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

Tree Style Tabs is a huge reason why I use Firefox. They better come up with some sort of replacement for the old API that still lets you do stuff like that...

[QUOTE=Satane;48516753]10 seconds? what the actual christ? Maybe firefox works better on shit computers while chrome actually utilizes avalible resources? All I know is chrome starts faster, opens pages faster and is generally snappier. Firefox takes maybe 1 sec to load while chrome is instant on my pc. But that's probably due to all the addons, then again I don't really have many addons, and I have adblock on chrome too.[/QUOTE] I'm fairly sure a 3.8ghz quad core system with 8gb of ram isn't a shit computer. Every computer I've personally used both Chrome and Firefox on though has been the same. [QUOTE=wauterboi;48519139]I'm in Waterfox and fooled around with the homepage and the Playrust trello. I experienced no such crash. [editline]22nd August 2015[/editline] To whoever said Chrome sometimes idles out and doesn't want to load anything for like thirty seconds - I also had that problem. It's issue is when you want to use extensions, because that's when it comes to a screeching halt. I'm in Firefox now with uBlock, Disconnect, and a Twitch notifier and I've yet to experience the same slowdowns.[/QUOTE] That's interesting. I wonder why it crashes Firefox but not Waterfox then. And that was me that said that about Chrome not wanting to load things and I don't even have extensions installed on it because I so rarely use it. It's a bit weird how it acts too. It'll seemingly load up just fine and if I click a bookmark it'll act as if it's going to load it but just load their standard new tab page until a good 30 seconds or so have passed since it started up.

At this point their talk about "respecting user freedoms" is false advertising. Someone should sue.

[QUOTE=Satane;48520093]Why do you have concerns about ram usage with 8 gigs, for all I care let it use 5 gigs if it helps it work faster.[/QUOTE] If you read what I've said I simply explained why Chrome uses more ram. I wasn't the one complaining about how much it uses. [QUOTE]But seriously what's with all the 10+sec wait times you're getting? Last time I waited that long for simple tasks was pentium 4. Something's probably wrong with your chrome install or your computer tbh. I'm not here to blindly defend chrome or anything. I could make a video showing you how chrome does everything like 0,5-1sec faster but I'm not gonna do that.[/QUOTE] Chrome has always been like this for me on multiple computers. Once it finally starts up it's pretty much just as fast as Firefox but the startup itself is slow as hell for me. But that's just one of many reasons I prefer Firefox anyways and not really the leading one. I prefer Firefox's customization and layout more than Chrome's which is the main reason I use it.

[QUOTE=Grandzeit;48515014]A lot of my favorite Chrome extensions don't exist on Firefox, so I suppose I don't mind this.[/QUOTE] Whereas I use Chrome, a lot of Firefox extensions also don't exist for Chrome. Especially considering that Google limits its extension API massively. For example you can't get anything like "Tamper Data" for Chrome. Which tbh might not exist anymore after this change.

OP, I'm not sure if you actually read the blog post or you intentionally wanted to start a hate bandwagon. [QUOTE=1/4 Life;48514988] 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.[/QUOTE] I'm surprised the add-on dev can confirm what this new API can do, considering the [url=https://billmccloskey.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/firefox-add-on-changes/]Mozilla devs haven't even thought about what this API could do[/url]. They're additionally [url=https://webextensions.uservoice.com/forums/315663-webextension-api-ideas]asking for feedback on what they need to implement[/url] and working with [url=https://hackademix.net/2015/08/22/webextensions-api-noscript/]popular add-on devs[/url] to ensure their add-ons stay working. The deprecation of XUL/XPCOM is being measured in years, which is more than enough time to make WebExtensions do everything add-ons need. You also forgot this key bit from the post: [quote] We want to reiterate our commitment to our add-on development community, and will work with you in porting extensions, designing new APIs, and creating innovative new add-ons that make Firefox great. [/quote]

[QUOTE=FlamingSpaz;48520172]OP, I'm not sure if you actually read the blog post or you intentionally wanted to start a hate bandwagon. I'm surprised the add-on dev can confirm what this new API can do, considering the [url=https://billmccloskey.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/firefox-add-on-changes/]Mozilla devs haven't even thought about what this API could do[/url]. They're additionally [url=https://webextensions.uservoice.com/forums/315663-webextension-api-ideas]asking for feedback on what they need to implement[/url] and working with [url=https://hackademix.net/2015/08/22/webextensions-api-noscript/]popular add-on devs[/url] to ensure their add-ons stay working. The deprecation of XUL/XPCOM is being measured in years, which is more than enough time to make WebExtensions do everything add-ons need. You also forgot this key bit from the post:[/QUOTE] I highly recommend you read the DownThemAll blog post. Mozilla is switching to an already well known extension API. It's Greasemonkey vs Tampermonkey at this point, or Firefox ABP vs Chrome ABP. They also need to be careful about their own modifications to the API because they said they want to keep it mostly compatible with Chrome, and the kind of modifications needed to keep the feature set for extensions they have now is a disservice to the entire point of switching, not to mention a disservice to the entire extension community by forcing them to throw out almost everything they've made so far. This most likely also means extensions will start having their own E10s process like in Chrome, leading to even higher memory usage. I would also be weary about any promises made by Mozilla developers. Take a look at how much hate Australis got and how many broken promises were made about it's customization. The classic Firefox UI extension is currently the most popular extension on the Mozilla app store. Finally, these extensions are going to be signed, meaning just like Chrome no more easy extension installs from outside the Mozilla store. It's all bad. [editline]22nd August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=vercas;48515181]Edge..? Maelstorm? :worried:[/QUOTE] PaleMoon is a true fork unlike Waterfox and it has the old Firefox UI. They also just committed to keeping XUL and XPCOM support. That might be your answer going forward.

Lynx is the best browser anyways

Well this is depressing, I use classic theme restorer and a slew of other addons that probably won't work anymore.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;48520375]I highly recommend you read the DownThemAll blog post. Mozilla is switching to an already well known extension API.[/QUOTE] No, they're not. Again, if you read the blog post (emphasis mine): [quote]We are implementing a [b]new extension API[/b], called WebExtensions—[b]largely compatible with the model used by Chrome and Opera[/b]—to make it easier to develop extensions across multiple browsers.[/quote] [quote]To this end, we are implementing a [B]new, Blink-compatible API[/B] in Firefox called WebExtensions.[/quote] [QUOTE=1/4 Life;48520375] and the kind of modifications needed to keep the feature set for extensions they have now is a disservice to the entire point of switching, not to mention a disservice to the entire extension community by forcing them to throw out almost everything they've made so far. [/QUOTE] Do you really think they're doing this "to be more like Chrome"? They're doing this so they have more flexibility making UI/under-the-hood changes without having to worry about breaking add-ons every single time (see: e10s) [QUOTE=1/4 Life;48520375] This most likely also means extensions will start having their own E10s process like in Chrome, leading to even higher memory usage. [/QUOTE] Source for this? [QUOTE=1/4 Life;48520375] Finally, these extensions are going to be signed, meaning just like Chrome no more easy extension installs from outside the Mozilla store. [/QUOTE] Again, not true. Extenstions that won't be hosted on AMO can be submitted for automatic signing and then hosted wherever they like. HTTPS Everwhere is signed and still hosted on the EFF site, still a one-click install. [url=https://wiki.mozilla.org/Addons/Extension_Signing]This wiki page[/url] has more info. [QUOTE=1/4 Life;48520375] PaleMoon is a true fork unlike Waterfox and it has the old Firefox UI. They also just committed to keeping XUL and XPCOM support. That might be your answer going forward.[/QUOTE] PaleMoon probably doesn't get as thoroughly security reviewed as Chrome or Firefox so this is a bad idea.

[QUOTE=Flussmann;48519764]I wish that I could give a fair answer as to having it as the primary browser, but am currently using Firefox as my primary. Seeing how Edge is seriously messing my groove up about the same time that Firefox is going off the deep end, I should look at Vivaldi more seriously again. I do know that back when I tried to keep it as my main back in May, the nitpicks that were to be had from back in March were resolved by and large. Some things that were, and still are [I](looking at the latest build as we speak)[/I], holding me back are the lack of UI customisability [I](Or ease thereof. It's still very much a guided sandbox even with the massively expanded options screen.)[/I], multiscreen issues [I](Left is best. Similar to how Opera 12.xx was, but more so.)[/I], tab issues [I](can't be easily "torn" off and such)[/I], and some things that I can't place my finger on... The multiscreen and tab issues are going to continue to be game breakers for me and hopefully become resolved before Edge becomes full-featured. While tangently related, it should be noted that Edge has serious potential.[/QUOTE] I was planning to start using vivaldi, but there's no way I can make sure it respects my privacy, chrome is fucked too, firefox's proper extension support is going to die, then what am I supposed to use?

[QUOTE=FFStudios;48516689]what the fuck are you talking about all you have to do is drag in an unsigned extension from your computer lmao it's even easier than firefox is[/QUOTE] I didn't see this post before, but yeah, you can install unsigned extensions, but they get uninstalled when you restart chrome

The only problem I have with Waterfox is that it appears that youtube repeat extensions don't work with it.

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE] Someone please tell me this doesn't mean what I think it means.

[QUOTE=uber.;48528974]Someone please tell me this doesn't mean what I think it means.[/QUOTE] If you don't use Firefox dev edition (and explicitly say you want to allow unsigned extensions), you won't be able to use addons which haven't gone through Mozilla first.

[QUOTE=RusselG;48529003]If you don't use Firefox dev edition (and explicitly say you want to allow unsigned extensions), you won't be able to use addons which haven't gone through Mozilla first.[/QUOTE] Knowing Mozzarella and the fact that Firefox's biggest appeal to most of its userbase is the fact it's so customizable they're probably going to either give you an option in the standard settings or in about:config to allow you to install unsigned extensions with them being blocked by default. It'll probably be in about:config I'd think.

The privacy options of Firefox keeps me of using it instead of Chrome. Fuck Chrome, it can't delete automatically your history and stuffs. That's bullshit.

[QUOTE=Daine;48529166]The privacy options of Firefox keeps me of using it instead of Chrome. Fuck Chrome, it can't delete automatically your history and stuffs. That's bullshit.[/QUOTE] disabling all the options under privacy makes chrome a bit better, still doesn't get rid of the diagnostics/usage reports sent back to Google but hey. i also disable the "do not track" stuff because malicious websites ignore it or use it to deliberately track you. instead I have "Disconnect" installed. [IMG]https://files.d2k5.com/erika/2015082412105176812810.png[/IMG] having any of the above enabled = google gets information

[QUOTE=uber.;48528974]Someone please tell me this doesn't mean what I think it means.[/QUOTE] It does. They use signing instead of locking the client down properly like they should. It's already in Nightly and yes, it (currently) breaks quite a lot of things. [editline]24th August 2015[/editline] You can only deactivate it in the dev versions iirc.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;48529068]Knowing Mozzarella and the fact that Firefox's biggest appeal to most of its userbase is the fact it's so customizable they're probably going to either give you an option in the standard settings or in about:config to allow you to install unsigned extensions with them being blocked by default. It'll probably be in about:config I'd think.[/QUOTE] As I said, they plan to have the allow unsigned option only on dev edition. It's currently an about:config setting. Firefox Beta seems to not have the option at all.

[QUOTE=uber.;48528974]Someone please tell me this doesn't mean what I think it means.[/QUOTE] I moved off Chrome because requiring every third party extension goes through your service is totally unacceptable. Time to move again, I guess.

I just use chrome if you're anal about privacy I bet you can block all of it using a firewall, can't you

[QUOTE=damnatus;48531430]I just use chrome if you're anal about privacy I bet you can block all of it using a firewall, can't you[/QUOTE] What a great idea, block your [I]web browser[/I] from the web with an firewall, why hasn't anybody through of that yet? wait...

I like the signing thing, I don't like the extension thing. Opinion finish.

[QUOTE=Rahkshi lord;48531618]What a great idea, block your [I]web browser[/I] from the web with an firewall, why hasn't anybody through of that yet? wait...[/QUOTE] blocking sending stuff to google's survey servers, not blocking all traffic, smartass

[QUOTE=D2K5S1;48529306]disabling all the options under privacy makes chrome a bit better, still doesn't get rid of the diagnostics/usage reports sent back to Google but hey. i also disable the "do not track" stuff because malicious websites ignore it or use it to deliberately track you. instead I have "Disconnect" installed. [IMG]https://files.d2k5.com/erika/2015082412105176812810.png[/IMG] having any of the above enabled = google gets information[/QUOTE] I don't mind that Google collects all my data. I just don't wan't anyone in my computer to get porn sites at each letter they type in my search bar, or looking "accidently" in my history. Firefox is great for that, but Chrome is still far away from it's greatness. If it has any addons to automatically delete history and stuff when closed, and if it has complete theme like Firefox which changes the entire appearence of the browser, then I may go for Chrome.

[QUOTE=uber.;48528974]Someone please tell me this doesn't mean what I think it means.[/QUOTE] Mozilla is just shooting itself in the foot now...

I wish Firefox would stop trying to become Google Chrome. If I wanted to use Google Chrome I'd use Google Chrome. [QUOTE=Daine;48532208]I don't mind that Google collects all my data. I just don't wan't anyone in my computer to get porn sites at each letter they type in my search bar, or looking "accidently" in my history.[/QUOTE] Just use incognito mode.

[QUOTE=Daine;48529166]The privacy options of Firefox keeps me of using it instead of Chrome. Fuck Chrome, it can't delete automatically your history and stuffs. That's bullshit.[/QUOTE] Can't you just get Chromium and get Chrome before all the shit Google tacks on?

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;48532476]Can't you just get Chromium and get Chrome before all the shit Google tacks on?[/QUOTE] But chromium still has like half of the shit they tack on