3 ms·

Can anyone from/formerly of Mozilla explain why XUL had to die? When I was a kid it seemed utterly fascinating, I wonder now if we'd ever needed Electron if the

by imbnwa 6y ago

Can anyone from/formerly of Mozilla explain why XUL had to die? When I was a kid it seemed utterly fascinating, I wonder now if we'd ever needed Electron if there was a modern XULRunner

IainIreland 6y ago
I believe this is the best account: https://yoric.github.io/post/why-did-mozilla-remove-xul-addons/ https://yoric.github.io/post/why-did-mozilla-remove-xul-addo...
- imbnwa 6y ago
  Thank you
kubanczyk 6y ago
> Waterfox Classic is continuing to support the long-standing XUL and XPCOM add-on capability that Firefox removed in version 57. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfox
- dblohm7 6y ago
  How well do they support it? Do they fix security bugs in the parts that are now effectively abandoned by upstream?
  - kubanczyk 6y ago
    I see they port fixes from Firefox, but I doubt they patch the abandoned parts.