
  You can block it by changing userChrome.css
moosingin3space 9y ago
https://github.com/piroor/treestyletab/issues/1224 https://github.com/piroor/treestyletab/issues/1224 At the beginning of this thread, the main dev states interest in migrating to WebExtensions, then cites all the bugs that prevent that. Towards the end of the thread, an extension dev (`nt1m`) states that the APIs have been approved, and simply need implementation in Firefox. There's definitely a chance they won't make it into 57, but the rapid-release cycle will help them land in a release not too long after 57. If TST is essential to your workflow, you may wish to consider using 52 ESR until these APIs are finished in mainline, or contribute implementations of the APIs (time permitting, of course).
- Elhana 9y ago

antman 9y ago

Anyone know how Firefox upgrades can be disabled on an Ubuntu system?

callahad 9y ago
Please do not do that. Browsers have a massive attack surface, and you absolutely want to ensure that you're up to date with security patches. If you want to slow down the rate of UI / UX / product changes, consider trying Firefox ESR: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/
- btrask 9y ago
  You can mitigate the security concerns through other sandboxing techniques (e.g. Qubes, VMs). It's not like up-to-date Firefox is really that secure either. Web developers stand the most to lose from people opting to run old browsers. Back in the IE6 days, it was justified, but by now, web APIs are already about as powerful as they're going to get, and we're reaching (or are long past) the point of decadence, churn, and bloat. If you want to run old Firefox, take reasonable precautions, and you'll be fine. Edit: down to -4. FWIW you can also securely run IE6 or literal malware.

pmoriarty 9y ago

Firefox permanently breaking Pentadactyl is one of its biggest disappointments. I really hope some other extension steps in to take its place, but from what I've read that's deliberately not possible anymore, as what Pentadactyl does is too powerful, and Firefox has deliberately chosen to reduce the power extensions have to overhaul how it works.

brians 9y ago
Perhaps that belongs not as an extension, but as a fork?
mafuyu 9y ago
I'd recommend Qutebrowser as a replacement: https://qutebrowser.org/ https://qutebrowser.org/ I switched over from Pentadactyl to Qutebrowser last year and it's way snappier. And with the experimental WebEngine backend, I haven't run into any rendering or performance issues at all. It also has a vertical tab mode, although it isn't possible to have sub-tabs like Tree Style Tabs.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- pvdebbe 9y ago
  I'm going with luakit or qutebrowser when I feel I can't continue using firefox 50 that I have on update freeze. Those projects are so promising and can't say I dislike the idea of having a hackable browser on my fingertips. I'm planning to keep Vivaldi as my secondary browser for multimedia and other similar needs.
sametmax 9y ago
I've been using Firefox for so long it was called phoenix at the time. I used a LOT of extensions, take part of the testing of unstable versions and test pilots and everything. I've never heard of Pentadactyl to this day. So my guess you are a small user base, and Mozilla can safely accept to loose you. You can't satisfy everybody. What everybody want's right now is a faster browser. That's the main requested feature. That what's everyone agree on. The new extension model is an important step to do that. There is no way around it. XUL extensions drag the browser down. So if in order to satisfy most user FF has to let you down, it makes sense. It's sad. I understand your frustration. But it's the logical choice.

retox 9y ago

I understand the reasoning behind the decision and Mozilla did the decent thing by announcing it early enough to give plenty of time for developers, I just hope this doesn't have too negative an impact on their user numbers. The browser situation at the moment is pretty dire.

djsumdog 9y ago
I'm excited about Firefox 57. I've been trying out Vivaldi this year. It's been faster, but there are many features I miss from Firefox. It looks like uBlock works with the new API, and there are Tree Style Tab replacements until TST gets the API changes it needs as well.

finnn 9y ago

I wonder if we'll see an increase in the number of out of date/vulnerable Firefox instances after a while

pasbesoin 9y ago

Fuck this. Sorry, but that about sums it up, for me. Firefox's extensions are a good part of what has kept the browser "the client", for me -- as in, software that works on the client's behalf as well as being the requesting functionality in the interaction. I have no interest in moving to a client who is, more or less, working for the other end. Already had that in the past with Microsoft, and seem to be experiencing it again, more and more, with Google. No thanks.

Animats 9y ago

I just finished porting an extension from the Jetpack API to the WebExtension API. It's not that bad. I only had to file two bug reports, and I only had to write one line of workaround code. This is far better than the first years of Jetpack. Jetpack didn't work right until about three years after release. AMO finally seems to be getting their act together. The big problems are with really old extensions that used the antiquated XUL format. That's been on the way out for six or seven years, and it never worked on Firefox Mobile ("Fennec"). It's not like this was a surprise.

sametmax 9y ago
Thank you. We hear a lot of complaining about people not having problems, but wanting to predict there will be. It's refreshing to have the perspective of somebody who actually had the problem. Also, the stance of the ublock origin maintainer on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14973424 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14973424 He clearly states why FF is NOT becoming a chrome clone as everyone says.
- Animats 9y ago
  Here are the issues I ran into: - In Webextensions, retrieving something from local storage is an async operation. In Jetpack, it was a sync operation. This has the potential to create race conditions if you're updating a cache. It's OK in my application, because a double update is harmless. - Webextensions, by default, will run in incognito mode. That's because the "incognito" key in manifest.json doesn't support "not allowed" yet. ([1], table "Browser compatibility") That should have been both supported and the default, as it was in Jetpack, because it's a form of permission. Requires a one line workaround. - The use of "id" requires a better explanation. When upgrading, you have to use the same ID your previous non-Webextension used, even though that ID ends with "jetpack". The documentation doesn't indicate anything like that. But the AMO uploader detects this and gives a good error message. The new development and debugging environment on desktop is nice. The add-on worked the first time on Android, so I didn't have to use the more difficult environment for mobile debugging. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/manifest.json/incognito https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/ma...

avaer 9y ago

The internet could really use a non-profit lobbying for the _open_ web. We already have actors locking browsers down for (according to party line) the user's own good. Yet it seems Firefox is on the path to becoming Chrome, and not even extensions functionality will be a differentiation point. So what even is the "why" of Firefox?

eridius 9y ago
I don't understand your comment. Firefox is transitioning to an extensions model that is cross-browser and defined as a W3C draft. Their old extensions were Firefox-specific and could not be used by anyone else. This change seems very much in spirit with the open web.
- avaer 9y ago
  It's not about Firefox-only vs standard, but about control. When your extension does not or cannot work anymore due to lockout by browser consortium agreement, the control isn't with the user or the developer -- it's with the browser vendor. It kind of defeats the essence of extensions in the first place, which started out as a technique to give users and developers power over their user agents, and that's being reversed. If what your user agent can do is dictated entirely by a consensus of a small number of browser vendors, the web becomes less open. Neither users nor developers wanted this.
  - eridius 9y ago
    > Neither users nor developers wanted this. That's a very broad statement to make, and I don't think you're in a position to say something like that. For any extension that can be written with WebEx, this move is unambiguously a good thing. The developer can now just write their extension once and deploy it to multiple browsers. And for their users this is also a good thing, not just because reducing maintenance burden on the developer is more likely to lead to faster development, but also because AIUI WebEx has a much better permissions model than the old extensions. The only real problem is the subset of extensions that cannot be rewritten with WebEx. Losing these extensions sucks, to be sure, but it's a tradeoff. You just can't claim that this move is strictly negative.

CaptSpify 9y ago

I understand why FF is moving this direction, and I actually think they should. But they should have a plan of action for people who want extensions's that flat-out won't work with the new system. By just telling people "lol no", they are really going to get some backlash, and Mozilla absolutely deserves it. It's frustrating to see the only browser that cares throwing their user's concerns to the wind like that.

ohthehugemanate 9y ago
That's what we've all been using for the last year. Legacy extensions were marked as "legacy," and no one cared. They're tagged as "deprecated", and "incompatible with Firefox <57", and still no one cares. Developers are only now switching because the deadline is fast approaching. That's just human nature, unfortunately. Though I kind of wish Mozilla had gone all the way to labeling them "for fucks sake stahp"
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  But from what I've read, that's not the case. There are some extensions that can't be upgraded, like vimperator. I'd love to be wrong on that though
kuschku 9y ago
They continue to work in Developer Mode, just FYI.
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  But isn't that going away eventually? > We will continue to honor this preference in Nightly builds and in unbranded builds, but when 57 (and later versions) go to beta and eventually to release, that preference will be ignored. Unless I'm mis-understanding that? Additionally, aren't they are removing access to a lot of the internals even for legacy addons as well?
  - yoasif_ 9y ago

akavel 9y ago

Is NoScript expected to be ported over to the WebExtension API? I know there were numerous bugzilla tickets tracking its feasibility, but not sure what's the final verdict and expectation?

moosingin3space 9y ago
Yes. There was a recent blog post about it: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/08/01/noscripts-migration-to-webextensions-apis/comment-page-1/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/08/01/noscripts-migrati...
- akavel 9y ago
  Thanks!

hexmiles 9y ago

A bit OT: If i want to propose a webextension, what is the correct procedure, it seem i do have to open a bug in bugzilla, but in the documentation i did not find the instruction on how to open a feature request, only bugreport. I read this document: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/QA/Bug_writing_guidelines https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/QA/Bug_writ... Does anybody have some suggestion on how to open a feature request for a webextension, it is better to first hop on an irc channel and ask there?

moosingin3space 9y ago
In my experience, Mozilla IRC has always been quite friendly and helpful. I'd start with the #addons or #introduction channel.
yoasif_ 9y ago
If you simply want to request a WebExtensions API [1], please file a bug. These will be triaged and processed in a bi-weekly public meeting [2]. [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Toolkit&component=WebExtensions:%20Untriaged https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Toolkit&c... [2] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Contribute/Triage https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Contribute/Triage

jvzr 9y ago

FWIW I've switched back to Firefox from Opera/Chrome because of FF 57. The speed improvements made in 55 and 56 are simply mind-blowing, and I'm sure this will continue improving in the following versions as well. I'm running Nightly without any issue. And there's that feel-good vibe of supporting a positive actor of the internet, which is always a nice feeling :)

FrozenVoid 9y ago

This is going to hurt firefox badly. Many extensions authors don't maintain their extensions or find the migration to webextensions too hard(with lack of some equivalent apis). Firefox remaining userbase depends on these extensions. The questionable allocation of time and resources in recent years towards irrelevant (to wider userbase) side projects make it seem firefox will lose the "second place" in market share. With a marketshare below 3% sites will start ignoring it in favor of Chrome monoculture and subservience to Google.

sametmax 9y ago
> This is going to hurt firefox badly. Speculation. I have only one extension I miss from the transition (lazarus), and I use tons of them. Most extensions of crap. Most important ones will be ported. I only see people going crazy over it in the tech saavy-complaining-experts crowd like HN comments. > Firefox remaining userbase depends on these extensions. I install Firefox on 20 to 30 machines every years. Most people just want ad block. Sometime last pass. The rest a rounding errors. > With a marketshare below 3% sites will start ignoring it in favor of Chrome monoculture and subservience to Google. 3 %. LOL. You are one those dooms day persons right ?
- FrozenVoid 9y ago
  http://gs.statcounter.com/ http://gs.statcounter.com/ Browser Market Share Worldwide Browsers Percentage Market Share July 2017 Chrome 54.27% Safari 14.17% UC Browser 8.59% Firefox 5.72% Opera 3.99% IE 3.73%
  - sametmax 9y ago
    Still 30% on my porn websites. Hum, who do i trust, some people making money with stats or my trafic composed of the less tech saavy user ever ?
    - Mathnerd314 9y ago
      Those could just be video-scraping bots with a Firefox UA

Moshe_Silnorin 9y ago

These are unsafe. Very sensible default.