Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by johnbrodie 2538 days ago
I don't understand Mozilla's position regarding extensions. First, they released a new desktop version with way less extension support, gimping the largest reason I use FF for - vimperator and it's successors.

Now they are going to kill extensions in Android FF, which will kill the only non-ideological reason my family is using it - for the adblocking extensions.
4 comments
dmm 2538 days ago
> First, they released a new desktop version with way less extension support,

Switching the webextensions was necessary to continue improving browser performance. It's my perception that they tried to accommodate extension authors with new apis to allow as many extensions as possible to be ported.

link
zbraniecki 2538 days ago
Mozilla is not "going to kill extensions in Android FF".
link
catacombs 2538 days ago
> Now they are going to kill extensions in Android FF, which will kill the only non-ideological reason my family is using it - for the adblocking extensions.

I'm guess enough ad-based companies with deep pockets finally bullied Mozilla hard enough.

link
Ygg2 2538 days ago
Looking at Mozilla IRC at the time, the reason wasn't bribery, but something way more basic.

Did you ever support an old SOAP server made in '90, that had a lot of bugs, that was slow as hell made of molasses, and was vulnerable to several security exploits?

Now imagine you have millions of users demanding, speed, security and those XML add-ons , I mean servers.

Basically Mozilla decided to ditching the old system in favor of the newer one, was the best choice at the time.

link
catacombs 2538 days ago
> Looking at Mozilla IRC at the time, the reason wasn't bribery, but something way more basic.

I wasn't saying bribery. I'm talking about bullying through other means.

link
Ygg2 2537 days ago
Either way, the results were linked to Firefox overall performance, rather than caused by outside agent.
link
Causality1 2538 days ago
To me the writing has been on the wall ever since the community said "Hey these webextensions can't do nearly as many things as the old ones" and Mozilla's response to that was "Go fuck yourselves."

So now I have to do what I do on my desktop: Chromium for casual browsing and an old non-crippled version of Firefox for getting things done. Thankfully I only buy phones I can root and block ads system-wide.

From Firefox's dropping extension support to Windows' removal of granular update controls the tech industry's inexorable slide away from user control makes me want to cry tears of impotent rage.

link
dmm 2538 days ago
> Mozilla's response to that was "Go fuck yourselves."

Do you have a source for that or are you just making things up?

My observation was that Mozilla consistently responded to complaints from extension authors by implemented new apis for their webextension implementation to allow extensions to be ported. That's pretty far away from "Go Fuck Yourselves."

> Mozilla introduced many new WebExtensions APIs in Firefox 57 [Quantum], such as the openerTabId property for tabs. The opener information is highly relevant for Tree Style Tab. [0]

[0] https://hacks.mozilla.org/2017/12/webextension-tree-style-ta...

link
Causality1 2538 days ago
Then why can extensions still not customize the UI, even for something as simple as putting the tabs below the address and bookmarks bar?
link
dralley 2538 days ago
That's what UserChrome.css is for.
link
DiabloD3 2538 days ago
I don't know why this guy was downvoted, he's correct.

I even have a pretty decent UserChrome.css to better integrate Tree Style Tab, https://www.reddit.com/r/FirefoxCSS/comments/ao3ydl/configur...

link
Causality1 2538 days ago
Which is handy but not relevant to my question of "why can't an extension do this" with the implied "so I don't have to fiddle with copy-pasting text off the internet into configuration files I'm not entirely familiar with using." Not to mention that by default Firefox 69 disables loading of userchrome.css and you can bet your britches they're doing that in future anticipation of removing the feature entirely just like they did with everything else they've stripped out.
link
darkpuma 2538 days ago
Because it's trash UX to ask users to find and modify their userchrome.css when they should be able to simply install the extension and have it work.
link