[qwerty2021]

that's exactly the case. the rewrite took years, and it is only somewhat functional, but I don't blame the dev. pre-quantum version was a finished product, and then suddenly it had to be written from scratch again. I'm surprised he had bothered to do that at all, personally I'd never contribute anything to firefox again after that fucking stunt.

[TedDoesntTalk]

I was responsible for extension author outreach at Mozilla at the time. The anger was terrible. And justified.

[eitland]

You might have knowledge and connections:

Do you see any hope for a fork of modern Firefox that start with just the tiniest stuff, maybe adding back a simple tab strip api to let Tree Style Tabs work properly again, that kind of stuff, then go on to put Mozilla out of business as soon as the economy allows it?

I'm only halfway joking here, and only about putting Mozilla out of business.

[TedDoesntTalk]

No. Who would use it? The few hundred thousand who want Tree Style Tabs?

Separately, keeping a browser up-to-date with new standards and security fixes is a huge undertaking. You would need a lot of engineers invested in such a project.

By the way, Nils from DownThemAll is a great guy. He wrote a scathing blog post at the time Mozilla announced dropping support for "legacy" extensions. Wish I could find it.

[mamurphy]

Nils's blog post[0] that I found linked here[1] from here[2]. I found that last link from the google search (Nils Maier blog post Firefox extension).

[0]https://www.downthemall.org/the-likely-end-of-downthemall/

[1]https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/08/21/the-future-of-dev...

[2]https://www.zdnet.com/article/mozilla-changes-firefox-apis-d...

[forgotmypw17]

I just want to point out that you casually dismissed "a few hundred thousand" users whose lives were impacted as a non-issue.

This is exactly the type of attitude which gives software dev such a bad rap.

I personally support every single user of my products and never force a new version on them.

[TedDoesntTalk]

> casually dismissed "a few hundred thousand" users whose lives were impacted as a non-issue.

I did not intend that. My intention is this: "the cost of maintaining a browser with up-to-date standards and security is enormous". A few hundred thousand users who are unlikely to pay anything for such a browser is just financially not viable.

[I_AM_A_SMURF]

Just to put into perspective, maintaining a full browser (with its own engine etc) costs at minimum $300M/year (judging by the size of Chrome/Firefox/Safari's teams). That means that 300k users would need to pay more than $80 a MONTH to make that sustainable. That's insane.

[eitland]

> No. Who would use it? The few hundred thousand who want Tree Style Tabs?

No, I want the few tens of million ex-Firefox users that have left during the last decade because of being annoyed or because of the pragmatic reason that Firefox doesn't offer any experienced direct advantage anymore while Chrome is pushed heavily and has a experienced direct advantage: that Google web properties are optimized, not sabotaged on it.

> Separately, keeping a browser up-to-date with new standards and security fixes is a huge undertaking. You would need a lot of engineers invested in such a project.

Here I should have been more precise: I mean to start with a soft fork. Start by building from ordinary Firefox with just small patches to fix the worst offenders like the tab strip API and restoring the UI.

[TedDoesntTalk]

> No, I want the few tens of million ex-Firefox users that have left during the last decade because of being annoyed or because of the pragmatic reason that Firefox doesn't offer any experienced direct advantage anymore while Chrome is pushed heavily and has a experienced direct advantage: that Google web properties are optimized, not sabotaged on it.

Me too.

Leadership at Mozilla is interested more in social justice, diversity, and equity issues than engineering issues. Don't look for this to come from today's Mozilla.

There is lately a push for privacy issues at Mozilla, which is nice to see.

[dblohm7]

> Do you see any hope for a fork of modern Firefox that start with just the tiniest stuff, maybe adding back a simple tab strip api

Why bother with the overhead of a fork? Perhaps a team of volunteers could put together a good enough proposal to be accepted by the WebExtensions team.

[eitland]

Well, that would actually be a good solution.

My feeling as someone who has tried to look into it is that certain people are not only reluctant to doing it but also directly opposed.

I might be wrong though and it would be fantastic of someone else could fix it and persuade them to accept it.

[dblohm7]

I used to work at Mozilla and periodically checked the status of the "add API to hide the tab bar" bug.

I don't think anybody was directly opposed, but there were a lot of hidden edge cases that needed to be dealt with.

Even though full-time devs might not have time allocated to doing this themselves, they are open to accepting solutions as long as the contributions are thorough and follow up on their concerns.

Unfortunately IMHO most submissions these days are more like "this looks simple to me, just do it!" instead of a genuine engagement. To some people, that looks like opposition.

[BurningPenguin]

SeaMonkey is still around. Though i'm not sure about the capabilities of its addon api.

[forgotmypw17]

Either of these may fit the bill:

PaleMoon

Waterfox Classic

[eitland]

Both are forks of older versions of Firefox, aren't they. This makes it harder to keep them patched I think.

[TedDoesntTalk]

Yeah, I don't see how the maintainers can patch security vulns or add support for newer web features (e.g. CSS variables) when the upstream fork is no longer maintained. They would have to write the fixes themselves, which just does not scale for a project that has 1 or 2 developers working on it part-time.

[forgotmypw17]

I think we're at a point where there are enough sites out there that we can avoid a good portion of them (i.e. ones written without progressive enhancement in mind) and still be happy.

For example, I am quite happy with visiting only sites which do not require JavaScript, do not use cookie banners, paywalls, and registration prompts.

For my purposes of browsing Teddit, HN, and my own websites, there are more than 20 beautiful, usable, friendly browsers I can think of just off the top of my head.

For everything else, I just close the tab and move on. Past experience leads me to believe I'm not missing much, because sites which break these requirements usually have crap content too.

If I really need something, I can open Chromium (with UO and Vimium) for that particular site and then close it afterwards.