Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Popular Firefox Bookmark Syncing Add-On Starts Losing... Bookmarks (bleepingcomputer.com)

Posted by msmash on from the call-IT dept.

A popular Firefox browser add-on that saves and syncs bookmarks has started to lose those bookmarks instead, users are complaining. From a report: According to user reports -- and your reporter's own experience -- the problems arose when Xmarks updated the add-on to version 4.5.0.4, the first version to work on the new WebExtensions API, Firefox's new add-on technology. Since then, Firefox users have reported a wide range of problems, but among which the biggest was the fact that Xmarks was not syncing bookmarks as it should. The problems did not manifest the same way for all users. Some users said the add-on stopped syncing new bookmarks altogether, some reported corrupted links, others said they lost all bookmarks, while other reported that only a small portion of new bookmark URLs was being added to their Xmarks account.

32 of 67 comments (clear)

  1. WebExtensions are a victory for mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But not any of its users.

    1. Re:WebExtensions are a victory for mozilla by schleimkeim · · Score: 1

      Just shut the fuck up already

  2. No time to read... by mlw4428 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...I'll bookmark this for later.

  3. This is one of the reasons by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I haven't gotten to porting my Extension to the new APIs. They're not at all stable. Plus it's not so much a 'port' as it is a complete re-write from scratch. Firefox needs to sort out the new APIs _before_ shutting down the old ones.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:This is one of the reasons by markdavis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      +1, they very much need to delay the obsolescence of the existing addons until:

      1) Webextensions is stable.
      2) Webextensions is proven by developers AND users as working right.
      3) Firefox has the vast majority of API's necessary to port the majority of addons- especially those needing access to the UI.
      4) Developers have had time after the above they so they can actually port addons, test them, get feedback and API tweaks from Firefox fixed, and fix their own new addons.

      My understanding of the situation is that NONE of the above is met. The hell with artificial timelines, THIS STUFF IS VERY IMPORTANT! If it takes an extra 3 months, 6 months, even a year, so be it! The Firefox addon infrastructure is one of its main selling points. Flushing that down the toilet might cause a loss of another half or more of their users.

    2. Re:This is one of the reasons by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      5) Webextensions was designed in a different time.

      The Firefox addon infrastructure is one of its main selling points

      It wasn't there when I started using Phoenix all those years ago. It was a breath of fresh air in an IE6 world. I stopped using Firefox ~4 years ago and moved to Chrome then Opera after bloat and old bugs never got fixed. A new install would feel sluggish after the bare minimum of 'required' plugins.

      Firefox 57 is a night and day difference again. It has uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger and LastPass which is all I really use. Most importantly it's fast. It's already my default browser on my personal laptop.

    3. Re:This is one of the reasons by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Three of the four add-ons I use are marked "legacy". Honestly, if I need to go track down updated add-ons anyhow, why shouldn't I just switch to Chrome anyhow?

      Firefox should have added an automatic update mechanism for transitioning to new, compatible add-ons. Asking their users to track down new versions that are compatible is completely brain-dead. And they shouldn't switch over until they have near complete coverage.

      I also agree that we may see a noticeable drop in Firefox usage numbers right after they pull the lever and break all the old add-ons. People don't like having things that are currently working suddenly stop working, no matter how the developers try to justify it.

      I swear, it's like they're TRYING to drive away the last of their customers like me.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    4. Re:This is one of the reasons by markdavis · · Score: 3, Informative

      >"why shouldn't I just switch to Chrome anyhow?"

      Well, the remaining reasons are:

      1) It is open source (I suppose you could use Chromium instead, but good luck with that on some platforms).

      2) It is community driven (although some times it is hard to tell, but far more than Chrome)

      3) It is not Google-burdened in any way (Chrome is a binary blob with who-knows how much spyware, backdoors, data collection, and other "features" inside)

      Other thoughts: FF performance is vastly improved and resource usage is on-par with any other browser, but since they "Chrome-ified" it, flexibility and user control in the UI is diminished, however, it still probably has a lot more customizable options than Chrome.

      >"I swear, it's like they're TRYING to drive away the last of their customers like me."

      It does feel that way sometimes.

    5. Re:This is one of the reasons by Fencepost · · Score: 1

      "Firefox needs to sort out the new APIs _before_ shutting down the old ones."

      Unfortunately, that's a battle that has been fought and lost. Admittedly I don't follow Firefox dev channels, but I don't think I've seen any indication that Louise is going to take her foot off the gas or turn.

      --
      fencepost
      just a little off
    6. Re:This is one of the reasons by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Flushing that down the toilet might cause a loss of another half or more of their users.

      Which they can ill afford. If the other six remaining users jump ship as well, they're toast.

    7. Re:This is one of the reasons by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      They're not at all stable.

      What's an example of a WebExtensions API in Firefox 57 that Mozilla says is stable but isn't?

    8. Re:This is one of the reasons by theweatherelectric · · Score: 2

      why shouldn't I just switch to Chrome anyhow?

      Because Mozilla's WebExtensions API already offers more than Chrome's does. uBlock Origin, for example, works better in Firefox 57 than possible in Chrome (gorhill is the developer of uBlock Origin).

    9. Re:This is one of the reasons by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      I now have to do an about:memory->minimize operation every hour or two to even type in text boxes

      I'm running Firefox 57 beta and have seen no such problem. Sounds like one of your add-ons is leaking memory and creating the problem. Try disabling all add-ons and see if the problem persists.

    10. Re:This is one of the reasons by iampiti · · Score: 1

      I completely agree with your comment but sadly 3 is not happening. They've said they don't want addons to modify the UI much so some things that current add ons do won't just be possible with WebExtensions.
      I just don't how this can end well for Firefox.

    11. Re:This is one of the reasons by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      As of now 5,923 add-ons

      It's already ticked over to 5,924.

    12. Re:This is one of the reasons by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      Yes. The webRequest API was all thought through 18 months ago.

    13. Re:This is one of the reasons by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Good to know. Score one point for Firefox, at least.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    14. Re:This is one of the reasons by JThundley · · Score: 1

      We have to pass the API to find out what's in it!

  4. Or you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You could just use Firefoxâ(TM)s already built in bookmark tool that already syncs your bookmarks to other devices among other things

    1. Re:Or you know... by scdeimos · · Score: 1

      Or you could just rsync bookmarks.html

    2. Re:Or you know... by arcctgx · · Score: 4, Informative

      I guess the main reason to use Xmarks instead of Firefox Sync is that it is able to sync between different browsers, not only Firefox to Firefox.

    3. Re:Or you know... by alexo · · Score: 1

      You could just use Firefox's already built in bookmark tool that already syncs your bookmarks to other devices among other things

      Unless you wanted to sync bookmarks with other browsers.

    4. Re:Or you know... by phayes · · Score: 1

      Xmarks existed long before Mozilla added their bookmark sync and one could set it up to use any web server instead of just trusting xmarks.com.

      I used xmarks for years but when it stopped working about a month ago & there were no signs that xmarks knew what they had broken I moved to FF sync.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    5. Re:Or you know... by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      How well does it work with anything that isn't either a Firefox PC or the cancelled Firefox phone?

      Works fine. Anything that has a Firefox browser has Firefox sync. You can sync between Windows and macOS and iOS and Android.

  5. Yet Another Confirmation by hwyguy2 · · Score: 1

    XMarks on Firefox started acting up as soon as Firefox did the "Legacy" S**t. The behavior has forced me over to Chrome. Xmarks is still useful if you want to have some disjoint and some synced bookmarks: I use to have different bookmark toolbars at work and at home, but a shared subset of bookmarks that allow me to bookmark something at work, and see the bookmark and write about it on my blog from home. It also lets me sync the bookmarks between different browsers (well, it did), so that there was a standard set of bookmarks no matter which browser I used.

  6. Phew by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    Long long time ago I used Xmarks to store mine... and I was even considering switching back to Firefox not long ago.
    Glad I didn't now. My bookmarks are my preciousss....
    But since we touched the topic, anyone knows of an open source good alternative to store and organize bookmarks offline, safely outside the cloud?
    I mean, you could just basically use an HTML editor after exporting the whole thing, but there must be something a bit more... elegant for this, right?

  7. I had the opposite problem by metamatic · · Score: 1

    XMarks kept duplicating my bookmarks and restoring old bookmarks I deleted. I eventually gave up on it and set up an instance of Shaarli to use.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    1. Re:I had the opposite problem by slashrio · · Score: 1

      XMarks kept duplicating my bookmarks and restoring old bookmarks I deleted. I eventually gave up on it and set up an instance of Shaarli to use.

      Last update: 5 years ago.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  8. Only kinda sorta by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    my plugin still more or less works (minus some features) for a lot of users (myself included). They've left a lot of compatibility in (even if you sometimes have to edit about:config to get it). Mind you, that was not done by choice.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  9. It's not that it crashes by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    'stable' here means they're still making changes. A lot of the stuff that lets you inspect data streams isn't completely hammered out. Meaning it could (will?) change later on down the line (probably in an effort to make FF feel snappier).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:It's not that it crashes by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      'stable' here means they're still making changes.

      Of course they are. And more APIs will be added over time to enable more features. This is exactly as you'd expect. All the hand-wringing over Firefox 57 is tedious.

  10. Yes, I experienced this by crispi · · Score: 1

    Whilst most of my bookmarks were there, Xmarks seems to be dropping the "keyword" field from bookmarks. I've resorted to using Firefox Sync now, because life's too short to keep trying to fix Xmarks stuff-ups.