2 ms·

What are Mozilla Corporation's and Mozilla Foundation's source of revenue these days? That would give me a better idea of who they are working for. Also, when

What are Mozilla Corporation's and Mozilla Foundation's source of revenue these days? That would give me a better idea of who they are working for. Also, when they start seriously blocking ads by default (with opt-out), e.g. by doing the equivalent of installing UBO and Privacy Badger; and when they start letting regular extensions run again (not WebExtensions) then we'll talk. BTW - In case you didn't know, regular extensions can still run just fine within FF. Internally, the UI and the glue code are simply regular extensions. It's basically the support-scaffolding for loading your extensions that's been removed. Or, in other words, they didn't even cripple their browser that much, they basically just decided to stop letting you use extensions.

sfink 4y ago
Um, no. "Regular" extensions used XUL. XUL is mostly gone. "Regular" extensions worked by directly modifying the code that controlled the browser and content, sometimes by decompiling existing functions and patching them with search & replace. Now the content is in its own process, the extension is in a sandbox, and the only code you can screw up with search & replace is your own extension's. The browser has been "crippled" into a much better architecture. But yes, there are some seemingly arbitrary restrictions on what APIs are exposed. Some are to save people from themselves, some aren't implemented because of the maintenance burden or resource cost, and some are a result of bad prioritization and/or lack of vision. Reasonable people disagree about what falls into which category.
- einpoklum 4y ago
  > Um, no. "Regular" extensions used XUL They can use HTML and Javascript, same as Firefox' internals; > XUL is mostly gone ... but the UI capabilities stay the same. It's just like that for extensions. > Now the content is in its own process, the extension is in a sandbox, and the only code you can screw up with search & replace is your own extension's. That approach is the whole problem: The view of extension code as somehow inferior to Firefox' own code. Those are both applications, not the code from some website run inadvertently when you visit a web page, but something you installed because you wanted to have run. > some aren't implemented Everything is implemented - inside FF. It's just arbitrarily being kept inaccessible to extensions. Note that, in Thunderbird, a small hole-in-the-wall has been implemeneted, for loading regular extensions, and they are able to run with full privileges and do the work they need to be doing.

sfink 4y ago

Um, no. "Regular" extensions used XUL. XUL is mostly gone. "Regular" extensions worked by directly modifying the code that controlled the browser and content, sometimes by decompiling existing functions and patching them with search & replace. Now the content is in its own process, the extension is in a sandbox, and the only code you can screw up with search & replace is your own extension's. The browser has been "crippled" into a much better architecture. But yes, there are some seemingly arbitrary restrictions on what APIs are exposed. Some are to save people from themselves, some aren't implemented because of the maintenance burden or resource cost, and some are a result of bad prioritization and/or lack of vision. Reasonable people disagree about what falls into which category.

einpoklum 4y ago
> Um, no. "Regular" extensions used XUL They can use HTML and Javascript, same as Firefox' internals; > XUL is mostly gone ... but the UI capabilities stay the same. It's just like that for extensions. > Now the content is in its own process, the extension is in a sandbox, and the only code you can screw up with search & replace is your own extension's. That approach is the whole problem: The view of extension code as somehow inferior to Firefox' own code. Those are both applications, not the code from some website run inadvertently when you visit a web page, but something you installed because you wanted to have run. > some aren't implemented Everything is implemented - inside FF. It's just arbitrarily being kept inaccessible to extensions. Note that, in Thunderbird, a small hole-in-the-wall has been implemeneted, for loading regular extensions, and they are able to run with full privileges and do the work they need to be doing.