Let Older Add-Ons Work With Firefox 3.0

mask.of.sanity informs us of a hack that allows old add-ons to work with Firefox 3.0. Short form: in about:config, create a new boolean and set extensions.checkCompatibility to false. "The fix, which requires a little boolean creativity, great for anyone not afraid of taking risks. The idea is to stop Firefox checking its version history, allowing defunct extensions to work... [Those who do] get the fix working will have to remove the code from the prefs.js file once the stable Firefox comes out, but will enjoy their [favorite extensions] in the meantime."

Comments

Do not do this

[amake]

Not only is this not news, but it's a bad idea. Straight from the horse's mouth:

You can not make your extensions compatible by changing a Firefox preference. So don't do it unless you're fully prepared to deal with major breakage!

Re:Do not do this

[Myen]

If I remember correctly, one of the top crashes for Firefox 3 betas was... people whole force-enabled Google Toolbar.

Yes, top crash.

This preference is generally not useful unless you know how to deal with the fallout (including figuring out what problems are due to extensions and which ones are not, and possibly fixing things locally).

Re:Do not do this

[GigaplexNZ]

Odd, IE Tab is working fine here on FF 3 RC 1 without any modifications. That said, I find a safer way to get your favourite extensions working is to edit the version number in install.rdf which is inside the .xpi file (xpi is just a renamed zip file). That way when the extension updates normally, the hack doesn't stick around ready to break something later.

Is this a good idea?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

If FF3 is being used before a v1 release, it ought to be used in order to find bugs so that the development team can fix them for the release version. By breaking a specific part of the product in order to install unsupported addons, users are adding unecessary unknowns to the equation and negating their contributions to the product test cycle.

I'd say hold off on FF3 until it is released if you can't live without your plugins.

Re:Is this a good idea?

[bloodninja]

I'd say hold off on FF3 until it is released if you can't live without your plugins. While I planned on waiting until Firefox 3 is released before switching, I found it preinstalled in Ubuntu 8.04. So I'm using it. I do think that Ubuntu made a bad decision by including a beta web browser, I understand why they did that. The problem is not that the Firefox betas and RCs are buggy. The problem is that misuse of the term beta has led people to expect no less from a beta than from a full release. Gmail has been in beta for years, and it is [arguably] the most complete, feature-rich webmail available. How long was ethereal beta? 10 years? It was pretty stable for at least the past five years, at least, no less than any other full release software. Beta has become a marketing term for "new".

Re:Is this a good idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the same vein, shouldn't extension developers follow the Fx beta stages so that users will actually switch to 3.0 once it is released, instead of having to wait for months until their plugins have left beta stage?

I use about 10 plugins since Fx 1.0, and have yet to encounter a single crash due to an extension (the only plugins that crash my browser are GCJ and Flash). Disabling compatibility checking has been a blessing for me, because it means I can use the latest version of Firefox and still use all extension that I don't want to browse without.

(Before I knew of this option, I used to manually edit the extensions manifest file to fake compatibility with newer versions)

A bit less strict disabling rules, please

[Rah'Dick]

I always wondered why some extensions got disabled from one minor bugfix release to the next. Has the underlying API been changed so much, that the extension really isn't going to work anymore or is the extension's author just being a bit restrictive with the "max. version allowed" setting?

Re:A bit less strict disabling rules, please

[maxume]

There is a goal inside of Mozilla not to break extension compatibility for minor releases, and the documentation on their website suggests using maxVersion of the form 2.0.0.* for Firefox 2:

http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Updating_extensions_for_Firefox_2#Step_1:_Update_the_install_manifest

For Firefox 3, they suggest moving to the form 3.0.*:

http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Updating_extensions_for_Firefox_3#Step_1:_Update_the_install_manifest

So no, devs aren't breaking any rules when they mark their extension as being forward compatible.

What is this?

[Zouden]

What is this, the 'tips n tricks' column of a newspaper's IT section?

The fix, which requires a little boolean creativity, great for anyone not afraid of taking risks.

Not afraid of taking risks? It's about:config, not instructions for making a Linux-powered flamethrower, which I think would be a much better article for Slashdot.

Re:What is this?

[JavaBasedOS]

I'd advise against the Linux-powered flamethrower, as I almost melted my face off trying to recompile its kernel.

Re:What is this?

[mk_is_here]

Ah yes, the Blue Flame of Death!

Nightly Tester Tools

[DemonThing]

This addon lets you selectively override addons' compatibility, among other things.

This extension adds a few extras useful to those that regularly test nightly builds of Firefox, Thunderbird, Sunbird and Toolkit Seamonkey (Suiterunner).

The following is a brief list of the extension's features, for the full set of features please visit the extension home page.

• Extension compatibility fixing
• Titlebar customisation
• Build ID retrieval
• Screenshots
• Breakpad information
• Restoring tabs from previous session
• Leak log analysis

Speaking of hacking Beta Software...

[hyperz69]

Here is another boolean hack but for Vista! Just set that boolean variable

CRASH = TRUE
and
EATALLMYDAMNRESOURCESWITHDRM = TRUE

to FALSE

I wonder if I can set OMGIGOTAGIRLFRIEND = TRUE... THE POSIBILITIES!