5 ms·

Browser extensions are being underrated deliberately by browser developers. Ever since we lost XUL Firefox, anyone who wants to really do anything worth doing

by Endy 7y ago

Browser extensions are being underrated deliberately by browser developers. Ever since we lost XUL Firefox, anyone who wants to really do anything worth doing around a web browser should have already switched to Pale Moon. Doubly so with Google's Manifest v3, which is going to kill selective content download management.

eitland 7y ago
Even as much as I want my old Firefox extensions back I reaaly don't feel I can trust a small bunch of developers to keep something as complicated as the old Firefox patched in this day and age. Am I wrong?
- weaksauce 7y ago
  not even a little bit. the advances that were made in multi-process firefox and reducing memory usage and speeding up firefox are all on the backs of webextensions existing. it freed up the developers from having to worry that some internal api getting changed will break the extensions. it simply had to go.
  - pessimizer 7y ago
    Memory usage and speeding up firefox have nothing to do with keeping the browser patched. Plenty of people thought it was fast enough and fine with memory for their use case, but very few people will be fine with gaping security holes.
    - weaksauce 7y ago
      > Memory usage and speeding up firefox have nothing to do with keeping the browser patched yeah? they are tangential goals but that's the problem. in moving away from browser extensions to webextensions you have a completely diverging codebase that's almost impossible to keep patched because the architecture is fundamentally incompatible and the patches will not be able to be applied in all but the most trivial of cases.
      - Endy 7y ago
        You're pointing out one of the main complaints that's led to PM use. The codebase of electrolysis-Firefox & XUL-Firefox have diverged to that degree. And some of us have found that single-process function and customization features are what we want, not Chrome-lite. For my part, PM loads faster and works longer without crashing my PC than any of the multiprocess browsers.
- Endy 7y ago
  As far as my user experience is concerned, yes, you're wrong, and that's okay - you're working from opinion & I'm speaking from personal experience only. I've had no security breaches of my PC since I switched to Pale Moon. I've also had an overall better experience than with any multi-process software of any kind. I understand your concern, but all I can say is, try it out. Keep it sandboxed (as you should with all port-accessing software tbh) if you don't trust it. If you have cause for a genuine security complaint, then say so. But please do recognize the target audience for PM before asking about introducing the latest tech widget or WebDRM.
- sma222k0n 7y ago
  I'm afraid you're https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=22399 https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=22399 https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?t=22270&p=168663 https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?t=22270&p=168663
  - eitland 7y ago
    Sounds good! I'm all for more competition in the browser space and will consider using it for my personal laptop as a first step.

by Endy 7y ago

eitland 7y ago

Even as much as I want my old Firefox extensions back I reaaly don't feel I can trust a small bunch of developers to keep something as complicated as the old Firefox patched in this day and age. Am I wrong?

weaksauce 7y ago
not even a little bit. the advances that were made in multi-process firefox and reducing memory usage and speeding up firefox are all on the backs of webextensions existing. it freed up the developers from having to worry that some internal api getting changed will break the extensions. it simply had to go.
- pessimizer 7y ago
  Memory usage and speeding up firefox have nothing to do with keeping the browser patched. Plenty of people thought it was fast enough and fine with memory for their use case, but very few people will be fine with gaping security holes.
  - weaksauce 7y ago
    > Memory usage and speeding up firefox have nothing to do with keeping the browser patched yeah? they are tangential goals but that's the problem. in moving away from browser extensions to webextensions you have a completely diverging codebase that's almost impossible to keep patched because the architecture is fundamentally incompatible and the patches will not be able to be applied in all but the most trivial of cases.
    - Endy 7y ago
      You're pointing out one of the main complaints that's led to PM use. The codebase of electrolysis-Firefox & XUL-Firefox have diverged to that degree. And some of us have found that single-process function and customization features are what we want, not Chrome-lite. For my part, PM loads faster and works longer without crashing my PC than any of the multiprocess browsers.
Endy 7y ago
As far as my user experience is concerned, yes, you're wrong, and that's okay - you're working from opinion & I'm speaking from personal experience only. I've had no security breaches of my PC since I switched to Pale Moon. I've also had an overall better experience than with any multi-process software of any kind. I understand your concern, but all I can say is, try it out. Keep it sandboxed (as you should with all port-accessing software tbh) if you don't trust it. If you have cause for a genuine security complaint, then say so. But please do recognize the target audience for PM before asking about introducing the latest tech widget or WebDRM.
sma222k0n 7y ago
I'm afraid you're https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=22399 https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=22399 https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?t=22270&p=168663 https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?t=22270&p=168663
- eitland 7y ago
  Sounds good! I'm all for more competition in the browser space and will consider using it for my personal laptop as a first step.