I don't get it. If Mozilla thinks this is the best route for them they should do it. Input on features like that shouldnt be taken from users who will not have the long term view of firefox.
"If Mozilla thinks this is the best route for them they should do it"
I'm all for Mozilla having the power to make good technical decisions, but it sounds like you are suggesting that Mozilla ignore their user base completely. That's a recipe for the death of Firefox, IMHO.
I know there are technical reasons that Mozilla is wanting to get rid of XUL, and those reasons look legitimate to me. The problem I see is that they don't have a replacement for XUL that affords the same level of customizability that it does. I've done a little work with XUL, and yes, it's no picnic. I would welcome an alternative that was simpler, and better designed. However, if the replacement only offers a fraction of the flexibility of XUL, then addon developers aren't going to like it.
"Input on features like that shouldnt be taken from users who will not have the long term view of firefox."
^ That's a pretty broad brush you are painting with there. There are a huge number of us who have been using Firefox since it was released in 2004 (and Netscape Navigator before that). I haven't taken a formal survey, but the feedback I've seen from the long-term users is that the depth of customizability available via Firefox's addons is one of the primary reasons they continue to use the browser after all of these years.
Also, I would venture to guess that the people most likely to continue using Firefox are these dedicated long-term users. But if Mozilla insists on ignoring the wishes of these users, they will lose the strongest advocates in their user base.
Ignoring your users is a terrible idea.
Again, I welcome a replacement for XUL. Just make it a full-featured replacement, and don't cut off XUL development until said replacement is indeed full-featured and reasonably stable.
Maybe Mozilla can't pull that off, but I would certainly like to see them try.
The only reason I use Firefox is the TreeStyle Tabs addon. Everything else I could get from Chromium or another browser. If WebExtensions don't get the needed features, I'll simply end up dumping Firefox. That said, there's still time and WebExt might get such features.
While I appreciate the concern behind the petition, I support the decision to simplify and modernize the architecture in Firefox, even if it does disrupt extensions.
If there was somewhere I could lend my name to say "I support Mozilla making this difficult decision and sticking to it", I would.
^ I support the decision to simplify and modernize the architecture in Firefox, even if it does disrupt extensions.
Someone wrote this below, and I think it addresses your post perfectly:
"I welcome a replacement for XUL. Just make it a full-featured replacement, and don't cut off XUL development until said replacement is indeed full-featured and reasonably stable.
"Maybe Mozilla can't pull that off, but I would certainly like to see them try."
The way add-ons are currently done significantly hampers the engine architecture, and is a good chunk of the reason why multi-process took so long. All this synchronous access to engine internals is also why the first advice diagnosing performance problems is to disable all add-ons. NPAPI plugins also have similar issues, which is why everyone is getting rid of those as well.
Servo's architecture will also not support the old Firefox style add-ons, and we've known that the architecture would be incompatible for them (and NPAPI plugins) since the early days.
We want to enable people to build new experiences, but we have to find new ways to achieve this. Perhaps the technology the Browser.html team and us are working on will solve this problem. If you have ideas and want to help, I encourage you to get involved[1][2].
Why not find out the new ways to achieve this before pulling the plug on the existing stack? You are asking your users to make a leap of faith with you by moving to a browser that is less powerful in the short to mid term.
40% of users don't use any extensions at all. Of the remaining 60%, the vast majority only use an ad blocker. Of the extensions specifically mentioned in the petition, they have 113,898 users, 111,846 users, 29,940 users, and 1,371 users respectively. Even assuming that all of those are unique users, that's 257,055 users which is a very small percentage of the hundreds of millions of Firefox users. XUL was consistently the cause of most Firefox crashes and issues and maintenance of it was slowing down overall development.
The concern is that the indirect effect of the unilateral removal of XUL-support from Firefox without a viable alternative will be detrimental to the Firefox ecosystem and its continued viability in the marketplace.
* Open a dialogue with the Mozilla / Firefox community to ascertain what features Firefox users rely on that are currently only available via XUL Add-Ons but not possible under the WebExtension paradigm, and
* Work with the community to develop a path forward that allows Firefox to achieve its technology goals while preventing the loss of key functionality that millions of Firefox users depend on.
I agree that Mozilla has been doing that from the developer side of things; however, I would wager that most users not in Bugzilla/on the dev mailing lists are unaware of the coming changes and how they might be affected.
I'm a programmer and use FF daily. However, I'm not super involved on the FF dev side of things, and so have never even seen those discussions you linked. What I'm hoping is a) I'm not the only one in this boat, and b) that this discussion can be raised to the level of say Mozilla/Firefox newsletters, Twitter, and blogs. Everything I've seen coming from those channels so far has been communications re. "This is what we're doing - yay us!", never, "Hey, we're thinking about doing this. How would it affect you?"
If I'm somehow totally out of the loop and have missed something I apologize. However, when I see something like this [1], then I start paying attention. I suspect I am not alone.
It sucks to have to re-architect things, but quite frankly, a better running browser will actually bring me back to Firefox—I fled to other lands after I got sick of the UI locking from a single tab. Now that's fixed a bit, but it's not perfect. Similar problems exist across the entire codebase—would it be more palatable if they released a new browser entirely and cut off the naming of "Firefox"?
Every other major browser either cut ties with it's previous lineage or got to start relatively recently (Edge, Chrome, to some extent Safari—hell Opera if you want to count that, but I wont). Firefox needs this ability too—they aren't exactly picking up new users. When User growth is the metric, I'm not sure what they are doing is wrong.
I don't think growth at the expense of some of your most dedicated users is a viable strategy for Mozilla.
It certainly seems to be biting Apple (ala. Mac Pro 2016 alienating long-time Mac users), so what possible hope does Mozilla have taking that tack? They're already on pretty shaky ground user-wise from what I've seen. Why not make a better browser with the help of your existing loyal base in such a way that allows you to retain them while also allowing you to attract new users?
Do using good technology + retaining power users need to be mutually exclusive?
Seeing many comments to the effect, "This doesn't concern me because I don't rely on any XUL-base extensions." It's great if this change isn't going to affect you, but I'd ask you to ask yourself what if it were going to? What if Firefox was going to drop support for 90% of Add-Ons you do use? What would you do?
Ditch Firefox for some other browser? Probably. And that's probably what most users who rely on XUL-based Add-Ons will do.
So, I think we as Firefox users need to consider the bigger picture here. If this change to WebExtensions moves forward as planned, it will probably cost Firefox a fair number of users (probably most of them power users) at a time when Mozilla is really starting to turn around the slump they've been in since ~2013-2014.
So, if you don't sign the petition for yourself, sign it for the greater good of Firefox and its long-term viability as a legitimate contender to Google Chrome. All we petitioners are asking is that Mozilla move forward with a viable XUL-replacement. Currently, that's not WebExtensions.
That doesn't have the same effect. The bug tracker doesn't get articles shared across Facebook & Twitter. The bug tracker doesn't engage those users who don't understand that their extensions are about get taken away. My 70-year-old mother, for instance, who uses Firefox, doesn't know what they're doing.
But she won't switch to Ultron for the same reasons I won't. I showed her how to use Exalead search, she has a Yahoo email (like me), watches stuff on Dailymotion and Vimeo rather than YouTube, etc..
She's not about to join their bug tracker. But she will see a Change.org petition and sign it.
Thats pointless. They are aware. It has been discussed thousands of time.
Either they'll postpone the deadline until they can accommodate the bigger add-ons, or they won't and the users will vote with their feet (to chrome or to firefox 52 lts).
I might be completely misunderstand the implications, but as I understand it, Mozilla are dropping an old technology that is slowing down the browser, and slowing down development of the browser, and which only supports a very small minority of plugins, that are mostly power-user features used by a small number of people.
Am I completely wrong in thinking this? Is there any evidence to suggest widespread usage of XUL-only features?
I like how the petition starter threatened Mozilla to dump Firefox for other browsers and exaggerate 'millions' of users when the reality is they are only a small niche trying to hold back progress. The add-on pages show that these add-ons each command less than a tenth of the number he claimed.
Pale Moon supports XUL now and into the future even when Firefox support stops.
I keep seeing posts about wanting to keep XUL in Firefox, but the decision has already been made; XUL will be removed from Firefox. This is like Australis all over again.
Vote with your feet and move to a browser (Pale Moon) that supports what you need and want.
The only reason I use Firefox over Chrome is Tree Style Tabs. I'm using Firefox since the first Mosaic/Netscape days, this is not the way to get new users and have a comeback.
[+] [-] yalogin|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nocman|9 years ago|reply
I'm all for Mozilla having the power to make good technical decisions, but it sounds like you are suggesting that Mozilla ignore their user base completely. That's a recipe for the death of Firefox, IMHO.
I know there are technical reasons that Mozilla is wanting to get rid of XUL, and those reasons look legitimate to me. The problem I see is that they don't have a replacement for XUL that affords the same level of customizability that it does. I've done a little work with XUL, and yes, it's no picnic. I would welcome an alternative that was simpler, and better designed. However, if the replacement only offers a fraction of the flexibility of XUL, then addon developers aren't going to like it.
"Input on features like that shouldnt be taken from users who will not have the long term view of firefox."
^ That's a pretty broad brush you are painting with there. There are a huge number of us who have been using Firefox since it was released in 2004 (and Netscape Navigator before that). I haven't taken a formal survey, but the feedback I've seen from the long-term users is that the depth of customizability available via Firefox's addons is one of the primary reasons they continue to use the browser after all of these years.
Also, I would venture to guess that the people most likely to continue using Firefox are these dedicated long-term users. But if Mozilla insists on ignoring the wishes of these users, they will lose the strongest advocates in their user base.
Ignoring your users is a terrible idea.
Again, I welcome a replacement for XUL. Just make it a full-featured replacement, and don't cut off XUL development until said replacement is indeed full-featured and reasonably stable.
Maybe Mozilla can't pull that off, but I would certainly like to see them try.
[+] [-] SAI_Peregrinus|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sgarrity|9 years ago|reply
If there was somewhere I could lend my name to say "I support Mozilla making this difficult decision and sticking to it", I would.
[+] [-] abrowne|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tradesmanhelix|9 years ago|reply
Someone wrote this below, and I think it addresses your post perfectly:
"I welcome a replacement for XUL. Just make it a full-featured replacement, and don't cut off XUL development until said replacement is indeed full-featured and reasonably stable.
"Maybe Mozilla can't pull that off, but I would certainly like to see them try."
[+] [-] reitanqild|9 years ago|reply
Extensions is my main reason for staying with FF.
[+] [-] metajack|9 years ago|reply
Servo's architecture will also not support the old Firefox style add-ons, and we've known that the architecture would be incompatible for them (and NPAPI plugins) since the early days.
We want to enable people to build new experiences, but we have to find new ways to achieve this. Perhaps the technology the Browser.html team and us are working on will solve this problem. If you have ideas and want to help, I encourage you to get involved[1][2].
1. https://github.com/servo/servo 2. https://github.com/browserhtml/browserhtml
[+] [-] dman|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Endy|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JohnTHaller|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tradesmanhelix|9 years ago|reply
The concern is that the indirect effect of the unilateral removal of XUL-support from Firefox without a viable alternative will be detrimental to the Firefox ecosystem and its continued viability in the marketplace.
[+] [-] nicolaslem|9 years ago|reply
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/vimperator/re...
[+] [-] RubyPinch|9 years ago|reply
* Work with the community to develop a path forward that allows Firefox to achieve its technology goals while preventing the loss of key functionality that millions of Firefox users depend on.
Haven't they already been doing that?
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1215059 https://webextensions.uservoice.com/forums/315663-webextensi...
[+] [-] tradesmanhelix|9 years ago|reply
I'm a programmer and use FF daily. However, I'm not super involved on the FF dev side of things, and so have never even seen those discussions you linked. What I'm hoping is a) I'm not the only one in this boat, and b) that this discussion can be raised to the level of say Mozilla/Firefox newsletters, Twitter, and blogs. Everything I've seen coming from those channels so far has been communications re. "This is what we're doing - yay us!", never, "Hey, we're thinking about doing this. How would it affect you?"
If I'm somehow totally out of the loop and have missed something I apologize. However, when I see something like this [1], then I start paying attention. I suspect I am not alone.
[1] http://fasezero.com/addons/
[+] [-] gerdusvz|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Endy|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xemoka|9 years ago|reply
Every other major browser either cut ties with it's previous lineage or got to start relatively recently (Edge, Chrome, to some extent Safari—hell Opera if you want to count that, but I wont). Firefox needs this ability too—they aren't exactly picking up new users. When User growth is the metric, I'm not sure what they are doing is wrong.
[+] [-] tradesmanhelix|9 years ago|reply
It certainly seems to be biting Apple (ala. Mac Pro 2016 alienating long-time Mac users), so what possible hope does Mozilla have taking that tack? They're already on pretty shaky ground user-wise from what I've seen. Why not make a better browser with the help of your existing loyal base in such a way that allows you to retain them while also allowing you to attract new users?
Do using good technology + retaining power users need to be mutually exclusive?
[+] [-] tradesmanhelix|9 years ago|reply
Ditch Firefox for some other browser? Probably. And that's probably what most users who rely on XUL-based Add-Ons will do.
So, I think we as Firefox users need to consider the bigger picture here. If this change to WebExtensions moves forward as planned, it will probably cost Firefox a fair number of users (probably most of them power users) at a time when Mozilla is really starting to turn around the slump they've been in since ~2013-2014.
So, if you don't sign the petition for yourself, sign it for the greater good of Firefox and its long-term viability as a legitimate contender to Google Chrome. All we petitioners are asking is that Mozilla move forward with a viable XUL-replacement. Currently, that's not WebExtensions.
[+] [-] ishitatsuyuki|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Endy|9 years ago|reply
But she won't switch to Ultron for the same reasons I won't. I showed her how to use Exalead search, she has a Yahoo email (like me), watches stuff on Dailymotion and Vimeo rather than YouTube, etc..
She's not about to join their bug tracker. But she will see a Change.org petition and sign it.
[+] [-] zb1plus|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] digi_owl|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Illniyar|9 years ago|reply
Either they'll postpone the deadline until they can accommodate the bigger add-ons, or they won't and the users will vote with their feet (to chrome or to firefox 52 lts).
Mozilla have usage statistics for add-ons.
[+] [-] danpalmer|9 years ago|reply
Am I completely wrong in thinking this? Is there any evidence to suggest widespread usage of XUL-only features?
[+] [-] harrygeez|9 years ago|reply
I hope he'll be happy with Chrome.
[+] [-] reitanqild|9 years ago|reply
Don't think this is what they try to do rather than stop Mozilla making FF just another browser
[+] [-] richardboegli|9 years ago|reply
I keep seeing posts about wanting to keep XUL in Firefox, but the decision has already been made; XUL will be removed from Firefox. This is like Australis all over again.
Vote with your feet and move to a browser (Pale Moon) that supports what you need and want.
[+] [-] reitanqild|9 years ago|reply
If Firefox is going to neeuter their extensions after all I guess I'll be looking for a new browser after all. :-/
[+] [-] _Codemonkeyism|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DeepYogurt|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _Codemonkeyism|9 years ago|reply
So there is no way to port addons if Mozilla doesn't add more technical capabilities.
[+] [-] notatoad|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xenithorb|9 years ago|reply
I very much want to voice my opinion not to touch my xul addons, but I refuse to subvert my privacy in order to do that.
[+] [-] yeukhon|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pokemongoaway|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tgsovlerkhgsel|9 years ago|reply