I don't get it. If Mozilla thinks this is the best route for them they should do it. Input on features like that shouldnt be taken from users who will not have the long term view of firefox.
The only reason I use Firefox is the TreeStyle Tabs addon. Everything else I could get from Chromium or another browser. If WebExtensions don't get the needed features, I'll simply end up dumping Firefox. That said, there's still time and WebExt might get such features.
Firefox-now: TreeStyleTabs + ok browser
Chromium-now: fast browser
Firefox-future: ok browser
Chromium-future: fast browser
As long as TreeStyleTabs > (fast browser - ok browser), then Firefox is a better choice. Without TreeStyleTabs, Chromium (or Chrome, or whatever fork is better at protecting privacy) is the better choice.
I believe one of the key reasons for dropping XUL extensions is because they don't work very well with e10s (multiprocess Firefox). I recently had occasion to use a fresh Firefox without any e10s-incompatible extensions installed, and it really felt much faster, so I think Firefox-future may also qualify as "fast browser".
But Mozilla claims that it's exactly the old add-on system that keeps Firefox from being more secure. What if they were just as secure as Chrome after giving up on the old add-on system? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to compete without the disadvantage of being the less secure browser?
I get the feeling that a lot of users really don't believe XUL, etc. is inherently less secure. I cannot say either way myself, but without the capability of the old plugin system Firefox has no real advantage over Chrome. It probably doesn't help that they are going with something compatible with Chrome which leads to a "why not just use the original" thought process.
I get the feeling that they could have got the new system done and as capable as the old before deleting the old. Transition periods are brutal as Python and Perl have found out.
That's not really true. Chrome is more secure because it's designed better, they have very good and mature sandboxing for the parts of the browser that work with data from the internet, and because they work very hard at improving their codebase. They have their own LLVM fork!
WebExtensions can still read all your data on all websites and inject whatever they want into all websites. Not a lot of security there. That is OK though, I am fine trusting Google and Gorhill instead of just Google.
"If Mozilla thinks this is the best route for them they should do it"
I'm all for Mozilla having the power to make good technical decisions, but it sounds like you are suggesting that Mozilla ignore their user base completely. That's a recipe for the death of Firefox, IMHO.
I know there are technical reasons that Mozilla is wanting to get rid of XUL, and those reasons look legitimate to me. The problem I see is that they don't have a replacement for XUL that affords the same level of customizability that it does. I've done a little work with XUL, and yes, it's no picnic. I would welcome an alternative that was simpler, and better designed. However, if the replacement only offers a fraction of the flexibility of XUL, then addon developers aren't going to like it.
"Input on features like that shouldnt be taken from users who will not have the long term view of firefox."
^ That's a pretty broad brush you are painting with there. There are a huge number of us who have been using Firefox since it was released in 2004 (and Netscape Navigator before that). I haven't taken a formal survey, but the feedback I've seen from the long-term users is that the depth of customizability available via Firefox's addons is one of the primary reasons they continue to use the browser after all of these years.
Also, I would venture to guess that the people most likely to continue using Firefox are these dedicated long-term users. But if Mozilla insists on ignoring the wishes of these users, they will lose the strongest advocates in their user base.
Ignoring your users is a terrible idea.
Again, I welcome a replacement for XUL. Just make it a full-featured replacement, and don't cut off XUL development until said replacement is indeed full-featured and reasonably stable.
Maybe Mozilla can't pull that off, but I would certainly like to see them try.
Can you give an example? The only FF people I know love extentions (to be honest I don't know many anymore, even here in germany), the others are on chrome or safari.
Got some data to back that up? (not saying you don't, I'd honestly like to know if you do).
I personally have not heard any users say anything wildly positive about recent changes. And I think the steady decline in users is in a large part due to the perception that Mozilla doesn't seem to care what their users want anymore.
I don't think it is a "small fraction". I think it's a big chunk. And I also think that chunk constitutes the most dedicated users the browser has (you know, the kind that install Firefox on their relatives' computers for them, and frequently personally advocate its use by others). Mozilla would be fools to ignore them.
I honestly hold only a small amount of hope that Firefox will live on long term. These issues keep being brought up, and Mozilla still comes across like they don't care. Feedback I've gotten from folks who work at Mozilla indicates that at least some of them do care, but the public perception by loyal users is that they don't.
I hope Mozilla can get it together and that Firefox can live on with great success. At this point I just don't think it is going to happen. I hope they prove me wrong.
Both Google and Mozilla track browser usage, installed addons, etc.
You can bet your posterior that if Mozilla decides that a given slice of the user base is marginal enough to have its demands ignored, Google would do that in a heartbeat.
That doesn't have the same effect. The bug tracker doesn't get articles shared across Facebook & Twitter. The bug tracker doesn't engage those users who don't understand that their extensions are about get taken away. My 70-year-old mother, for instance, who uses Firefox, doesn't know what they're doing.
But she won't switch to Ultron for the same reasons I won't. I showed her how to use Exalead search, she has a Yahoo email (like me), watches stuff on Dailymotion and Vimeo rather than YouTube, etc..
She's not about to join their bug tracker. But she will see a Change.org petition and sign it.
Would you believe me if I told you I don't know exactly what extensions she uses? I believe the main one she has that will break is ePub Reader, though.
That seems like the thinking of someone with their head so far up their ass it's trying to come back out the other side. You're suggesting that Firefox, a free, community-supported, user-driven software, ignore the desires of users in favor of whatever the programmers think is cool or whatever will make their lives simpler? I'm sorry, I don't understand how you can think like that. The customer (the user) is always right. Mozilla has made several moves since the introduction of Australis which seem to be for no particular reason except to spite long-time Firefox users. I only use Firefox now because I will not use any Chromium / Google software; even so I have been moving over to Pale Moon more and more.
But some users don't care about fancy plug-ins and want improved performance and security. Since the users are always right, Mozilla obviously should do whatever is necessary to achieve that. That argument really only works if all users have demands that don't conflict with each other.
And yes, programmers should make their lives easier if they otherwise can't properly do what they intend to do.
(I personally don't know enough about Firefox internals to judge the technical merits of the decision, but what I know is that Firefox in recent months moved from "unusably slow" to "ok", and I thus started using it again.)
>But some users don't care about fancy plug-ins and want improved performance and security.
All of those are probably using Chrome already. Other users care about productivity above all, and Firefox is unmatched in this regard, but only thanks to its add-on support that allows more than glorified Greasemonkey scripts.
I have no idea what you're talking about - Firefox has always been fast to me. Chrome takes too long, and since I autokill duplicate processes, it lags even with single tab browsing.
Thats pointless. They are aware. It has been discussed thousands of time.
Either they'll postpone the deadline until they can accommodate the bigger add-ons, or they won't and the users will vote with their feet (to chrome or to firefox 52 lts).
The only reason I use Firefox over Chrome is Tree Style Tabs. I'm using Firefox since the first Mosaic/Netscape days, this is not the way to get new users and have a comeback.
I might be completely misunderstand the implications, but as I understand it, Mozilla are dropping an old technology that is slowing down the browser, and slowing down development of the browser, and which only supports a very small minority of plugins, that are mostly power-user features used by a small number of people.
Am I completely wrong in thinking this? Is there any evidence to suggest widespread usage of XUL-only features?
While I appreciate the concern behind the petition, I support the decision to simplify and modernize the architecture in Firefox, even if it does disrupt extensions.
If there was somewhere I could lend my name to say "I support Mozilla making this difficult decision and sticking to it", I would.
I barely use extensions these days. Most of what I want is built in to all the browsers now. All that's left, more or less, is some way to save articles for later and make the few I want to read now easier to follow.
Firefox has a reading mode, supports Pocket (though it's integrated now), and lets me use uBlock Origin on mobile, so it's already perfect for my needs.
^ I support the decision to simplify and modernize the architecture in Firefox, even if it does disrupt extensions.
Someone wrote this below, and I think it addresses your post perfectly:
"I welcome a replacement for XUL. Just make it a full-featured replacement, and don't cut off XUL development until said replacement is indeed full-featured and reasonably stable.
"Maybe Mozilla can't pull that off, but I would certainly like to see them try."
I like how the petition starter threatened Mozilla to dump Firefox for other browsers and exaggerate 'millions' of users when the reality is they are only a small niche trying to hold back progress. The add-on pages show that these add-ons each command less than a tenth of the number he claimed.
The way add-ons are currently done significantly hampers the engine architecture, and is a good chunk of the reason why multi-process took so long. All this synchronous access to engine internals is also why the first advice diagnosing performance problems is to disable all add-ons. NPAPI plugins also have similar issues, which is why everyone is getting rid of those as well.
Servo's architecture will also not support the old Firefox style add-ons, and we've known that the architecture would be incompatible for them (and NPAPI plugins) since the early days.
We want to enable people to build new experiences, but we have to find new ways to achieve this. Perhaps the technology the Browser.html team and us are working on will solve this problem. If you have ideas and want to help, I encourage you to get involved[1][2].
Why not find out the new ways to achieve this before pulling the plug on the existing stack? You are asking your users to make a leap of faith with you by moving to a browser that is less powerful in the short to mid term.
* Open a dialogue with the Mozilla / Firefox community to ascertain what features Firefox users rely on that are currently only available via XUL Add-Ons but not possible under the WebExtension paradigm, and
* Work with the community to develop a path forward that allows Firefox to achieve its technology goals while preventing the loss of key functionality that millions of Firefox users depend on.
I agree that Mozilla has been doing that from the developer side of things; however, I would wager that most users not in Bugzilla/on the dev mailing lists are unaware of the coming changes and how they might be affected.
I'm a programmer and use FF daily. However, I'm not super involved on the FF dev side of things, and so have never even seen those discussions you linked. What I'm hoping is a) I'm not the only one in this boat, and b) that this discussion can be raised to the level of say Mozilla/Firefox newsletters, Twitter, and blogs. Everything I've seen coming from those channels so far has been communications re. "This is what we're doing - yay us!", never, "Hey, we're thinking about doing this. How would it affect you?"
If I'm somehow totally out of the loop and have missed something I apologize. However, when I see something like this [1], then I start paying attention. I suspect I am not alone.
I will note that that page does mention the relevant mailing lists, and I do know that the Vimperator devs also know of the relevant bugs/mailing lists (since that is where I found them)
That's great, but realistically how are non-FF devs supposed to take part in this discussion? There are many users who will be affected by these changes but are not being given any voice in them because of the way Mozilla has handled the discussion. Hopefully this petition and other efforts can raise awareness beyond the FF dev community.
It sucks to have to re-architect things, but quite frankly, a better running browser will actually bring me back to Firefox—I fled to other lands after I got sick of the UI locking from a single tab. Now that's fixed a bit, but it's not perfect. Similar problems exist across the entire codebase—would it be more palatable if they released a new browser entirely and cut off the naming of "Firefox"?
Every other major browser either cut ties with it's previous lineage or got to start relatively recently (Edge, Chrome, to some extent Safari—hell Opera if you want to count that, but I wont). Firefox needs this ability too—they aren't exactly picking up new users. When User growth is the metric, I'm not sure what they are doing is wrong.
I don't think growth at the expense of some of your most dedicated users is a viable strategy for Mozilla.
It certainly seems to be biting Apple (ala. Mac Pro 2016 alienating long-time Mac users), so what possible hope does Mozilla have taking that tack? They're already on pretty shaky ground user-wise from what I've seen. Why not make a better browser with the help of your existing loyal base in such a way that allows you to retain them while also allowing you to attract new users?
Do using good technology + retaining power users need to be mutually exclusive?
Pale Moon supports XUL now and into the future even when Firefox support stops.
I keep seeing posts about wanting to keep XUL in Firefox, but the decision has already been made; XUL will be removed from Firefox. This is like Australis all over again.
Vote with your feet and move to a browser (Pale Moon) that supports what you need and want.
40% of users don't use any extensions at all. Of the remaining 60%, the vast majority only use an ad blocker. Of the extensions specifically mentioned in the petition, they have 113,898 users, 111,846 users, 29,940 users, and 1,371 users respectively. Even assuming that all of those are unique users, that's 257,055 users which is a very small percentage of the hundreds of millions of Firefox users. XUL was consistently the cause of most Firefox crashes and issues and maintenance of it was slowing down overall development.
The concern is that the indirect effect of the unilateral removal of XUL-support from Firefox without a viable alternative will be detrimental to the Firefox ecosystem and its continued viability in the marketplace.
Seeing many comments to the effect, "This doesn't concern me because I don't rely on any XUL-base extensions." It's great if this change isn't going to affect you, but I'd ask you to ask yourself what if it were going to? What if Firefox was going to drop support for 90% of Add-Ons you do use? What would you do?
Ditch Firefox for some other browser? Probably. And that's probably what most users who rely on XUL-based Add-Ons will do.
So, I think we as Firefox users need to consider the bigger picture here. If this change to WebExtensions moves forward as planned, it will probably cost Firefox a fair number of users (probably most of them power users) at a time when Mozilla is really starting to turn around the slump they've been in since ~2013-2014.
So, if you don't sign the petition for yourself, sign it for the greater good of Firefox and its long-term viability as a legitimate contender to Google Chrome. All we petitioners are asking is that Mozilla move forward with a viable XUL-replacement. Currently, that's not WebExtensions.
68 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 168 ms ] threadWith the key advantage of Firefox (customizability) gone, the question turns into "why NOT drop Firefox for Chrome/Chromium".
I get the feeling that they could have got the new system done and as capable as the old before deleting the old. Transition periods are brutal as Python and Perl have found out.
WebExtensions can still read all your data on all websites and inject whatever they want into all websites. Not a lot of security there. That is OK though, I am fine trusting Google and Gorhill instead of just Google.
I'm all for Mozilla having the power to make good technical decisions, but it sounds like you are suggesting that Mozilla ignore their user base completely. That's a recipe for the death of Firefox, IMHO.
I know there are technical reasons that Mozilla is wanting to get rid of XUL, and those reasons look legitimate to me. The problem I see is that they don't have a replacement for XUL that affords the same level of customizability that it does. I've done a little work with XUL, and yes, it's no picnic. I would welcome an alternative that was simpler, and better designed. However, if the replacement only offers a fraction of the flexibility of XUL, then addon developers aren't going to like it.
"Input on features like that shouldnt be taken from users who will not have the long term view of firefox."
^ That's a pretty broad brush you are painting with there. There are a huge number of us who have been using Firefox since it was released in 2004 (and Netscape Navigator before that). I haven't taken a formal survey, but the feedback I've seen from the long-term users is that the depth of customizability available via Firefox's addons is one of the primary reasons they continue to use the browser after all of these years.
Also, I would venture to guess that the people most likely to continue using Firefox are these dedicated long-term users. But if Mozilla insists on ignoring the wishes of these users, they will lose the strongest advocates in their user base.
Ignoring your users is a terrible idea.
Again, I welcome a replacement for XUL. Just make it a full-featured replacement, and don't cut off XUL development until said replacement is indeed full-featured and reasonably stable.
Maybe Mozilla can't pull that off, but I would certainly like to see them try.
It's a small fraction of advanced users that think Mozilla ignores them.
I personally have not heard any users say anything wildly positive about recent changes. And I think the steady decline in users is in a large part due to the perception that Mozilla doesn't seem to care what their users want anymore.
I don't think it is a "small fraction". I think it's a big chunk. And I also think that chunk constitutes the most dedicated users the browser has (you know, the kind that install Firefox on their relatives' computers for them, and frequently personally advocate its use by others). Mozilla would be fools to ignore them.
I honestly hold only a small amount of hope that Firefox will live on long term. These issues keep being brought up, and Mozilla still comes across like they don't care. Feedback I've gotten from folks who work at Mozilla indicates that at least some of them do care, but the public perception by loyal users is that they don't.
I hope Mozilla can get it together and that Firefox can live on with great success. At this point I just don't think it is going to happen. I hope they prove me wrong.
[edited to correct punctuation]
You can bet your posterior that if Mozilla decides that a given slice of the user base is marginal enough to have its demands ignored, Google would do that in a heartbeat.
But she won't switch to Ultron for the same reasons I won't. I showed her how to use Exalead search, she has a Yahoo email (like me), watches stuff on Dailymotion and Vimeo rather than YouTube, etc..
She's not about to join their bug tracker. But she will see a Change.org petition and sign it.
Your mother is likely to weather the transition to WebExtensions well enough.
And yes, programmers should make their lives easier if they otherwise can't properly do what they intend to do.
(I personally don't know enough about Firefox internals to judge the technical merits of the decision, but what I know is that Firefox in recent months moved from "unusably slow" to "ok", and I thus started using it again.)
All of those are probably using Chrome already. Other users care about productivity above all, and Firefox is unmatched in this regard, but only thanks to its add-on support that allows more than glorified Greasemonkey scripts.
True horror is other person's computer.
This breaks the HN guidelines. Please (re-)read them and post civilly and substantively, or not at all, from now on:
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13567272 and marked it off-topic.
Either they'll postpone the deadline until they can accommodate the bigger add-ons, or they won't and the users will vote with their feet (to chrome or to firefox 52 lts).
Mozilla have usage statistics for add-ons.
I very much want to voice my opinion not to touch my xul addons, but I refuse to subvert my privacy in order to do that.
I totally understand your privacy concerns and applaud your choice to choose not to sign vs. doing something you feel would violate your privacy.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/vimperator/re...
Am I completely wrong in thinking this? Is there any evidence to suggest widespread usage of XUL-only features?
If there was somewhere I could lend my name to say "I support Mozilla making this difficult decision and sticking to it", I would.
Firefox has a reading mode, supports Pocket (though it's integrated now), and lets me use uBlock Origin on mobile, so it's already perfect for my needs.
Extensions is my main reason for staying with FF.
Someone wrote this below, and I think it addresses your post perfectly:
"I welcome a replacement for XUL. Just make it a full-featured replacement, and don't cut off XUL development until said replacement is indeed full-featured and reasonably stable.
"Maybe Mozilla can't pull that off, but I would certainly like to see them try."
So there is no way to port addons if Mozilla doesn't add more technical capabilities.
I hope he'll be happy with Chrome.
Don't think this is what they try to do rather than stop Mozilla making FF just another browser
Servo's architecture will also not support the old Firefox style add-ons, and we've known that the architecture would be incompatible for them (and NPAPI plugins) since the early days.
We want to enable people to build new experiences, but we have to find new ways to achieve this. Perhaps the technology the Browser.html team and us are working on will solve this problem. If you have ideas and want to help, I encourage you to get involved[1][2].
1. https://github.com/servo/servo 2. https://github.com/browserhtml/browserhtml
* Work with the community to develop a path forward that allows Firefox to achieve its technology goals while preventing the loss of key functionality that millions of Firefox users depend on.
Haven't they already been doing that?
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1215059 https://webextensions.uservoice.com/forums/315663-webextensi...
I'm a programmer and use FF daily. However, I'm not super involved on the FF dev side of things, and so have never even seen those discussions you linked. What I'm hoping is a) I'm not the only one in this boat, and b) that this discussion can be raised to the level of say Mozilla/Firefox newsletters, Twitter, and blogs. Everything I've seen coming from those channels so far has been communications re. "This is what we're doing - yay us!", never, "Hey, we're thinking about doing this. How would it affect you?"
If I'm somehow totally out of the loop and have missed something I apologize. However, when I see something like this [1], then I start paying attention. I suspect I am not alone.
[1] http://fasezero.com/addons/
If Firefox is going to neeuter their extensions after all I guess I'll be looking for a new browser after all. :-/
Every other major browser either cut ties with it's previous lineage or got to start relatively recently (Edge, Chrome, to some extent Safari—hell Opera if you want to count that, but I wont). Firefox needs this ability too—they aren't exactly picking up new users. When User growth is the metric, I'm not sure what they are doing is wrong.
It certainly seems to be biting Apple (ala. Mac Pro 2016 alienating long-time Mac users), so what possible hope does Mozilla have taking that tack? They're already on pretty shaky ground user-wise from what I've seen. Why not make a better browser with the help of your existing loyal base in such a way that allows you to retain them while also allowing you to attract new users?
Do using good technology + retaining power users need to be mutually exclusive?
I keep seeing posts about wanting to keep XUL in Firefox, but the decision has already been made; XUL will be removed from Firefox. This is like Australis all over again.
Vote with your feet and move to a browser (Pale Moon) that supports what you need and want.
The concern is that the indirect effect of the unilateral removal of XUL-support from Firefox without a viable alternative will be detrimental to the Firefox ecosystem and its continued viability in the marketplace.
Ditch Firefox for some other browser? Probably. And that's probably what most users who rely on XUL-based Add-Ons will do.
So, I think we as Firefox users need to consider the bigger picture here. If this change to WebExtensions moves forward as planned, it will probably cost Firefox a fair number of users (probably most of them power users) at a time when Mozilla is really starting to turn around the slump they've been in since ~2013-2014.
So, if you don't sign the petition for yourself, sign it for the greater good of Firefox and its long-term viability as a legitimate contender to Google Chrome. All we petitioners are asking is that Mozilla move forward with a viable XUL-replacement. Currently, that's not WebExtensions.