Mozilla Firefox set to drop current extension support; implement Chrome style signed WebExtensions A - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Today we are announcing some major upcoming changes to Firefox add-ons. Our add-on ecosystem has evolved through incremental, organic growth over the years, but there are some modernizations to Firefox that require some foundational changes to support:Taking advantage of new technologies like Electrolysis and Servo Protecting users from spyware and adware Shortening the time it takes to review add-ons To help the add-on development community understand how we will enable these improvements, we are making four related announcements today: We are implementing a new extension API, called WebExtensions—largely compatible with the model used by Chrome and Opera—to make it easier to develop extensions across multiple browsers. A safer, faster, multi-process version of Firefox is coming soon with Electrolysis; we needdevelopers to ensure their Firefox add-ons will be compatible with it. To ensure third-party extensions provide customization without sacrificing security, performance or exposing users to malware, we will require all extensions to be validated and signed by Mozilla starting in Firefox 41, which will be released on September 22nd 2015. We have decided on an approximate timeline for the deprecation of XPCOM- and XUL-based add-ons. For our add-on development community, these changes will bring benefits, like greater cross-browser add-on compatibility, but will also require redevelopment of a number of existing add-ons. We’re making a big investment by expanding the team of engineers, add-on reviewers, and evangelists who work on add-ons and support the community that develops them. They will work with the community to improve and finalize the WebExtensions API, and will help developers of unsupported add-ons make the transition to newer APIs and multi-process support. We’re announcing all of the changes today to make developers aware of our plans and to give everyone an opportunity to offer feedback. We are committed to doing what we can to make this transition as easy as possible. Together with our Mozilla community, we will create the future of Firefox add-ons. Introducing the WebExtensions API For some time we’ve heard from add-on developers that our APIs could be better documented and easier to use. In addition, we’ve noticed that many Firefox add-on developers also maintain a Chrome, Safari, or Opera extension with similar functionality. We would like add-on development to be more like Web development: the same code should run in multiple browsers according to behavior set by standards, with comprehensive documentation available from multiple vendors. To this end, we are implementing a new, Blink-compatible API in Firefox called WebExtensions. Extension code written for Chrome, Opera, or, possibly in the future, Microsoft Edge will run in Firefox with few changes as a WebExtension. This modern and JavaScript-centric API has a number of advantages, including supporting multi-process browsers by default and mitigating the risk of misbehaving add-ons and malware. WebExtensions will behave like other Firefox add-ons; they will be signed by Mozilla, and discoverable through addons.mozilla.org (AMO) or through the developer’s website. With this API, extension developers should be able to make the same extension available on Firefox and Chrome with a minimal number of changes to repackage for each platform. A preview release of WebExtensions is available in Firefox 42, which is currently on Developer Edition, and information on how to start testing WebExtensions is available in the Mozilla wiki. We have started discussions with other browser vendors to begin an effort to standardize at least some of this API, and will continue to post additional information and more details about WebExtensions in the wiki.[/QUOTE] Continued in [URL="https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/08/21/the-future-of-developing-firefox-add-ons/"]Source[/URL] [URL="http://www.downthemall.net/the-likely-end-of-downthemall/"]DownThemAll Blog Post[/URL] It's already been confirmed by the DownThemAll developers that most currently popular Firefox extensions won't be possible under this new API, including Greasemonkey and Ghostery in their current forms. Additionally, [B]no[/B] theme or UI changes via extensions will be possible using this new API.

Embrace, extend, extinguish in action.

Does that mean Download Manager S3 and Status-4-Evar will stop working? That's really fucking annoying, the main reason I use Firefox is because I can mess around with the interface as much as I want

[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;48515001]Does that mean Download Manager S3 and Status-4-Evar will stop working? That's really fucking annoying, the main reason I use Firefox is because I can mess around with the interface as much as I want[/QUOTE] Most likely, yes. Just looking at Status-4-Evar I can tell at a glance that it's dead.

There goes the one thing that Firefox had over Chrome that kept me with Firefox.

A lot of my favorite Chrome extensions don't exist on Firefox, so I suppose I don't mind this.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;48515006]Most likely, yes. Just looking at Status-4-Evar I can tell at a glance that it's dead.[/QUOTE] And that addon is pretty much the only reason I use Firefox over just about anything else Fuck

So...why should I use Firefox over Chrome now?

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;48515011]There goes the one thing that Firefox had over Chrome that kept me with Firefox.[/QUOTE] An old, outdated extensions API is what kept you using Firefox? I would've thought the performance, memory usage, privacy and customisability over Chrome would've been pretty good reasons, but gee what do I know?

[QUOTE=ultradude25;48515048]An old, outdated extensions API is what kept you using Firefox? I would've thought the performance, memory usage, privacy and customisability over Chrome would've been pretty good reasons, but gee what do I know?[/QUOTE] Chrome has been better and faster than Firefox for a long time now. Instead of closing the gap, Mozilla introduced a Chrome-like UI that nobody wanted at the cost of heavily used features. Now they're dropping the only other reason you'd use Firefox: Real extension support. I still miss this in Chrome to this day. Google has come a long way but their extensions are still laughable compared to what I had in Firefox in 2006. There's nothing left. Hopefully someone will make a popular Firefox Fork and let Mozilla go quietly, but the chances of that are slim to none.

Through the magic of open source or whatever, is it possible that there could still be some firefox-like browser that retains extension support yet still receives security updates? Or would it be too different?

[QUOTE=Zero_;48515043]So...why should I use Firefox over Chrome now?[/QUOTE] Maybe the fact that Chrome reports its users' activities, everyone can see it in the source code, and Google doesn't even care about that? Also, if any of my extensions stop working, I'm gonna send some strong words to Mozilla... And I'll downgrade to version 40. [QUOTE=Ardosos;48515077]Through the magic of open source or whatever, is it possible that there could still be some firefox-like browser that retains extension support yet still receives security updates? Or would it be too different?[/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.waterfoxproject.org/"]Waterfox[/URL], and it's 64-bit.

:snip: Misread

[QUOTE=DJ999;48515101]Anything like that for Windows?[/QUOTE] Yeah, there's this really cool project called [url=https://www.waterfoxproject.org/]Waterfox[/url]. Check them out.

[QUOTE=DJ999;48515101]Anything like that for Windows?[/QUOTE] Dafuq, [b]it is[/b] for Windows...

[QUOTE=vercas;48515083]Maybe the fact that Chrome reports its users' activities, everyone can see it in the source code, and Google doesn't even care about that? Also, if any of my extensions stop working, I'm gonna send some strong words to Mozilla... And I'll downgrade to version 40. [URL="https://www.waterfoxproject.org/"]Waterfox[/URL], and it's 64-bit.[/QUOTE] That being said, it's up to Waterfox to decide if they go Mozilla's route or not. We'll have to wait to see what they announce before we call them our saviors. They also still depend on Mozilla for patches and fixes.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;48515118]That being said, it's up to Waterfox to decide if they go Mozilla's route or not. We'll have to wait to see what they announce before we call them our saviors. They also still depend on Mozilla for patches and fixes.[/QUOTE] They can surely stick to XUI. They're already willing to go the extra mile to merge all the changes from mainstream with their (64-bit) code. Sticking to XUI would mean ignoring the extension-related changes and keeping XUI bug-free on their own. Alternatively, they could find a way to support both extension systems. That would be neat. [editline]ad[/editline] Also, Waterfox is 100% interoperable with Firefox. You can close Firefox and start Waterfox, getting the same tabs, plugins and extensions working. Also, pretty much everything is noticeably faster.

[QUOTE=vercas;48515138]They can surely stick to XUI. They're already willing to go the extra mile to merge all the changes from mainstream with their (64-bit) code. Sticking to XUI would mean ignoring the extension-related changes and keeping XUI bug-free on their own. Alternatively, they could find a way to support both extension systems. That would be neat.[/QUOTE] Mozilla is working to drop Gecko for Servo. They'll need to rewrite XUI for it within the next couple years to stay current, along with every other change they've made.

Aw man that's bullshit. Why is Mozilla trying to become Chrome? I don't like Chrome's interface, which they decided to copy for no reason. So I'm already using an extension to force it to look like the old interface, and now they want to take that away from me too? What the hell Mozilla?

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;48515152]Mozilla is working to drop Gecko for Servo. They'll need to rewrite XUI for it within the next couple years to stay current, along with every other change they've made.[/QUOTE] Great. Mozilla really knows how to dig their own grave whilst burying themselves at the same time. So... Vivaldi looks nice, right? :why:

[QUOTE=vercas;48515163]Great. Mozilla really knows how to dig their own grave whilst burying themselves at the same time. So... Vivaldi looks nice, right? :why:[/QUOTE] Yeah, but Vivaldi is just more WebKit/Blink with the same bad extensions. We're doomed.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;48515175]Yeah, but Vivaldi is just more WebKit/Blink with the same bad extensions. We're doomed.[/QUOTE] Edge..? Maelstorm? :worried:

I got one or two UI addons, nothing much, I don't really see the big deal.

[QUOTE=Coolboy;48515188]I got one or two UI addons, nothing much, I don't really see the big deal.[/QUOTE] That's because you didn't push Firefox to its fullest customizing potential. And ironically I was in the middle of moving my shit from Chrome to Firefox because Firefox had a few handy extensions that couldn't exist on chrome due to limiting extensions API (and Google treating everyone like retards).

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;48515058]Chrome has been better and faster than Firefox for a long time now. Instead of closing the gap, Mozilla introduced a Chrome-like UI that nobody wanted at the cost of heavily used features. Now they're dropping the only other reason you'd use Firefox: Real extension support. I still miss this in Chrome to this day. Google has come a long way but their extensions are still laughable compared to what I had in Firefox in 2006. There's nothing left. Hopefully someone will make a popular Firefox Fork and let Mozilla go quietly, but the chances of that are slim to none.[/QUOTE] As I recall, didn't it turn out the myth of Chrome being faster/less resource intensive turned out to literally just be a myth. And while Chrome's individual instances were less intensive, together they were far more intensive than Firefox. Reaffirmed From my own experience, Chrome with only six tabs open was vastly more memory consuming than my heavily modded Firefox with about a dozen tabs open and running for about ten times as long uninterrupted. I've never found a single reason to use Chrome. It has always performed worse, looked worse, and had worse add-on support.

If I disable updating, will it prevent this from happening? Or will it just force-update like it did with the Chrome UI clone?

Assuming Waterfox goes down the same path, you could always try Palemoon. They've been pretty good with Mozilla's shittier decisions so far. Even the UI is classic Firefox.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48515241]If I disable updating, will it prevent this from happening? Or will it just force-update like it did with the Chrome UI clone?[/QUOTE] You can disable updating but in six months almost everything breaks.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48515155]Aw man that's bullshit. Why is Mozilla trying to become Chrome? I don't like Chrome's interface, which they decided to copy for no reason. So I'm already using an extension to force it to look like the old interface, and now they want to take that away from me too? What the hell Mozilla?[/QUOTE] You could give [url=http://www.seamonkey-project.org/]Seamonkey[/url] a look, it might as well be a working Firefox 3

[QUOTE=Satane;48515355]And this is when I switch to chrome[/QUOTE] I downloaded Waterfox and it was up and running in like thirty seconds. It pulled everything from Firefox and required no input from me. Do that!