4 ms·

WebExtensions is the lowest common denominator. Yes, it's a good purpose to have a standard base. It's bad, though, that nothing besides the blessed parts are

WebExtensions is the lowest common denominator. Yes, it's a good purpose to have a standard base. It's bad, though, that nothing besides the blessed parts are officially customizable anymore. Previously, extensions had messed up with anything they wanted (they could override most of the browser's core). That had allowed third parties to do incredible things that weren't ever considered by the browser developers. With WEs, though, the only things that browser developers had specifically thought about are possible. All for user's convenience, so they can switch to Chrome, Edge or Opera.

cookiecaper 9y ago
It's the same thing as plugins, unsigned drivers, etc. etc. If the platform gives unfettered control, that is nice in that it gives power users flexibility, but it comes at the cost of seriously jeopardizing the experience of non-power-users who don't understand the intricacies of the software. They expect the platform to protect them by default. This applies to the whole package -- security, performance, and overall experience. Vendors have learned that if they fail to provide this protection, the average user will blame them directly, not the extension that makes memory usage bloat 6x. The solution is to enforce stringent controls, including limiting modifiable parts of the experience to some well-defined areas.
JBiserkov 9y ago
>All for user's convenience, so they can switch to Chrome, Edge or Opera. Nah, it's the other way(s) around - it's for [longterm] developer convenience; so users don't have to switch to another browser because an add-on they need isn't available in FF.
- drdaeman 9y ago
  This too, but to the lesser extent. That's because Firefox had much more powerful extension system than other browsers.
- 51Cards 9y ago
  Unfortunately I don't think so. The only draw keeping FF alive for years has been its extension system. They gave up the unique UI flexibility, now they are giving up the flexible extensions. When Google makes it so easy to find and install Chrome everywhere, and sync it with your mobile device, now that the extensions world will be on "par" FF is even less distinct than it was and thus less reason to use it. This is the beginning of Firefox's final dive. In a few more releases I really won't have any concrete reason to recommend FF over Chrome anymore (and no, 99% of users outside of this forum don't care about memory usage and keeping 100 tabs open at the same time)

cookiecaper 9y ago

It's the same thing as plugins, unsigned drivers, etc. etc. If the platform gives unfettered control, that is nice in that it gives power users flexibility, but it comes at the cost of seriously jeopardizing the experience of non-power-users who don't understand the intricacies of the software. They expect the platform to protect them by default. This applies to the whole package -- security, performance, and overall experience. Vendors have learned that if they fail to provide this protection, the average user will blame them directly, not the extension that makes memory usage bloat 6x. The solution is to enforce stringent controls, including limiting modifiable parts of the experience to some well-defined areas.

JBiserkov 9y ago

>All for user's convenience, so they can switch to Chrome, Edge or Opera. Nah, it's the other way(s) around - it's for [longterm] developer convenience; so users don't have to switch to another browser because an add-on they need isn't available in FF.

drdaeman 9y ago
This too, but to the lesser extent. That's because Firefox had much more powerful extension system than other browsers.
51Cards 9y ago
Unfortunately I don't think so. The only draw keeping FF alive for years has been its extension system. They gave up the unique UI flexibility, now they are giving up the flexible extensions. When Google makes it so easy to find and install Chrome everywhere, and sync it with your mobile device, now that the extensions world will be on "par" FF is even less distinct than it was and thus less reason to use it. This is the beginning of Firefox's final dive. In a few more releases I really won't have any concrete reason to recommend FF over Chrome anymore (and no, 99% of users outside of this forum don't care about memory usage and keeping 100 tabs open at the same time)