Slashdot Mirror
Big Changes From Mozilla Mean Firefox Will Get Chrome Extensions
Mozilla announced yesterday a few high-level changes to the way Firefox and Firefox extensions will be developed; among them, the introduction of "a new extension API, called WebExtensions—largely compatible with the model used by Chrome and Opera—to make it easier to develop extensions across multiple browsers." (Liliputing has a nice breakdown of the changes.)
ZDNet reports that at the same time, "Mozilla will be deprecating XPCOM and XUL, the foundations of its extension system, and many Firefox developers are ticked off at these moves."
Looks like one of the early uses is to submit duplicate stories to popular sites again and again. It is deja vu all over again man...
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
.
Or are the Chrome extensions also buggy?
If Mozilla wants their browser share to increase, deprecate the god damned single-threaded engine!!!!
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
No longer being part of Dice means Slashdot will stop posting dupes!
Just kidding! That will never change!
For me there is only one important thing: Whether the browser allows developers to implement the most aggressive ad blockers possible. I want everything blocked, images removed, content rerendered, flash rewritten, etc. -- whatever it takes to remove ad, remove ad blocker warnings, skip screens, and so on. Everywhere.
So is the change good or bad? Does it allow ad blockers to be further improved or not? If yes, I'll continue using firefox. If no, I'll use another browser.
Actually the main reason I use Firefox (alongside Chrome) is that it has some extensions that Chrome does not, and AFAIK that is exactly due to the more permissive add-on API. Otherwise, on fast modern systems it is rather sluggish compared to Chrome, I don't see why I wouldn't use Chrome all the time. I get it that it would be safer and easier to use the Chrome model, but what would the selling point be then? Is "not made by Google" enough?
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Maybe it's just me, but every time I see the current Mozilla make a decision, I'm so grateful they immediately ousted Brendan Eich (with his "proven technical and leadership background" bullshit) and appointed the former head of marketing as CEO instead.
At this point why doesn't Mozilla just throw in the towel and slap the Firefox logo on a Chromium build? It would save them a lot of time and effort. That's basically what their strategy has been for the past several years: make Firefox a clone of Chrome.
The extension APIs aren't the problem, it's the constant churn that makes it a chore to maintain extensions.
Fuck Mozilla.
The extension ecosystem is the number one reason many people are still using Firefox. Amid all the "user experience" bullshit, the deprecated-then-removed features, and the asshats steering Mozilla, it was extensions that kept the browser usable.
And they're dumping them -- giving a giant "fuck you" to the thousands of developers who have kept their browser afloat. Some of the most popular extensions have been actively developed for the better part of a decade, such as NoScript (over 8 years) and Adblock Plus (over 9 years). And why? So we can have Chrome extensions which can't even do simple things like completely block Javascript or advertising. Gee, I wonder who likes that idea?
This was the last vestige of the Firefox that we knew and loved being ripped out and tossed aside. In 2-3 years Firefox will be nothing more than another shitty Chrome clone. I can only hope this absurd move leads to a serious fork of the browser that focuses on getting back to the original goals of Firefox.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
If you care about your privacy, with none of the call-home-to-google-with-the-safe-browsing-garbage and social-media-media-junk-features-in-a-browser in a 'better version of Firefox', you need to jump ship and start running Palemoon.
I know Mozilla likes to change things, for changes sake, with every release. But making changes to the same thing twice in one week, http://news.slashdot.org/story/15/08/21/1744239/firefox-will-run-chrome-extensions/, is a bit much, even for Mozilla.
All I want is my PimpZilla back. Damned FireFox hipster UX crackers broke PimpZilla years ago, and I haven't been able to stand FF since.
... who can comment on the relative quality of the two sets?
Are you talking about the two sets of browser extensions, or the two sets of comments that come from us having this dupe article?
Even if this is a dupe, it's still well worth discussing again and again.
Here we have Mozilla, which was once one of the most respected and trusted open source organizations, right up there with the FSF and the ASF, making yet another set of dumb moves. This isn't the first idiocy we've seen from them. It's just the latest in a long line of really obviously dumb moves.
Let's ignore the utter fuckup that's Firefox OS, the abandoning of Thunderbird, the pathetic ouster of Mr. Eich, the Rust debacle, and the other such failures. Let's focus solely on Firefox.
Just a few years ago, Firefox used to have over 30% of the browser market. Firefox was a major player, which made Mozilla a major player. These days, Firefox is likely under 10% of the market, and we keep seeing its use drop and drop. We see single versions of competing browsers, like IE 11 and iOS Safari 8.4, alone nearly exceeding the market share of all Firefox versions, on both desktops and mobile devices. Chrome for Android is well beyond Firefox's total market share. Soon enough, we may even see minor browsers like Opera Mini having a greater market share than all versions of Firefox, on all platforms.
This drop was not necessary. People liked what Firefox used to offer. That's why people switched to it in the first place! Yes, Chrome did provide some competition to Firefox. But instead of facing this competition head-on, all Mozilla did was trash Firefox, for some inexplicable reason. From the very beginning, people were saying that they liked Chrome because it was fast, even if they didn't like the privacy implications of using it, nor its user interface.
Yet instead of listening to what Firefox users said they liked about Chrome, and using feedback that to improve Firefox, Mozilla did the complete opposite. People liked the Firefox UI, yet Mozilla turned around and imitated Chrome, reaching an almost identical state with the release of Australis, despite the protests of so many Firefox users. People didn't like the privacy implications of using a browser provided by a major player in the ad industry, so what did Mozilla do? They stuck ads in recent versions of Firefox, along with forcing integration wtih some third-party services that most Firefox users have no intention of ever using! And when it comes to Firefox's performance, we've seen next to no positive progress. Electrolysis, for example, actually feels slower than single-threaded Firefox!
Mozilla has systematically driven away a big chunk of Firefox's existing users by doing all of these stupid, unwanted things. Maybe this strategy would work if these changes brought in new users, but the evidence is that they aren't doing that at all. In fact, they've driven away the very users who were instrumental in getting others to use Firefox in the first place!
While we do often see organizations falter against external obstacles, it's rare to see an organization like Mozilla which appears to be doing everything in its power to destroy itself! It isn't Chrome or IE or any other browser that's drawing users away from Firefox. The problem is that Mozilla is changing Firefox in every way possible that will maximize the number of users who move to an alternative browser. These changes appear to be just another set that will drive away users. These users aren't stupid. They know that if they use Firefox, they're going to get an inferior Chrome-like UI, but without the performance benefits of Chrome. So although they don't want to use Chrome, and they'd rather use Firefox (at least as it once was), they do the only rational thing and use Chrome. At least then they get a less-inferior Chrome experience, plus they get to use a fast and light browser, too.
I truly though that when Mozilla hit only 20% of the market, they'd realize that something was wrong, and start making the sorts of changes that Firefox users actually wanted. But we didn't see that happen, obviously! Now we're seeing Firefox most likely under 10% of the m
So they are going to make their add-ons compatible with Google's proprietary standard in order to make it easier to support add-ons across platforms.
Great!
But what happens when Google starts changing their proprietary standard - is Mozilla going to be forced to constantly play catch-up? Is frefox going to become a second-class Chrome emulator?
Seems like a bad idea to put your future in the hands of Google. Mozilla switched to Yahoo for the revenue from default searches in order to get out from under Google's thumb, but this will put them right back under that thumb. Or worse, just make them an after-thought since Google won't have any contractual obligation to even listen to what Mozilla wants now.
From TFA:
And yet, for the past 4 years or so, beginning with Firefox 4.0, they have been on a steady campaign to rip out all the customizability that made Firefox popular and desirable in the first place. One of the most common comments I see from people, over and over, is "If I want a browser that looks and works like Chrome, I'LL USE FUCKING CHROME."
Meanwhile, complaints from users are met with little more than a thinly veiled FUCK YOU from Firefox developers.
time to go back and fork this where we can , it sjust chrome with another name
This reminds me somewhat of the path Opera followed - gradually giving up fundamental parts of what made them unique, devolving until they became an insignificant entity.
Sure, just like with Opera I'll bet there will continue to be a tiny cadre of devoted Mozilla fanboys screaming "we're still relevant!" going forward... but this is just additional evidence Firefox is done. The companies giving all that money to the Mozilla Foundation should probably keep a close watch on where those millions are actually ending up.
#DeleteChrome
As I said in the dupe thread, I'll say it again:
I want Firefox to be compatible with Firefox extensions. Not to dump their own superior extensions because Chrome.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
And for all the right wingers that cry for Eich, saying he wasn't ousted for "not being progressive"? I hate to burst your bubble but he was fired for refusing to do his job simple as that. What IS the job of a CEO? Well a very large part of it is to be "the face of the company" and to deal with the press and issues in the press that are affecting your company's image...what did Eich do? Say "I don't want to talk about it" like a little spineless coward and hid while the opposition could say anything they wanted and build up steam for the boycott because he refused to do his job and fight back! If he would have said "these are my beliefs, this is what I support and what I do not and why" and actually started a dialog? He probably could have diffused the entire thing, remember he had an entire PR team at Moz to help him craft his side, while the other side simply were speaking their minds, so he had a pretty big advantage.
Nope, I don't buy that. Firing him from a company with Mozilla's tech cred for failing to carry out the PR mission sounds like lame after-the-fact justification. I suppose it could be argued that the company's primary focus had already changed by that point--the new marketing CEO and strange decisions since then do seem to point that way--but that makes the situation worse rather than excusing it.
/. post announcing the new CEO:
Eich had already created javacript, founded Mozilla, served as the browser's chief architect and the company's chief tech officer for years and years. It's tough (maybe impossible) to think of anyone more in tune with Mozilla's mission, or qualified to carry it out.
And as we've seen in the last year, "the opposition" has unreal influence over the tech news media (including Slashdot), often right down to user forums/comment policy, including the willingness and ability to spin a one-sided narrative completely disconnected from reality and/or popular opinion.
From the
http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
We did not "stand by and watch". Many Mozilla staff made public statements supporting Brendan as CEO, including (courageously) many LGBT Mozilla staff. Many more publicly supported Brendan than publicly opposed him. The media of course focused on his opponents because "Mozilla employees call for CEO to step down" gets more clicks than "Mozilla employees support CEO".
http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
It's absolutely true. There were a bunch of blog posts by Mozilla employees supporting Brendan as CEO (even though many disagreed with his position on Prop 8), all completely ignored by the media. Looking at the relevant date range on http://planet.mozilla.org/ should find them...
Did you ever see any of these viewpoints reported on at tech news sites? I think the Eich fiasco might have ended differently if it happened today, now we're more savvy to the disengenuousness and bigoted (and collusive) nature of those who perpetrate outrage culture.
let the forking commence. And please start from FF 3.6
Could you rip off some code from *any* other browser to bring Firefox up to 2012-level features? Thanks.
Do you have ESP?
Chrome extensions are buggy as hell. Firefox is way more mature. With that said, Firefox has failed to capitalize on anything they do better than the competition. So many stupid choices but it was obvious this was coming considering the Netscape implosion (same people, new story).
Lemme see, how do I light this thing again? Oh yeah, gotta turn on the Oxy: FOOOOOMPH <FLAME>
Let's call it what it is.
Malfuckery actions of OS and library originators:
API deprecation with intent to remove: a threat to attack developers via breaking their previous code
API removal: an attack on users and developers by breaking existing applications
API incompatibility: an attack on users by breaking existing applications
Malfuckery by developers:
Failure to remain compatible with any OS level they have already released product for when this is possible (and it almost *always* is), as this creates a situation where either the developer needs to (but usually doesn't) support earlier versions as completely separate projects, which most developers won't do -- or only do for a short time -- typically leaving the end user stuck with software that won't do what you said it would do in order to separate the customer from their money.
Best practices:
For OS developers
If an API can be changed for the better but will not be compatible in ANY way with its previous incarnation(s) when the change is not based upon an actual security vulnerability, then DO NOT CHANGE THE API: Make a new one instead. This ensures existing applications continue to work as long as possible, and allows developers to switch to the new API for FUTURE work, rather than breaking all their shit.
NEVER break or remove an API unless it is a security threat. Period.
MEMORY and STORAGE are FUCKING CHEAP, you filthy bastards. There is NO REASON something that works should be removed (cough, Apple, PPC support, you multi-billion-dollar-in-the-bank fuckhead scumbags, cough)
When you sell an OS to someone, you are saying "here it is, it does the following" and of course, that's why the user bought it. If it is found NOT to do what you sold it as doing, you either owe the buyer their money back for selling them defective shite, or you owe them a fix so it does what you said it would do in the first place (cough Apple, fucking UTF-8 printing support, OSX core 2 duo version of 10.6, cough)
For Commercial Application Developers
When you sell an app to someone, you are saying "here it is, it does the following" and of course, that's why the user bought it. If it is found NOT to do what you sold it as doing, you either owe the buyer their money back for selling them defective shite, or you owe them a fix so it does what you said it would do in the first place (cough, Apple, fucking "upgrade" to not supporting cameras because you removed camera support from the application, cough.) You do NOT have any legitimate way to say "Oh, ya gotta upgrade to the latest OS / version / both or you're fucked kthxbai", and in particular, and even worse, when there IS NO LATEST VERSION (cough, fucking apple, core 2 duo OS X UTF-8 support cough), that fixes the broken crap you sold them, someone ought to beat you about the head and shoulders with a morning star for outright ripping them off.
And By The Fucking Way, devs, just because there is a "great new feature" in the latest OS, it does not mean you have to use it, nor does it mean that your app should stop working under an older OS. Another candidate for a beating with a morning star right there.
Contrariwise - and this goes for end users too - when the frigging OS vendor creates an OS that REQUIRES you to change your shite, you have NO OBLIGATION to support that level of the OS. None whatsoever. Although I should point out that thus VERY rarely happens. I have applications that work that were built for Windows 95; I have applications that were built for early, early PPC OS X that work fine under OS X 10.6.8 (but not later, because FUCKING APPLE REMOVED THE PPC EMULATOR FOR NO GOOD REASON AT ALL.)
</FLAME><SMOKE>
Oh, and any of you, corporate or individual, who step outside these bounds? It will become extremely difficult for you to convert MY money into YOUR money. Instead, I'll spend my time explaining to anyone who will listen WHY YOU SUCK.
</SMOKE>
face it, mozilla is nothing more than a stalking horse for google these days, bloat, bloat, more bloat, unwanted insecure add-ons, hidden call-home stuff, and now chrome stuff. google controls mozilla and is killing firefox so that chrome, full of spyware, takes its place. what's so hard to understand about this? remember motif?
download the source, build it yourself, toss the crap and spyware, and there you go. don't want to be or can't be bothered? say hello to firechrome or chromefox or whatever it'll be called.
because of compulsory signing and the involved bureaucratic process, as well as Firefox's continuous, poorly announced and haphazard UI changes that kill compatibility. Extension developers want to move on to new projects, but their extensions don't just slowly bitrot away waiting to be picked up by someone, they stop working altogether because some narcissistic Mozilla UXer changed an interface for no good reason.
Now if they get away with this new move, extensions will be reduced to glorified bookmarklets. Powerful extensibility is one of the few things left that set Firefox apart.
from the liliputing article:
it’s possible that some existing plugins will never be able to make the transition since they rely on a “permissive” model that allowed for deep integration into the browser and that’s exactly the sort of thing Mozilla is ruling out for future add-ons.
The developer of popular Firefox add-on DownThemAll, for example, says he’ll probably stop developing plugins if Mozilla eliminates support for XUL-based add-ons because the new tools don’t offer the same kind of flexibility as those that are being deprecated.
Often things get worse before they get better.... were I the CEO of Mozilla this is the vision for the browser that I would have. Electrolisys is one example... something that needs to happen for the browser to advance but also negatively affects the rendering engine. But that is ok because the rendering engine is on it's last leg as is the extension model.
Future firefox will be a blank slate, with a UI rendered almost if not entirely in HTML and portable webassembly. That means that the chrome extension model is MORE powerful than even on chrome as unlike chrome Firefox is most likely going to use an HTML based UI rather than a native one. The evidence for this is pretty clear... if they aren't going to use XUL and XPCOM what would be the point in replacing it with more of the same?
Also I would take advantage of another technology that is converging with these engine and UI refactorizations. And that is WebAssembly... I wouldn't bother with making javascript any faster because that is already reaching diminishing returns. I'd just write the entire thing in rust and build the parts of the UI that provide the most advantage to extension developers would be distributed as webassembly. That way you can use whatever language you want to write extensions, and modify nearly all the user interface as long as there is a compiler from your language of choice to webassembly.
We'd almost certainly have extensions written in Lua, ruby and who knows what else... people that wanted thier extensions to be robust could write them in rust the same language as the engine itself.... and it would get optimised down from webassembly into native code. To me that sounds like like ti would have WIN-WIN for all developers and users of mozilla tech.
Eich was a bigot. It's a free country, and he's allowed to have his personal views - but he also spent money to force those views onto other people. Would you guys be all indignant if a reasonably talented software manager was shown the door after he was shown to be a Klansman, and worked to deny basic civil rights to blacks or jews?
If not, why not?
Chrome does not have mouse gestures in Linux. It seems that soon I won't be able to use mouse gestures at all. I never checked more because this is killer for me.
And yes I know there are mouse gestures but they are all broken. Just try using them in Linux and you see why.
Extensions are only reason why me and the group I support are using Firefox. Remove them and we switch to Chrome.
The Gecko engine's current extension mechanism is not really compatible with the forthcoming change to multiple processes. (BTW: Multiple processes, not multiple threads, for proper isolation.) This move is in fact _necessary_ for what you want them to do.
Another problem with the current extension mechanism is that any extension can do basically anything to the browser, or any component of it. (Hence the need to deprecate unsigned extensions.) The permission system is a single bit: XUL/XBL chrome (including extensions) can do anything, non-chrome is restricted per HTML5. The new WebExtensions API has fine-grained permissions, among many other good things. See https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebEx... for details.
because that what marriage means. Much like if I want to enter my Dog in a Cat Show, I can't, because he's a Dog and not a Cat.
Kill yourself.
No shit, Sherlock.
XUL and XPCOM were supposed to be the very foundation of Mozilla apps in the first place. Instead, they've been one long drawn-out bait & switch.
So Firefox is turning itself into Chrome. But we've all known that for a couple of years already.
I'd be pissed off too, if I were them.
Hell, I've been pissed off just as a user watching this slo-mo train wreck from the sidelines.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
The extensions themselves might or might not be be buggy but the extension system in Chrome is far more well designed. Firefox just exposes all C/C++ entry points automatically. That means every time someone changes a C/C++ function that an extension was using it breaks the extension. Chrome OTOH has a set of extension APIs specifically so they won't change and won't break extensions unless they absolutely have to .
Seriously! All of the apparent decision-makers at Mozilla have such a goddamn hard-on for Chrome.
Just fucking brand it "Chromezilla" and be done with it for fuck's sake. Then the rest of us can go look for another browse that actually does what we want.
They've simultaneously gutted AND bloated their browser. Gutted by removing features that made the browser something people wanted to use. And bloated with all the built-in add ons that nobody fucking uses.
This is one of the reasons we GOT Mozilla in the fucking first place! Because Netscape kept yanking useful features and dumping in crap nobody wanted or needed.
And Mozilla has basically repeated history.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chrome extensions have some advantages. They can be installed and removed without re-starting the browser (some Firefox extensions can too, but not most of them). Chrome extensions can be very small and light weight, and are very easy to develop because the API is well documented. With Firefox you have to start hacking XUL and parts of the browser.
Firefox extensions are more powerful. They can affect pretty much any part of the browser. That also makes them more prone to security vulnerabilities though.
Chrome extensions tend to be less buggy simply because they don't have to hack the browser, resulting in fewer conflicts with other extensions and less breakage when the browser is updated. I still get emails from Mozilla telling me they tested my Firefox extension for compatibility with the latest version, even though I abandoned it years ago.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Chrome extensions generally can't break the browser in the same way Firefox extensions can. They're also sandboxed, so can be used with less trust.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Not sure if it's changed recently (sounds like it might have), but when I did try Chrome a couple of years back, my experience was very different and extensions would frequently crash the entire browser - often pretty hard. That's assuming they would install at all, which was an even more surprising problem. I've not had anywhere near as many problems with Firefox. In fact, I can't remember the last time I had any issues with a Firefox extension (once Mozilla stopped breaking the APIs).
Firefox extensions work better; break more often. ... instead Mozilla adds "Hello" and the like, cripes.
Firefox extensions are needed in cases where other browsers build that functionality in.
( Hotkey|Shortcuts, Tab Options, etc )
Firefox is the only browser with "native" (via extension, Tree Style Tabs|Tab Mix Plus) vertical|side tabs.
(Not counting Vivaldi and Slepnir's implementation of side tabs, as they are piss poor in comparison).
Chrome|Opera have a few options for side-like-tabs, but due to Chrome limitations in modifying the interface -
The damnable things have to run in a separate window.
Chrome|Opera don't even allow you to move "extension" icons anywhere except the Address Bar, nor can you organize them in any order whatsoever.
Firefox Australis duplicating Chrome? Bullshit. Australis is more like Opera 7 thru 12 in the flexibility that it gives end users to customize their environment.
I started using Mozilla precisely because it wasn't Apple (with its walled garden), Google (with its advertising agenda) or Microsoft (with its head up its arse). And I enjoyed writing XUL extensions for both Firefox and Thunderbird.
But Mozilla been making so many bad decisions lately that go against the spirit of its charter. So now we have to sign XUL extensions? With what, there's no free code signing certificates out there any more! And now they're dropping XUL altogether? How are my Firefox tabs going to go down the side of the windows instead of across the top? How are my Thunderbird folders going to automatically close again after I've dropped messages in to them?
Mozilla had real alternatives to the opposition. Mozilla supported freedom. And they did it all pretty darned well, despite having some tickets still open in BugZilla after several years. I'm so disappointed in Mozilla now.
Is there a browser out there that supports extensions without ulterior motives? Is there a *decent* mail client out there, other than Apple Mail, that supports self-closing folders (even if it requires extensions to do that)?
Dear Mozillas! Stop being so ridiculously arrogant and just once listen to what your users want. - stop changing the UI and fix it by rolling back to how it was before version 4 when there actually was a UI - start fixing the gazillion memory leaks that make Firefox be a resource hog and unstable - focus on what users request rather than what you lead developers need to boost their egos - stop aping Chrome, if we'd want to use Chrome we would just do that Otherwise, wait another year and then you can do whatever you want because Firefox user share is then at 0.0003% and the world stopped caring.