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.

9 of 67 comments (clear)

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

    But not any of its users.

  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 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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).

  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 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.