5 ms·

By Extension, Chrome Battles Firefox

27 points by fjabre 17y ago

ErrantX 17y ago
The only thing they haven't nailed is the Extensions site: which isn't wonderful to navigate quite yet.
- charlesmarshall 17y ago
  They haven't got extensions working on mac yet either.
  - pohl 17y ago
    I got SpeedTracer running yesterday. I imagine others could be run too. The trick, at the moment, is to be running a Chromium developer build - which, on the Mac, is much better than the current beta. http://pgt.de/2009/12/09/using-speed-tracer-on-a-mac/ http://pgt.de/2009/12/09/using-speed-tracer-on-a-mac/
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    They are, just disabled for the moment due to a security risk Try: http://asia.cnet.com/blogs/sinobytes/post.htm?id=63015336&scid=rvhm_ms&y=1 http://asia.cnet.com/blogs/sinobytes/post.htm?id=63015336&#3...
    - aboodman 17y ago
      Not due to a security risk, just a release management mistake. https://groups.google.com/group/chromium-extensions/msg/6247d2b4e89f2bc9 https://groups.google.com/group/chromium-extensions/msg/6247...
sid0 17y ago
I'm amazed there isn't a single mention of Jetpack in the article. Neither does it mention how ultimately gimped Chrome extensions are. UI modifications like vertical tabs, for instance, would be impossible in the Chrome model. Ultimately, I think a combined full-fledged extension mechanism + Jetpack is the best way. Provide the ease for those that can do with a limited API, and the power for those that need it.
- Daishiman 17y ago
  Yes. I've dabbled a bit with Jetpack and I think it has incredible potential. Mozilla's plan is for Jetpack to eventually replace the current extension mechanism once ir reaches full functionality.
willwagner 17y ago
Another big win for Chrome is that there is no approval process to get on their addon site as opposed to Mozilla. Mozilla can take weeks to months to get out of the sandbox (although to be fair, Mozilla is trying quickly to better the experience with a new self hosting option and making it somewhat easier for users to find sandboxed addons), and unless your addon gets some secondary approval, you need to go through the process again to push up updates.
zargon 17y ago
I wrote a Firefox extension that has (significantly) more than a million downloads. I turned over maintenance to another developer because the Firefox extension platform is so difficult to work with. If Google has really made extension development comparatively easier, it will be a great boon for Chrome. I have only glanced over the docs, but I suspect that the Chrome extension APIs don't have comparably extensive access to internal browser code as Firefox extensions do. For most extensions this won't matter, but for certain uses Firefox will probably stay ahead in this area, at least for a while.
- jfarmer 17y ago
  The first comment on this blog lays out some key differences: http://jonoscript.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/google-chrome-extensions/ http://jonoscript.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/google-chrome-ext...
- qeorge 17y ago
  XUL is a double-edged sword. It allows deep integration between extensions and the browser, but you pay for it in performance. Chrome has positioned itself towards performance at the cost of extensibility. Thus I expect it will be difficult for them to allow true extensions in the way Firefox does without giving up some of their trademark speed.
  - zargon 17y ago
    In addition to XUL, Firefox exposes many internal APIs to javascript extensions via XPCOM. These hooks allow for powerful modifications to browser behavior. So this also shows a trade-off with Google simplifying extension development at the cost of lowering the degree of customization that is possible.
chaosprophet 17y ago
I don't know how easy this would be in Chrome, but with Firefox + Jetpack, you get a full fledged Image Editor in 14 LOC. However, the extension review process is the real pull for me. I've waited between 2 weeks and 2 entire months for my Firefox extension to get accepted, so I'll take instantaneous anyday.
vegai 17y ago
Chrome's TOS states that Google retains the right to uninstall any extensions in the clients' computers.

27 points by fjabre 17y ago

ErrantX 17y ago

The only thing they haven't nailed is the Extensions site: which isn't wonderful to navigate quite yet.

charlesmarshall 17y ago
They haven't got extensions working on mac yet either.
- pohl 17y ago
  I got SpeedTracer running yesterday. I imagine others could be run too. The trick, at the moment, is to be running a Chromium developer build - which, on the Mac, is much better than the current beta. http://pgt.de/2009/12/09/using-speed-tracer-on-a-mac/ http://pgt.de/2009/12/09/using-speed-tracer-on-a-mac/
- ErrantX 17y ago
  They are, just disabled for the moment due to a security risk Try: http://asia.cnet.com/blogs/sinobytes/post.htm?id=63015336&scid=rvhm_ms&y=1 http://asia.cnet.com/blogs/sinobytes/post.htm?id=63015336&#3...
  - aboodman 17y ago
    Not due to a security risk, just a release management mistake. https://groups.google.com/group/chromium-extensions/msg/6247d2b4e89f2bc9 https://groups.google.com/group/chromium-extensions/msg/6247...

sid0 17y ago

I'm amazed there isn't a single mention of Jetpack in the article. Neither does it mention how ultimately gimped Chrome extensions are. UI modifications like vertical tabs, for instance, would be impossible in the Chrome model. Ultimately, I think a combined full-fledged extension mechanism + Jetpack is the best way. Provide the ease for those that can do with a limited API, and the power for those that need it.

Daishiman 17y ago
Yes. I've dabbled a bit with Jetpack and I think it has incredible potential. Mozilla's plan is for Jetpack to eventually replace the current extension mechanism once ir reaches full functionality.

willwagner 17y ago

Another big win for Chrome is that there is no approval process to get on their addon site as opposed to Mozilla. Mozilla can take weeks to months to get out of the sandbox (although to be fair, Mozilla is trying quickly to better the experience with a new self hosting option and making it somewhat easier for users to find sandboxed addons), and unless your addon gets some secondary approval, you need to go through the process again to push up updates.

zargon 17y ago

I wrote a Firefox extension that has (significantly) more than a million downloads. I turned over maintenance to another developer because the Firefox extension platform is so difficult to work with. If Google has really made extension development comparatively easier, it will be a great boon for Chrome. I have only glanced over the docs, but I suspect that the Chrome extension APIs don't have comparably extensive access to internal browser code as Firefox extensions do. For most extensions this won't matter, but for certain uses Firefox will probably stay ahead in this area, at least for a while.

jfarmer 17y ago
The first comment on this blog lays out some key differences: http://jonoscript.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/google-chrome-extensions/ http://jonoscript.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/google-chrome-ext...
qeorge 17y ago
XUL is a double-edged sword. It allows deep integration between extensions and the browser, but you pay for it in performance. Chrome has positioned itself towards performance at the cost of extensibility. Thus I expect it will be difficult for them to allow true extensions in the way Firefox does without giving up some of their trademark speed.
- zargon 17y ago
  In addition to XUL, Firefox exposes many internal APIs to javascript extensions via XPCOM. These hooks allow for powerful modifications to browser behavior. So this also shows a trade-off with Google simplifying extension development at the cost of lowering the degree of customization that is possible.

chaosprophet 17y ago

I don't know how easy this would be in Chrome, but with Firefox + Jetpack, you get a full fledged Image Editor in 14 LOC. However, the extension review process is the real pull for me. I've waited between 2 weeks and 2 entire months for my Firefox extension to get accepted, so I'll take instantaneous anyday.

vegai 17y ago

Chrome's TOS states that Google retains the right to uninstall any extensions in the clients' computers.