[pcwalton]

The idea that the XUL extension model is necessary for a browser to be useful is obviously false. The majority of Web users use browsers that do not have a XUL extension model.

(And, of course, I don't believe your desired functionality is incompatible with Web Extensions anyhow.)

[Silhouette]

With respect, that doesn't really matter.

I used to have a useful feature that worked.

Now I don't.

That was the practical result of the change we're talking about for this user, regardless of any theoretical benefits elsewhere or any theoretical ability to provide equivalent functionality within the new architecture.

Other people are welcome to use other browsers, but I was using Firefox, and a big reason I was still using Firefox despite various other changes I didn't particularly want was the range of useful extensions I could choose from.

[jabl]

> I used to have a useful feature that worked.

> Now I don't.

Well, imagine for a moment that you're whoever is in charge of firefox development at mozilla:

- You want to take advantage of modern hardware such as multiple cores, GPU's etc.

- You want to get rid of XUL which is an evolutionary dead end.

- You have an existing extension model which basically allows extensions to more or less freely poke about in the internals of the browser

- You want to improve security for users, both against malicious sites and (to a lesser extent, I suppose, but still) malicious browser extensions.

Now, what would YOU do if the constraint is that you can never ever break existing extensions?

[michaelmrose]

I guess you would lose some of your remaining market share to chrome and wonder how much smaller your revenue is going to be when the yahoo deal expires?

[littlestymaar]

> I guess you would lose some of your remaining market share to chrome

So, you're saying that:

- some people kept using Firefox because it had more powerful extensions than Google Chrome.

- these people are upset because mozilla is breaking the old extensions in favor of a less powerful alternative (still better than Chrome's, that the main point of the OP)

- then people are going to move to Google Chrome which still is the worst browser for extensions

Who reasons this way ? There are legitimate reasons for being upset (my favorite addon disapeared and that makes me sad / I need to rewrite all my addons, depending if you're a user or an addon dev), but I don't think anyone will shoot himself in the foot and use a worse (addon-wise at least) alternative just because mozilla's people are mean !

[michaelmrose]

Most users aren't developers they aren't judging the relative power of extension systems they just are liable to notice useful extensions going away.

Firefox on Linux seems to me to be slower and crappier save for interesting extensions.

Enough so that I've just decided to ditch Firefox even before interesting extensions go south.

[newscracker]

The idea is for extensions to have the flexibility they have had. I don't think anyone would object to WebExtensions if it didn't cripple or make existing extensions impossible to exist in the future.

Also, this interest is not about the majority of the users. This is about the users who know about Firefox extensions and use a bunch of them everyday! I know my life has certainly become more productive and less stressful with several extensions than without. In my experience, Firefox extensions have also historically been of better quality and reliability compared to Chrome extensions. For now, I have just two examples for my case - switching proxy servers and saving/restoring browser sessions. I use Firefox extensions that work beautifully, and just as one would expect (they're Foxy Proxy and Session Manager), but similar extensions in Chrome don't work and I always end up fighting more with the browser and the extensions to have a better experience. To this day, I can't trust Chrome to restore a crashed session on the first (re)launch. So I use Chrome more as a one-off browser once in a while and try to avoid having long running sessions (my browser sessions on Firefox can span several days, weeks or sometimes even months).

My opinion is that technically savvy people must use their knowledge and influence to guide others to use things that make life easier and better. I have been following this myself by encouraging people to use Firefox and by showing them some great extensions to have.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

> I don't think anyone would object to WebExtensions if it didn't cripple or make existing extensions impossible to exist in the future.

Actually there have been some complaints about API churn; rewriting is no fun. But I agree with the rest of your post.

[userbinator]

The majority of Web users use browsers that do not have a XUL extension model

And the majority of these users may have no idea what an extension is either. That doesn't mean all browsers should be dumbed down to cater to the lowest-common-denominator who will manage to infect themselves regardless of how featureless and "secure" browsers become.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

> The idea that the XUL extension model is necessary for a browser to be useful is obviously false. The majority of Web users use browsers that do not have a XUL extension model.

I explicitly preferred Firefox over every other browser I ever tried because its extensions were more powerful and more abundant, and it appears likely that this was due to XUL providing deep access to extensions. You can't just say that others didn't have a feature if that feature was a key differentiator!