3 ms·
With all due respect, less than 0.1% of browser users likely feel that way. Don't mean to discredit or invalidate your feelings, I just feel the need to discla
by jszymborski 8y ago
With all due respect, less than 0.1% of browser users likely feel that way.
Don't mean to discredit or invalidate your feelings, I just feel the need to disclaim that it's impossible to meet people's need with that granularity.
The alternative is that they keep XUL, make 0.1% of the install base happy, and ditch the performance increases that Quantum/WebExtension have given us... at which point there wouldn't be a NYT article and we'd all just be stuck in a browser monoculture.
- greglindahl 8y agoThe one thing I wanted from XUL was tree style tabs, and Firefox managed to add enough APIs to make tree style tabs work in the post-XUL era.
- PurpleRamen 8y agoWork is relative. It's so bugged in filled with failures, that it's not really the same.
- yjftsjthsd-h 8y agoLess than 0.1% of users used any one now-broken extension, or all XUL extensions collectively were <0.1% of the user base?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- msl 8y ago> The alternative is that they keep XUL I do not believe that was the only alternative. I have spent a lot of time reading bug reports / feature requests relating to this functionality, and it certainly seems that much of it could be enabled, but apparently never will. The developers seem to think that giving extensions "too much power" would be dangerous, and thus it is best not to let anybody choose power over safety guarantees. It seems a little too harsh to bring up Linus Torvald's "If you think your users are idiots, only idiots will use it" quote, but it tends to come to my mind whenever I read the abovementioned discussions.