There's a WebExtensions version of uMatrix in the works. There's a WebExtensions fork of Stylish, so I imagine there will eventually be an official port of Stylish to WebExtensions for Firefox.
Grease Monkey too
TamperMonkey is a WebExtensions add-on similar to GreaseMonkey.
The problem is, as the OP noted, that none of the classic extensions are WebExtensions, so they're basically destroying their ecosystem overnight.
Mozilla has communicated the transition to WebExtensions for two years. It has not been a rapid or an overnight process and everyone's had plenty of notice. Add-on developers have had a long time to get involved to develop and extend the WebExtensions APIs, which is what the developer of NoScript did and he got the changes he needed to support NoScript.
You'll end up with "GNU/Linux: Download RPM or DEB | Windows: Download MSI | Mac: Back our campaign".
And yet, strangely, that never seems to happen. The world is full of cross platform software. Your tedious narrative designed to support your weak argument is simply not reflected in the real world. Your imagined costs aren't the barriers you would like them to be.
What should the developer of an application that isn't quite as popular as GIMP, WireShark, FFmpeg, or LibreOffice do to lower the cost of multi-platform building and testing?
That's because the Chrome and Firefox web browsers and the Thunderbird mail client have enough of a budget for multi-platform development and testing.
I use the same image editor on all three platforms. I use the same network analyzer on all three platforms. I use the same video tools on all three platforms. I use the same office suite on all three platforms. I use the same shell, the same command line tools, the same interpreters on all three platforms.
The claim that native applications equal only one operating system is plainly false. It's pointless trying to defend that position.
And that's not even mentioning of cross platform native applications. I use the same web browser and email client on all three operating systems I regularly use.
How are native applications only on one operating system again?
The article "NoScript’s Migration to WebExtensions APIs" by Caitlin Neiman
This is the web. Link to things.
This means no feature-complete version of NoScript will work on both Firefox 52 ESR and Firefox 56 on the one hand and Firefox 57 and later on the other hand.
Yeah? And? So? What? The old version dies, the new version prospers. It's time to move on. Firefox 57 is the future. Embrace it.
Please type your reply to me, press Ctrl+Q, and attempt to restore your reply.
I pressed Ctrl+Q and nothing happened. The effect doesn't appear to be practical.
Slashdot Mirror
It's for the advertiser. And it's consuming network, CPU, and screen space resources
So use an ad blocker. That's what I do. uBlock Origin is a good one.
NoScript
NoScript is migrating to the WebExtensions API and will be released for the release of Firefox 57.
AdBlock plus
I use uBlock Origin. Works fine in 57 beta.
their support for encrypted media extensions (EME)
You can turn off DRM support in the General -> Digital Rights Management (DRM) Content section of Firefox's settings. Problem solved.
Huh. You really are a Lunix Nutcase.
Pocket is literally more insidious and malicious
Why? Mozilla bought Read It Later. Mozilla owns Pocket. If you don't want to use it, remove it from your toolbars and don't use it.
Firefox dies on 2017-11-14
Big claim but, strangely, an anonymous one. Put your name to it, coward.
HEIF offering much better than JPG compression
HEIF doesn't offer any compression because it's just an image container format, which can also contain JPEG data.
Your attitude is a perfect example of why Firefox is on its way out.
What attitude is that? Rationality?
If you knew anything about Firefox 57 you'd know that it could very well be the final nail in Firefox's coffin.
Unlikely. Use Firefox 57 first, talk second.
Not for long. Edge's marketshare is increasing and Firefox's marketshare is decreasing.
Edge's usage is one quarter to one third of Firefox's. It's got a way to go yet.
they're doomed
Unlikely. You should try Firefox 57. It will be released to the beta channel in a week or so.
uMatrix, Stylish
There's a WebExtensions version of uMatrix in the works. There's a WebExtensions fork of Stylish, so I imagine there will eventually be an official port of Stylish to WebExtensions for Firefox.
Grease Monkey too
TamperMonkey is a WebExtensions add-on similar to GreaseMonkey.
there will be 2 tab bars (the native horizontal one + crappy always-broken javascripty injected vertical one); no context menus on tabs
Both hiding the native tab strip and context menus are being worked on for Tree Style Tab. Your fears are unfounded.
less capable
No. Read the links.
I'm sure they'll get rid of them soon.
Nope and nope. Don't panic. Be happy.
tree style tab extension
Tree Style Tab will work with Firefox 57.
privacy
NoScript, Ghostery, uBlock Origin, etc. work with Firefox 57. So don't worry, be happy.
Gosh, who to believe? Some anonymous coward on Slashdot or the author of NoScript? Decisions, decisions.
The problem is, as the OP noted, that none of the classic extensions are WebExtensions, so they're basically destroying their ecosystem overnight.
Mozilla has communicated the transition to WebExtensions for two years. It has not been a rapid or an overnight process and everyone's had plenty of notice. Add-on developers have had a long time to get involved to develop and extend the WebExtensions APIs, which is what the developer of NoScript did and he got the changes he needed to support NoScript.
You'll end up with "GNU/Linux: Download RPM or DEB | Windows: Download MSI | Mac: Back our campaign".
And yet, strangely, that never seems to happen. The world is full of cross platform software. Your tedious narrative designed to support your weak argument is simply not reflected in the real world. Your imagined costs aren't the barriers you would like them to be.
The second question is "How do I afford a Mac?"
How do you afford any other computer? Do the same thing.
This raises three questions.
It doesn't raise any questions. It's a two step plan. Follow it.
What's the preferred way for a 1- or 2-person development team to work around this?
Pretty simple. It's a two step plan:
1. Buy a Mac.
2. Run Windows and Linux on it as well
What should the developer of an application that isn't quite as popular as GIMP, WireShark, FFmpeg, or LibreOffice do to lower the cost of multi-platform building and testing?
Use Pascal.
That's because the Chrome and Firefox web browsers and the Thunderbird mail client have enough of a budget for multi-platform development and testing.
I use the same image editor on all three platforms. I use the same network analyzer on all three platforms. I use the same video tools on all three platforms. I use the same office suite on all three platforms. I use the same shell, the same command line tools, the same interpreters on all three platforms.
The claim that native applications equal only one operating system is plainly false. It's pointless trying to defend that position.
Native apps are also OS-specific. Only on one operating system.
Nope. Windows runs Linux binaries. FreeBSD runs Linux binaries. Linux, BSD, and macOS run Windows binaries. Windows 10 on ARM runs x86 Win32 binaries.
And that's not even mentioning of cross platform native applications. I use the same web browser and email client on all three operating systems I regularly use.
How are native applications only on one operating system again?
This is the web. People insert links with an excessively commercial nature into comment sections.
So what you're saying is that you can't be trusted. Very well. I won't trust you.
The article "NoScript’s Migration to WebExtensions APIs" by Caitlin Neiman
This is the web. Link to things.
This means no feature-complete version of NoScript will work on both Firefox 52 ESR and Firefox 56 on the one hand and Firefox 57 and later on the other hand.
Yeah? And? So? What? The old version dies, the new version prospers. It's time to move on. Firefox 57 is the future. Embrace it.
Please type your reply to me, press Ctrl+Q, and attempt to restore your reply.
I pressed Ctrl+Q and nothing happened. The effect doesn't appear to be practical.