4 ms·

So basically he recreated something that already existed because Firefox broke their userspace and he was forced to. The fact that Mozilla advertises this as pr

So basically he recreated something that already existed because Firefox broke their userspace and he was forced to. The fact that Mozilla advertises this as progress is just weird. Perhaps I'm just grumpy that I upgraded Firefox and my favorite extensions broke. There was no warning, they just broke because Firefox broke their API. And I mean I get it, I actually wrote a rather complicated plugin for Firefox using WebCrypto. https://github.com/smutt/HOBA https://github.com/smutt/HOBA But that doesn't mean I'm not peeved that after a seemingly innocuous upgrade most of my installed plugins broke.

damnyou 9y ago
Firefox's userspace is webpages, not extensions. Extensions before 57 are like out-of-tree kernel modules. Extensions after 57 are a lot more like userspace, though!
- AndyMcConachie 9y ago
  I understand what you're saying. It's not fair to compare Firefox's API to UNIX userspace. Fair point. But that doesn't really change my argument.
  - setr 9y ago
    I think the key part was >Extensions before 57 are like out-of-tree kernel modules Its not that you shouldn't compare firefox api to unix userspace, but that firefox's api equivalent in unix is not userspace, but out of tree extensions. In which case firefox isn't at fault for breaking api promises it never made; extension authors are at fault for not keeping pace And firefox never promised you, the user, that the extensions would work in all versions of firefox; rather the extension author (may have) promised that, when they shouldn't have (because they weren't in a position to uphold it). If the firefox api isnt the equivalent of unix environment, then firefox isn't wrong to break extensions. Its just part of the natural lifecycle of the application, unless firefox changes that stance, and does make extensions part of their promise.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Sylos 9y ago
Where are they advertising anything as progress in this interview? They're just trying to share experiences people had with WebExtensions, so others know what to expect and for Mozilla devs to know where things can still be improved.
rhabarba 9y ago
> There was no warning There was, Chromefox had displayed them as "legacy" for a couple of months.
- PurpleRamen 9y ago
  Only on nightly. In the production-version they activated it in v56, the version before the break. And as I remember there were no real information for the casual user what it means, or what they should do. Not even a choice when autoupdate hit.
  - rhabarba 9y ago
    Ah, sorry - I usually use the beta versions, they seem to have had it earlier then.

damnyou 9y ago

Firefox's userspace is webpages, not extensions. Extensions before 57 are like out-of-tree kernel modules. Extensions after 57 are a lot more like userspace, though!

AndyMcConachie 9y ago
I understand what you're saying. It's not fair to compare Firefox's API to UNIX userspace. Fair point. But that doesn't really change my argument.
- setr 9y ago
  I think the key part was >Extensions before 57 are like out-of-tree kernel modules Its not that you shouldn't compare firefox api to unix userspace, but that firefox's api equivalent in unix is not userspace, but out of tree extensions. In which case firefox isn't at fault for breaking api promises it never made; extension authors are at fault for not keeping pace And firefox never promised you, the user, that the extensions would work in all versions of firefox; rather the extension author (may have) promised that, when they shouldn't have (because they weren't in a position to uphold it). If the firefox api isnt the equivalent of unix environment, then firefox isn't wrong to break extensions. Its just part of the natural lifecycle of the application, unless firefox changes that stance, and does make extensions part of their promise.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Sylos 9y ago

Where are they advertising anything as progress in this interview? They're just trying to share experiences people had with WebExtensions, so others know what to expect and for Mozilla devs to know where things can still be improved.

rhabarba 9y ago

> There was no warning There was, Chromefox had displayed them as "legacy" for a couple of months.

PurpleRamen 9y ago
Only on nightly. In the production-version they activated it in v56, the version before the break. And as I remember there were no real information for the casual user what it means, or what they should do. Not even a choice when autoupdate hit.
- rhabarba 9y ago
  Ah, sorry - I usually use the beta versions, they seem to have had it earlier then.