SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the replacing-working-stuff-with-unfinished-technologies dept.
Martin Brinkmann reports via gHacks:
Mozilla announced a couple of days ago that it plans to make Firefox support only WebExtensions add-ons by the end of 2017.
While that seems far far away right now, it is almost certain that things won't be ready by then. What I mean by that is that WebExtensions capabilities won't match those of Firefox's current system. While popular add-ons like NoScript will likely be ported over thanks to Mozilla working with developers actively on implementing missing API features, the same cannot be said for other add-ons.
[...] A recent post by Aris, developer of Classic Theme Restorer (CTR) and several other popular add-ons such as Classic Toolbar Buttons, NewScrollbars, or GlassMyFox, suggests that Classic Theme Restorer may be dead by the end of 2017. While Aris seems to have interest in porting over his extensions to WebExtensions, he notes that this is not possible right now.
Now [it's] real. CTR as we know it (and all my other Firefox add-ons), will be discontinued by the end of 2017. We still have no way to change [the] Firefox UI using WebExtensions and all my add-ons are about UI modifications. Seems like [it's] almost time to get used to another browser.
The end of the popular browser extension would bring the Australis design of Firefox to all users who relied on Classic Theme Restorer up until that point.
This highlights one of the main concerns that the move to WebExtensions exclusivity raises: The APIs are not there yet. In fact, a whole category of add-ons--all that modify the browser UI--cannot be ported over because of missing APIs and the situation may be similar in other areas. What makes this even more problematic than it is is that [...] no one seems to know whether the capabilities that WebExtensions APIs will deliver, once they are made available, will be sufficient to port add-ons over.
[...] Mozilla could have waited with the move until APIs are ready for the most part, but the organization decided not to do so.
(Score: 4, Informative) by MrGuy on Monday November 28 2016, @09:45PM
Neither the submitter nor the editors appear to consider the actual announcement from Mozilla relevant. Since I do, here's a link to it:
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2016/11/23/add-ons-in-2017/ [mozilla.org]
I have no doubt that this move will complicate SOME extensions. However, only posting the responses of people who think "this change is awful for me and therefore it's a bad idea" isn't, IMO, helpful.
Per the Mozilla announcement, their goal with this change is to increase the decoupling between the Firefox internals and extension code (in theory making extensions easier to write and harder to break), make extensions more cross-platform, make it easier to review extensions, and make it easier to enforce security and privacy policies for extensions.
Those all seem like laudable goals. That's not to say that this change accomplishes those goals. Or is the RIGHT way to accomplish those goals. Or that there aren't side effects that make this a terrible way to proceed.
But let's talk about THAT. That seems like the actual thing worth discussing - is Mozilla's approach here good, flawed, or madness? Not whether one specific extension developer is unhappy about it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28 2016, @11:35PM
The (minor) news is that they stay with the plan, the one started a year or so ago (talking about webextensions, not the copycat path that has been going for longer) and they don't know if they will ever recover parity with previous state, which is what is causing more and more concerns ("growing news") and should give a clue to Mozilla. You should read the replies in that page. To sum up: they are ditching what makes FF what it is, a extensible browser, and thus the reason for people to use it vanishes.
Well, not exactly, there is other reason for some. So far it seems to allow disabling reports to mothership, so there is still something they don't do as bad as other browser. Maybe that is the next step, forcing the spyware harder.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @02:33AM
The submitter indicated in the dept. line that this doesn't even have a completed specification--but that hasn't stopped Mozilla from announcing it as a "standard".
This reminds me very much of how M$ and its "partners" rammed OOXML through Fast-Track approval at ISO.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @08:26AM
Unfortunately, the requirements spec is written so badly that every developer involved read it as "increase the decoupling between Firefox and users".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @01:08PM
>will complicate SOME extensions
no, it will outright break extensions that require specific access that only XUL provides, addons like downthemall are going to die, the main developer of it commented on that addons announcement btw, and even wrote a blog post explaining it in good detail here http://www.downthemall.net/the-likely-end-of-downthemall/ [downthemall.net] , addons like stylish will no longer be able to target the UI of FF via xul/css (I use a somewhat minimalist firefox style that reduces a lot of the padding and ugly border-radius on tabs)
here's what fucks me right off, the whole purpose of this is to supposedly make it easier for addon developers, so they don't have to invest as much time in making their code work in firefox, right? ... ok that sounds great, BUT what's the solution to those addons I mentioned above being completely gutted, do they just file a bug report on Bugzilla asking for a specific feature to be implemented in the API? but doesn't that in turn make their API fragmented and mean it creates more work for addon developers who again have to go back and check these new API's? and what about Chrome, will google implement these API features that specific FF addons require? I very much doubt it, so this creates a fragmentation in the API between mozilla, and google, yet again, going full circle creating a problem that was meant to be solved by webExtensions in the first place. this is what's fucked about Mozilla, this mindless pandering to try to appeal to everyone, fuck all of these nu-male cucks in charge of projects at mozilla.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday November 29 2016, @03:38PM
I imagine that when they finally put the bullet in the head of the classic extension system, the user base will immediately halve, and the managers at Mozilla will still manage to be surprised.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @06:16PM
I certainly know when that time comes I'll be switching to chrome, I've always put it off because some addon alternatives dont exist in chrome such as self-destructing cookies, which is arguably one of the best "privacy" addons out there.
but those addons that keep me using FF will be completely fucked anyway so there is no point in using an already inferior browser that's trying its hardest to imitate its competition while saying fuck you to all its loyal users, the clueless fascists now in charge at Mozilla have destroyed what was once the best browser.