4 ms·

Why - they work fine, they dont change, they dont add a burden to the existing product? Taking something that works out of your product doesnt ever make people

by hobs 7y ago

Why - they work fine, they dont change, they dont add a burden to the existing product? Taking something that works out of your product doesnt ever make people happy, and its never "the perfect use case" to remove features that work. Its a "well that's ok that we wont take this on anymore and let those users manage their own problem" use case.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> they dont add a burden to the existing product? Of course scope creep adds a burden. It's one more thing Mozilla developers have to tend to.
orf 7y ago
> they dont add a burden to the existing product? I assume you work in tech, maybe even as a developer. So you know full well that every single unused line of code, let alone an entire feature, adds a maintenance, security, documentation and testing burden. > and its never "the perfect use case" to remove features that work. It absolutely is, if it makes those features better and gives them a focused place to develop outside of the core browser. If you're so upset about it literally go and press one big blue "Add to firefox" button and have all the previous features, and more, back in under 10 seconds.
- jolmg 7y ago
  Yet Pocket is a core part of Firefox instead of an extension.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    And many times have I thought that Pocket should also be in an extension and wondered why Mozilla is taking on the first party responsibility for it - maybe they get some partnership money?
    - mkl 7y ago
      Mozilla owns Pocket.
      - gregknicholson 7y ago
        And yet the server-side part is still closed-source. Mozilla's manifesto is just marketing now — it's obvious they don't really believe it any more.
  - orf 7y ago
    That's because Mozilla literally owns Pocket, and sure, it's also perfect for an extension. So you can see why they might be willing to take on that maintenance burden for an uptick in usage. And I'm not sure how that invalidates anything I said above, or really is of any relevance at all.
    - jolmg 7y ago
      The relevance is that you said > Nobody did use them though. They belong in an extension, it's the perfect use case. [...] every single unused line of code, let alone an entire feature, adds a maintenance, security, documentation and testing burden. And the same holds true for Pocket.
      - orf 7y ago
        It's not the same thing. At all. Pocket is used by people and is a feature Mozilla want to prominently integrate with Firefox. This is due to the financial gains they directly get when someone signs up for Pocket premium. It's not an unused, dusty feature that's adding a burden to the platform and is a net time + money sink. It's something that makes them money. As I said, in the comment you just replied to, even if nobody did use pocket then this would be a burden they are willing to take. So, comparing RSS feeds to pocket on the fact that it can be implemented as an extension alone is a nonsensical point.
        gregknicholson 7y ago
        Pocket directly competes against the open web (in the form of RSS/Atom). If Mozilla was a values-based organisation they would be promoting the open web at least as much as they promote their own proprietary system.
        ryacko 7y ago
        If Mozilla offered a browser that people could pay for without having default settings to maximize revenue, the open web could be maintained.
- benjaminjackman 7y ago
  I’m personally not upset just worried about the fact that security is now a huge risk because you’re having to trust an extension creator that has access to your entire browser history or worse and who is one auto-update from turning to spy or malware. You also have a discovery problem having to wade through multiple options increasing your surface area to malware exposure. IIRC this isn’t even theoretical it’s happened with ones that replaced user style sheets, another “unused” feature that was gradually deprecated. Maybe the best way forward is to take an apple iPhone approach and have official extensions, similar to the apps that come with the iPhone like the podcast one. Then when these features are removed they are instead moved to an official extension. Thereby mitigating the security risk and alleviating the discovery problems. The community can take over these extensions and you have a starting point to personally adapt and fork them that is a lot simpler and faster than trying to maintain a browser fork. Further the browser maker can more directly see usage of these feature replacing extensions And finally, when removing features ensure the extensions api has the power to support their replacement.

by hobs 7y ago

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> they dont add a burden to the existing product? Of course scope creep adds a burden. It's one more thing Mozilla developers have to tend to.

orf 7y ago

> they dont add a burden to the existing product? I assume you work in tech, maybe even as a developer. So you know full well that every single unused line of code, let alone an entire feature, adds a maintenance, security, documentation and testing burden. > and its never "the perfect use case" to remove features that work. It absolutely is, if it makes those features better and gives them a focused place to develop outside of the core browser. If you're so upset about it literally go and press one big blue "Add to firefox" button and have all the previous features, and more, back in under 10 seconds.

jolmg 7y ago
Yet Pocket is a core part of Firefox instead of an extension.
- munk-a 7y ago
  And many times have I thought that Pocket should also be in an extension and wondered why Mozilla is taking on the first party responsibility for it - maybe they get some partnership money?
  - mkl 7y ago
    Mozilla owns Pocket.
    - gregknicholson 7y ago
      And yet the server-side part is still closed-source. Mozilla's manifesto is just marketing now — it's obvious they don't really believe it any more.
- orf 7y ago
  That's because Mozilla literally owns Pocket, and sure, it's also perfect for an extension. So you can see why they might be willing to take on that maintenance burden for an uptick in usage. And I'm not sure how that invalidates anything I said above, or really is of any relevance at all.
  - jolmg 7y ago
    The relevance is that you said > Nobody did use them though. They belong in an extension, it's the perfect use case. [...] every single unused line of code, let alone an entire feature, adds a maintenance, security, documentation and testing burden. And the same holds true for Pocket.
    - orf 7y ago
      It's not the same thing. At all. Pocket is used by people and is a feature Mozilla want to prominently integrate with Firefox. This is due to the financial gains they directly get when someone signs up for Pocket premium. It's not an unused, dusty feature that's adding a burden to the platform and is a net time + money sink. It's something that makes them money. As I said, in the comment you just replied to, even if nobody did use pocket then this would be a burden they are willing to take. So, comparing RSS feeds to pocket on the fact that it can be implemented as an extension alone is a nonsensical point.
      - gregknicholson 7y ago
        Pocket directly competes against the open web (in the form of RSS/Atom). If Mozilla was a values-based organisation they would be promoting the open web at least as much as they promote their own proprietary system.
        ryacko 7y ago
        If Mozilla offered a browser that people could pay for without having default settings to maximize revenue, the open web could be maintained.
benjaminjackman 7y ago
I’m personally not upset just worried about the fact that security is now a huge risk because you’re having to trust an extension creator that has access to your entire browser history or worse and who is one auto-update from turning to spy or malware. You also have a discovery problem having to wade through multiple options increasing your surface area to malware exposure. IIRC this isn’t even theoretical it’s happened with ones that replaced user style sheets, another “unused” feature that was gradually deprecated. Maybe the best way forward is to take an apple iPhone approach and have official extensions, similar to the apps that come with the iPhone like the podcast one. Then when these features are removed they are instead moved to an official extension. Thereby mitigating the security risk and alleviating the discovery problems. The community can take over these extensions and you have a starting point to personally adapt and fork them that is a lot simpler and faster than trying to maintain a browser fork. Further the browser maker can more directly see usage of these feature replacing extensions And finally, when removing features ensure the extensions api has the power to support their replacement.