Reactions to Mozilla’s announcement about upcoming Firefox add-on changes

[Batu69]

As a Firefox user you have probably read already that Mozilla plans to introduce major changes to the add-on system of the browser.

The official blog post on the Mozilla blog revealed WebExtensions, Electrolysis, Add-on Signing and the deprecation of XUL, XPCOM and the permissive add-on model in particular, and a rough timeline as well.

To sum it up: Mozilla plans to focus on WebExtensions in the future which offer better compatibility with the extension engines of browsers such as Chrome and Opera.

The deprecation of XUL, XPCOM and the permissive add-on model will break extensions that require deeper permissions or modify core components of the browser.

Mozilla stated that it wants to work with add-on developers, and it apparently is already, to add required functions to WebExtensions to ensure that their extensions will remain compatible with Firefox.

Several add-on developers and Mozillians have blogged about it and expressed their opinion on that development. This article looks at those reactions so that you can get a better picture of what is coming up.

Bill McCloskey (Firefox engineer who works on process separation and garbage collection) responds to concerns that Firefox users and add-on developers have. He states that Mozilla has "lots of ideas" to make popular extensions such as NoScript, Vimperator, Tab Mix Plus or Classic Theme Restorer work using better APIs, and that users and developers can express opinions on https://webextensions.uservoice.com/.

He explains why Mozilla made the announcement.

Again, we’re open to ideas about how to do this. Moving away from XUL will be a long process. We’re announcing all of this early so that we can begin to gather feedback. APIs that are created in a vacuum probably aren’t going to be very useful to people.

Robert O'Callahan, another Mozilla engineer, adds that basing WebExtensions on Chrome's extensions API does not imply limiting WebExtensions to it.

So Firefox addons will continue to be able to do things you can't do in Chrome (though there will be some things you can hack into Firefox's XUL today that won't be supported by WebExtensions, for sure).

Giorgio Maone, creator of the excellent NoScript extension, confirms that Mozilla reached out to him and other add-on authors to design mechanisms and processes that are not yet supported by WebExtensions. This is done to establish a base so that popular extensions such as NoScript and Classic Theme Restorer can be ported to WebExtensions, and to ensure that innovation can still take place.

Developers and users are also concerned about add-ons being prevented from exploring radically new concepts which would require those "super powers" apparently taken away by the WebExtensions API.

I'd like to reassure them: Mozilla is investing a lot of resources to ensure that complex and innovative extensions can prosper also in the new Web-centric ecosystem

Mike Kaply worries that developers won't just "jump at the opportunity" to use the new API, and that the only developers who will actually benefit from this are Chrome developers who will have an easier time porting their extensions to Firefox.

With e10s coming up though, lots of developers have had to make decisions as to whether or not it is worth it to rewrite and some developers have gone through that pain (and it is pain - a lot of pain).

Now developers are being told in the next one to two years they will have to completely rewrite ALL of their add-ons. What are the odds that these hobby add-on developers are going to do that?

Let’s be honest. Availability of APIs isn’t the difficult part of the discussion. Availability of time and energy to even attempt to rewrite all of our add-ons is the problem.

Conclusion

If you have read all posts and comments made in the past couple of days about upcoming changes to Firefox's add-on ecosystem, you may have come to the following conclusion:

1. Mozilla is dead serious about moving away from XUL, XPCOM and the permissive add-on model.
2. WebExtensions is a work in progress. It will be based on Chrome extension's API but will not mimic it 1:1.
3. Mozilla plans to add functions to the API so that popular Firefox add-ons can get ported to it and won't stop working suddenly.
4. The API will not be as powerful as what Firefox add-on developers have at their disposal right now.
5. The number of add-ons that will break when the change completes is not know. It is likely that add-ons will break, for instance if they have been abandoned or if their authors won't port them to WebExtensions.

Source

[steven36]

Mozilla makes no sense . I 1st tested in v1.5 by version 2 I had abandoned IE for there browser . They have been making add-ons the same way since for 12 years and now they try tell us its not safe that they need to adopt Google add-ons . Well left them go ahead because every action causes a reaction , Since 2011 every action they took has caused a negative reaction ,

1st they adopted Chrome's Rapid Release
.
Firefox developer admits that everybody hates Firefox rapid updates

http://dottech.org/74083/firefox-developer-admits-that-everybody-hates-firefox-rapid-updates/

Then they adopted Australis from Google


More than 80% are unhappy with Firefox’s Australis interface, Mozilla report states

http://www.ghacks.net/2013/11/23/80-unhappy-firefoxs-australis-interface-mozilla-report-states/

Then they add 3rd party add-ons built in that cause great security risk .


Holes found in Pocket Firefox add-on

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/20/holes_found_in_pocket/

Then adopted chromes add-on policy .Once Google started imposing this a year latter they removed it from the Dev version as well just give Mozilla time they will too.


Fix for installing unsigned add-ons in Firefox Dev and Nightly

http://www.ghacks.net/2015/08/04/fix-for-installing-unsigned-add-ons-in-firefox-dev-and-nightly/

Now they plain to start making Chrome add-ons

http://www.ghacks.net/2015/08/21/mozillas-self-destruct-course-continues-major-add-on-compatibility-changes-announced/

Mozilla for almost 5 years now has no longer cared about what the end user wants its turned from a nice browser to a mindless piece of bloatware full of unwanted features .

Then they wonder why they dont have any market share value anymore. Google dont have to buy them to shut them down there doing a good job of killing themselves



An incredibly shrinking Firefox faces endangered species status

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2893514/an-incredibly-shrinking-firefox-faces-endangered-species-status.html

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-monthly-201407-201507

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-monthly-201508-201508-bar

There catching up with IE.

But there marketshare is not growing any at all really only reason they are catching is because some moved to edge and more went to chrome .

Now they said this I expect to see it drop even more . In there case for last 5 years everything they done 80% of users didn't want. And that's why they lost most all of us to Chrome ,Palemoon Cyberfox and others :P

[Bausch]

The plugins are what's keeping me with Firefox, if they'll break I'm moving to Chrome.

[WALLONN7]

The plugins are what's keeping me with Firefox, if they'll break I'm moving to Chrome.

Well, I'm sad about Mozilla's last moves but... Chrome was / won't never be an option... B)

[snf]

Follow Steven36

Switch to Palemoon , Cyberfox or other open source

[steven36]

i think its cool that some of us are happy with browsers that dont even care about statistics. But Mozilla does care just like them making a x64 browser depends on how much marketshare (money) they will gain from it. 2016 -2017 will bea good year for some open source devopler to make a fork that cares about the users wants and needs for a Gecko based browser . Just like Vivaldi is making and awesome chrome browser once it gets full add-on support . Its going to be a great power user browser.

[snf]

Vivaldi is do by an old of Opera.

And Vivaldi is Google to.

No open source no real privacy.

They surf on nostalgie of Opera 12.17 for seduce people.

Me i never use this browser.

And like all Chromium based browser is always outdated.

It's my opinion.

I respect opinion of users want use this browser.

[steven36]

Open Source dont make a browser better the 1st browsers ever made were not even open source. Opera use to not be Open Source . Open Source has done more harm than good really in browsers case they caused all browsers to become Google Chrome. If Google would just have been freeware they could sue others that copy them . But its slowly becoming nothing but a cloned world. Really the only reason I use a Open Source browser there's nothing I like that's Freeware or shareware . Most are all open source.

Its like Linux its open source but not many use it but windows is closed source . But everyone uses windows . Sometimes being closed source can be great benefit if they can make money to support there product . Google Chrome there's no real privacy there and its open source . There's no browser that offers real privacy thats why I use a vpn and privacy enhancing addons . You have to do the footwork yourself . :)

[snf]

Yes it's true.

But Otter browser seem interesting project.

But not finished

Missing developper.

When is ready i think try it.

[CODYQX4]

I have mixed feelings about this. It will be nice to have cross browser extensions, and the Firefox API is ancient, but Firefox gives you a level of customization that the other browsers don't. It's the one thing they have over Chrome. Remove that and it has NOTHING over Chrome.

Before people start saying "but Google is Big Brother", Firefox is funded by Bing, puts ads in your New Tab screen, and sends your history up to a server (to create tab previews) unnecessarily. Both must be blocked and tweaked to minimize data leakage.

[snf]

Open Source dont make a browser better the 1st browsers ever made were not even open source. Opera use to not be Open Source . Open Source has done more harm than good really in browsers case they caused all browsers to become Google Chrome. If Google would just have been freeware they could sue others that copy them . But its slowly becoming nothing but a cloned world. Really the only reason I use a Open Source browser there's nothing I like that's Freeware or shareware . Most are all open source.

Its like Linux its open source but not many use it but windows is closed source . But everyone uses windows . Sometimes being closed source can be great benefit if they can make money to support there product . Google Chrome there's no real privacy there and its open source . There's no browser that offers real privacy thats why I use a vpn and privacy enhancing addons . You have to do the footwork yourself . :)

Sorry Steven36 but Chrome is an proprietary browser ; Chromiun is an Open source the base of Chrome.

[steven36]

Open Source dont make a browser better the 1st browsers ever made were not even open source. Opera use to not be Open Source . Open Source has done more harm than good really in browsers case they caused all browsers to become Google Chrome. If Google would just have been freeware they could sue others that copy them . But its slowly becoming nothing but a cloned world. Really the only reason I use a Open Source browser there's nothing I like that's Freeware or shareware . Most are all open source.

Its like Linux its open source but not many use it but windows is closed source . But everyone uses windows . Sometimes being closed source can be great benefit if they can make money to support there product . Google Chrome there's no real privacy there and its open source . There's no browser that offers real privacy thats why I use a vpn and privacy enhancing addons . You have to do the footwork yourself . :)

Sorry Steven36 but Chrome is an proprietary browser ; Chromiun is an Open source the base of Chrome.

The updater is a closed-source part of Google Chrome not the browser part. .That's another thing I never liked about Goggle Chrome you must enable uac to get auto updates . And some say if you use offline install you have trouble with auto updates were other chrome ones you dont .

There all the same code not long ago they removed the privacy bug from always allowing access to webcam and microphone. That was in Chromium code itself .

The difference in Google Chrome vs Chromium.

Google Chrome includes crash reporting features not found in Chromium. If you choose to enable crash reporting in Chrome, information about crashes will be sent to Google. If you use Chromium, this crash reporter isn’t present and you’ll have to get a bug trace the old-fashioned way. Linux distributions may also modify Chromium’s code before giving it to you. If you’re trying to pin down some Chrome bug, you’re probably better off using Chrome instead of Chromium.

Chromium also lacks the usage-tracking or “user metrics” feature found in Chrome. This is an optional feature that sends information about how you use the different parts of the browser to Google, giving them data they can use to base decisions on. (This was the sort of data Microsoft claimed they used when they said they removed the Start menu because no one used it, so perhaps geeks should leave such features on.)

In the past, users were worried that each Chrome browser shipped with a unique “client ID” and noted that Chromium did not. Google stopped doing this back in 2010.

However, Chromium includes many features that depend on Google’s servers, and they’re enabled by default. You’ll see these features listed on the Settings page. They include a web service that helps fix mistyped web addresses, a prediction service, Google’s anti-phishing feature, and more.

What Chrome Has and Chromium Doesn’t

AAC, H.264, and MP3 Support

Adobe Flash (PPAPI):

Google Update

Security Sandbox (?): In some Linux distros its disabled in Chromium

[DKT27]

Mozilla makes no sense . I 1st tested in v1.5 by version 2 I had abandoned IE for there browser . They have been making add-ons the same way since for 12 years and now they try tell us its not safe that they need to adopt Google add-ons . Well left them go ahead because every action causes a reaction , Since 2011 every action they took has caused a negative reaction ,

Tell you what, you have mentioned important points, something Mozilla should consider. So much so that I reported it to Firefox.

Open Source dont make a browser better the 1st browsers ever made were not even open source. Opera use to not be Open Source . Open Source has done more harm than good really in browsers case they caused all browsers to become Google Chrome. If Google would just have been freeware they could sue others that copy them . But its slowly becoming nothing but a cloned world. Really the only reason I use a Open Source browser there's nothing I like that's Freeware or shareware . Most are all open source.

Its like Linux its open source but not many use it but windows is closed source . But everyone uses windows . Sometimes being closed source can be great benefit if they can make money to support there product . Google Chrome there's no real privacy there and its open source . There's no browser that offers real privacy thats why I use a vpn and privacy enhancing addons . You have to do the footwork yourself . :)

Sorry Steven36 but Chrome is an proprietary browser ; Chromiun is an Open source the base of Chrome.

The updater is a closed-source part of Google Chrome not the browser part. .That's another thing I never liked about Goggle Chrome you must enable uac to get auto updates . And some say if you use offline install you have trouble with auto updates were other chrome ones you dont .

There all the same code not long ago they removed the privacy bug from always allowing access to webcam and microphone. That was in Chromium code itself .

The difference in Google Chrome vs Chromium.

Google Chrome includes crash reporting features not found in Chromium. If you choose to enable crash reporting in Chrome, information about crashes will be sent to Google. If you use Chromium, this crash reporter isn’t present and you’ll have to get a bug trace the old-fashioned way. Linux distributions may also modify Chromium’s code before giving it to you. If you’re trying to pin down some Chrome bug, you’re probably better off using Chrome instead of Chromium.

Chromium also lacks the usage-tracking or “user metrics” feature found in Chrome. This is an optional feature that sends information about how you use the different parts of the browser to Google, giving them data they can use to base decisions on. (This was the sort of data Microsoft claimed they used when they said they removed the Start menu because no one used it, so perhaps geeks should leave such features on.)

In the past, users were worried that each Chrome browser shipped with a unique “client ID” and noted that Chromium did not. Google stopped doing this back in 2010.

However, Chromium includes many features that depend on Google’s servers, and they’re enabled by default. You’ll see these features listed on the Settings page. They include a web service that helps fix mistyped web addresses, a prediction service, Google’s anti-phishing feature, and more.

What Chrome Has and Chromium Doesn’t

AAC, H.264, and MP3 Support

Adobe Flash (PPAPI):

Google Update

Security Sandbox (?): In some Linux distros its disabled in Chromium

Chrome the browser is proprietary:

9. License from Google

9.1 Google gives you a personal, worldwide, royalty-free, non-assignable and non-exclusive license to use the software provided to you by Google as part of the Services as provided to you by Google (referred to as the “Software” below). This license is for the sole purpose of enabling you to use and enjoy the benefit of the Services as provided by Google, in the manner permitted by the Terms.

9.2 Subject to section 1.2, you may not (and you may not permit anyone else to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, decompile or otherwise attempt to extract the source code of the Software or any part thereof, unless this is expressly permitted or required by law, or unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google, in writing.

9.3 Subject to section 1.2, unless Google has given you specific written permission to do so, you may not assign (or grant a sub-license of) your rights to use the Software, grant a security interest in or over your rights to use the Software, or otherwise transfer any part of your rights to use the Software.

Source.

This is not me saying it, but Wiki citation saying so.

[steven36]

Chrome the browser is proprietary:

9. License from Google

9.1 Google gives you a personal, worldwide, royalty-free, non-assignable and non-exclusive license to use the software provided to you by Google as part of the Services as provided to you by Google (referred to as the “Software” below). This license is for the sole purpose of enabling you to use and enjoy the benefit of the Services as provided by Google, in the manner permitted by the Terms.

9.2 Subject to section 1.2, you may not (and you may not permit anyone else to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, decompile or otherwise attempt to extract the source code of the Software or any part thereof, unless this is expressly permitted or required by law, or unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google, in writing.

9.3 Subject to section 1.2, unless Google has given you specific written permission to do so, you may not assign (or grant a sub-license of) your rights to use the Software, grant a security interest in or over your rights to use the Software, or otherwise transfer any part of your rights to use the Software.

Source.

This is not me saying it, but Wiki citation saying so.

License from Google really dont mean much considering the only difference in the code is what i said above you can easily clone it using its base code . Because there's all kinds of browsers based on Chromium code. That's another bad thing about open source is the fact many rip off others codes for profit like Google does. This is why classic shell went freeware and closed there code.

A interesting thing about Palemoon https://www.palemoon.org/sync/terms.shtml

"User Data" is the digital content stored on, manipulated, and transmitted to and from Pale Moon Sync servers by means of your use of the Service. Examples of User Data include your browsing history, form history, bookmarks, saved passwords, preferences, and open tabs. You own your User Data but you give us a license to store, transmit, reproduce, encrypt, and otherwise manipulate it as necessary to provide the Service.

This basically gives them the right to do as they wish to you're data as they see fit :(

[snf]

In chromium in setting you can disable access to webcam and microphone and Chrome flag to

Mozilla makes no sense . I 1st tested in v1.5 by version 2 I had abandoned IE for there browser . They have been making add-ons the same way since for 12 years and now they try tell us its not safe that they need to adopt Google add-ons . Well left them go ahead because every action causes a reaction , Since 2011 every action they took has caused a negative reaction ,

Tell you what, you have mentioned important points, something Mozilla should consider. So much so that I reported it to Firefox.

Open Source dont make a browser better the 1st browsers ever made were not even open source. Opera use to not be Open Source . Open Source has done more harm than good really in browsers case they caused all browsers to become Google Chrome. If Google would just have been freeware they could sue others that copy them . But its slowly becoming nothing but a cloned world. Really the only reason I use a Open Source browser there's nothing I like that's Freeware or shareware . Most are all open source.

Its like Linux its open source but not many use it but windows is closed source . But everyone uses windows . Sometimes being closed source can be great benefit if they can make money to support there product . Google Chrome there's no real privacy there and its open source . There's no browser that offers real privacy thats why I use a vpn and privacy enhancing addons . You have to do the footwork yourself . :)

Sorry Steven36 but Chrome is an proprietary browser ; Chromiun is an Open source the base of Chrome.

The updater is a closed-source part of Google Chrome not the browser part. .That's another thing I never liked about Goggle Chrome you must enable uac to get auto updates . And some say if you use offline install you have trouble with auto updates were other chrome ones you dont .

There all the same code not long ago they removed the privacy bug from always allowing access to webcam and microphone. That was in Chromium code itself .

The difference in Google Chrome vs Chromium.

Google Chrome includes crash reporting features not found in Chromium. If you choose to enable crash reporting in Chrome, information about crashes will be sent to Google. If you use Chromium, this crash reporter isn’t present and you’ll have to get a bug trace the old-fashioned way. Linux distributions may also modify Chromium’s code before giving it to you. If you’re trying to pin down some Chrome bug, you’re probably better off using Chrome instead of Chromium.

Chromium also lacks the usage-tracking or “user metrics” feature found in Chrome. This is an optional feature that sends information about how you use the different parts of the browser to Google, giving them data they can use to base decisions on. (This was the sort of data Microsoft claimed they used when they said they removed the Start menu because no one used it, so perhaps geeks should leave such features on.)

In the past, users were worried that each Chrome browser shipped with a unique “client ID” and noted that Chromium did not. Google stopped doing this back in 2010.

However, Chromium includes many features that depend on Google’s servers, and they’re enabled by default. You’ll see these features listed on the Settings page. They include a web service that helps fix mistyped web addresses, a prediction service, Google’s anti-phishing feature, and more.


What Chrome Has and Chromium Doesn’t
AAC, H.264, and MP3 Support
Adobe Flash (PPAPI):
Google Update
Security Sandbox (?): In some Linux distros its disabled in Chromium

Chrome the browser is proprietary:

9. License from Google

9.1 Google gives you a personal, worldwide, royalty-free, non-assignable and non-exclusive license to use the software provided to you by Google as part of the Services as provided to you by Google (referred to as the “Software” below). This license is for the sole purpose of enabling you to use and enjoy the benefit of the Services as provided by Google, in the manner permitted by the Terms.

9.2 Subject to section 1.2, you may not (and you may not permit anyone else to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, decompile or otherwise attempt to extract the source code of the Software or any part thereof, unless this is expressly permitted or required by law, or unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google, in writing.

9.3 Subject to section 1.2, unless Google has given you specific written permission to do so, you may not assign (or grant a sub-license of) your rights to use the Software, grant a security interest in or over your rights to use the Software, or otherwise transfer any part of your rights to use the Software.

Source.

This is not me saying it, but Wiki citation saying so.