
I cannot continue working on my add-ons - vacri
http://fasezero.com/
======
yoasif_
There seem to be a lot of people that are saying "oh, without XUL based
extensions, Firefox is just a (worse) Chrome clone, so I might as well just
use Chrome."

I think what they might be missing is that Mozilla's conclusion is a lot like
the people seem to be thinking here -- even though Chrome doesn't have the
fancy extensions that are possible in Firefox, many many more people are using
Chrome than Firefox, because they see it as a better Firefox.

Clearly, that has something to do with either security or performance, where
Firefox has a perceived lag.

Mozilla is actively working to improve performance, and you may not want to
switch to Chrome after all, because Chrome may instead be the poor man's
Firefox (I personally think this is already the case, simply because with my
679 open tabs, Chrome would simply kill itself [44 loaded]).

This video is one of the most exciting I have seen with regards to web browser
performance, and it's Mozilla:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an5abNFba4Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an5abNFba4Q)

More info on what this means for Firefox:

[https://wiki.mozilla.org/Quantum](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Quantum)

TL;DR: What if even with the missing XUL extensions, you wouldn't want to
switch to Chrome, because Firefox was just plain faster?

~~~
syshum
>>Clearly, that has something to do with either security or performance, where
Firefox has a perceived lag.

This is completely false

It has something to do with MARKETING and the fact the Google is largest
marketing company in the world and has the ability to market chrome far far
far more effectively than Firefox

IE is crap, so Windows users seek a replacement for IE, use to their only
option was Firefox. Once Chrome came on the market with a HUGE marketing push
people started to migrate

It was 80-90% marketing, not technical

Even if Firefox is better preforming people are not going to switch as only
Technical people give a shit about performance numbers.

Edge on windows 10 is starting to eat into Chrome partly because MS is
bringing back the IE6 marketing and integration tactics that got them in Anti-
trust hot water in the 90's

No Firefox, absent Google Discontinuing the chrome Browser, will never break
20% market share again, I do not care how must better it preforms.

Mozilla needs to focus on Power Users, and Privacy. They are failing at both
with these moves IMO

>>you wouldn't want to switch to Chrome, because Firefox was just plain
faster?

They they take away my TreeStyle Tabs and a few other Extensions I dont care
how much faster it is, FF will be removed my all my systems

TreeStyle Tabs is the the Main reason I use FF today. I dont understand why
browsers have tabs horizontally across the window, it looks stupid and is
unusable once you get above 20 or 30 tabs open So you talk about have 100's of
tabs open, it is pointless if I do not have TreeStyle or some kind of Vertical
Tabs. And no the Stupid Dock style of doing it on Chrome and other
WebExtensions based hack is neither desirable or usable

~~~
yoasif_
> They they take away my TreeStyle Tabs and a few other Extensions I dont care
> how much faster it is, FF will be removed my all my systems

This is what I don't understand. What would you use instead? Do you see
another vendor attempting to recreate XUL-like extensions? Built in
functionality like the stuff in Vivaldi doesn't count, since those aren't
extensions.

~~~
syshum
>>This is what I don't understand. What would you use instead?

Does not matter, Likely Vivaldi, or Chrome.

I will not reward FF or Mozilla, it may seem petty but I will not continue to
use FF after mozilla ignored its users in this manner.

From day one Devs, users and the wider community has been telling mozilla we
do not want these changes.

Clearly they do not want me as a user of their product so I will oblige them
and stop using their product

I expect to be ignored by a large for-profit corporation like Google, if
Mozilla is going to act like google I might as well just move to Chrome.

~~~
yoasif_
> Clearly they do not want me as a user of their product so I will oblige them
> and stop using their product

Got it, spite.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP0MXJAQhmo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP0MXJAQhmo)

Chrome never tried to cater to users like you, so you'll reward that browser
because they never bothered to try.

~~~
abeyer
> _Got it, spite._

Even if that's true, isn't it a pretty poor reflection on a product if its
users dislike its direction so much that they are willing to abandon it in
spite?

~~~
yoasif_
I don't think so. The product is the binary, which can perform better or
worse, or have more or fewer features than the competition.

The _direction_ of the product isn't the product itself, and reflects more
upon the people who direct the "direction" of the product. This feels more
like damage to the brand -- but as usual, I don't know whether the opinion on
HN actually translates to the overall population of web users.

I mean, the new Macbook Pro is certainly a failure [doesn't go to 32gb ram],
and hell wasn't that iPod a total failure [no wireless, less space than a
nomad]? (I know, I know, that was Slashdot.)

~~~
abeyer
I agree, perhaps that's more about the brand than the product per se. But in a
market where you have to convince your users to replace the pre-installed
browser that more or less works pretty well already with your alternative
implementation, it seems like brand perception is a pretty important thing.
And while a community like HN might not be accurately representative of users
at large, it does tend to have a disproportionately high percentage of "trend-
makers" who influence other people's decisions on technical subjects.

~~~
yoasif_
> But in a market where you have to convince your users to replace the pre-
> installed browser that more or less works pretty well already with your
> alternative implementation, it seems like brand perception is a pretty
> important thing.

Yes, but now we're talking about people who (likely) moved to Chrome because
it just felt so darned snappy, not because it had great extensions (it didn't)
-- or just had Chrome preinstalled.

If Firefox is faster, people who are after speed might just move over from
Chrome. If the Firefox brand represents "faster than Chrome" rather than "it
doesn't do tree style tabs anymore", they might still be okay. If they had
Chrome preinstalled and had never used Firefox, they wouldn't miss the
extensions, and probably wouldn't care that tree style tabs doesn't exist.

> And while a community like HN might not be accurately representative of
> users at large, it does tend to have a disproportionately high percentage of
> "trend-makers" who influence other people's decisions on technical subjects.

Meh. I think people just use what they want to use. How else do we explain why
the Rio Karma didn't destroy the iPod? I mean, it's pretty obvious to me that
technical, music loving "trend-makers" _required_ gapless playback. How else
do you listen to live albums/mixtapes/DJ mixes? The iPod is "just" an
intuitive UI/UX and good branding! It makes you use Musicmatch/iTunes!

(Yes, I had a Rio Karma and I later switched my iPod over to Rockbox -- guess
how much luck I had "recommending" people to switch to their iPods to
Rockbox?)

~~~
syshum
>>Yes, but now we're talking about people who (likely) moved to Chrome because
it just felt so darned snappy,

I think you confuse why people move to chrome over IE on windows. The normal
every day user uses chrome for 1 of 3 reasons

1\. They hit upon a chrome ad today or years ago when Google was heavily
advertising chrome even when you searched now that is their browser and they
stick with it

2\. A person that works on, setups, or services their computer installed it

3\. They are heavily in the Google Eco System and want all of the features and
conveniences that come with using Chrome with google account (bookmark sync,
alerts, hangouts, etc)

None of which has anything to do with Chrome's or firefox's speed, or
security.

None of which Firefox can overcome or change by removing functionality.

People that use FF today generally fall into 2 groups. People concerned with
Privacy, and people that want functionality that the other browsers do not
offer

FF is rejecting 50% of their user base with move.

------
Animats
Firefox has three APIs: XUL, Jetpack, and WebExtensions. XUL has been on the
way out for years, and never worked in mobile Firefox anyway. (Almost nobody
runs mobile Firefox, so that turned out not to matter much.)

Jetpack was introduced in 2013, and by 2014, it was actually usable. It's not
clear when and whether Jetpack add-ons will stop working. Mozilla's developer
documentation is so confused that you can't tell. WebExtensions and Jetpack
are essentially the same functionality with different names.[1]

The trouble with Firefox chasing Google Chrome compatibility is that, once
they get there, Google will probably change something so some Google service
is essential to an add-on. Like Google did with Android. Then compatible add-
ons stop working on Firefox. Nobody runs add-ons on Chrome much, anyway; I
have the same add-on on both platforms and its 50:1 Firefox over Chrome. But
usage is declining, along with Firefox.

[1] [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-
ons/WebExtensions/Co...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-
ons/WebExtensions/Comparison_with_the_Add-on_SDK)

~~~
wtbob
> Almost nobody runs mobile Firefox, so that turned out not to matter much.

FWIW, I love mobile Firefox and I really don't understand why folks use Chrome
instead.

~~~
CaptSpify
As a die-hard FF mobile user....

FF is slow, pages rarely load the first time and I constantly have to manually
reload, the interface for making config changes are requires _sooooo_ many
clicks. I have no real experience if chrome is better because I never use it,
but FF mobile has some real warts

~~~
gcb0
most sites that are slow are also slow on chrome. so doesnt even bother.

the only solution is installing noScript. the only version available is in
beta. but it works fine.

you will be suprised how few sites I have to whitelist to see the content I
want. and usually besides faster, they get much more usable without
Javascript!

~~~
CaptSpify
I _do_ use noscript. By default on every site. This slowness is different than
your typical js-bloat slowness

~~~
funnyfacts365
I use Firefox for Android on a Moto E 2013. It's faster than Chrome. Ditto for
my other phone, a Galaxy S3.

------
51Cards
Once this happens I will leave Firefox after being one of its strongest
supporters for years. What makes Firefox worth it is the level to which I can
customize it and this will knock out 5 of my must-have add-ons in one shot.
When you do that you have nothing but a Chrome clone left and why use a Chrome
clone when you can use Chrome. I hate Chrome because I feel locked in on UI
design (old-school user here). Once FF takes away my options guaranteed I'll
abandon it.

~~~
jdormit
If the only reason you hate Chrome is being locked into the UI, you should
switch to Vivaldi. Sure, it's a Chrome clone, but the UI is super configurable
(and as far as I'm aware, it doesn't do any opt-out user tracking).

~~~
yellowapple
Is Vivaldi free software (as in speech, not as in beer)? Last time I gave it a
serious go, it didn't seem to be (and it was buggy anyway, but that was when
it was first made publicly available, so I'm sure that's improved, right?).

------
baby
If Tree Style Tab doesn't work anymore. What are the reasons to use Firefox?
Also what are the alternatives. I tried Chrome but the Tree Style Tab-like
plugin is clumsy.

Should I just not update firefox and wait until devs realize tabs were meant
to be on the side? Honnestly as a power user I can't browse the web without
tree style tab anymore.

~~~
rvern
Mozilla created Tab Center, which is similar to Tree Style Tabs:
[https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/tab-
center](https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/tab-center).

~~~
mdekkers
rubbish, will also be incompatible after this change.
[https://github.com/bwinton/TabCenter/issues/868](https://github.com/bwinton/TabCenter/issues/868)

Furthermore, "showing tabs on the side" is not "similar to Tree Style Tabs"

~~~
yellowapple
To be fair, "showing tabs on the side" is still leaps and bounds better than
"yet another browser that squeezes them into the top, end to end, like a god
damn maniac". :)

But yes, the "tree" part of Tree Style Tabs is essential, too.

------
williamscales
This is going to kill pentadactyl, which is currently the only reason I'm
using Firefox.

For those who aren't familiar, pentadactyl is a Firefox extension that
transforms the user interface to make it more minimal and vim-like. You get to
use standard vim bindings to navigate the web and it even gives you a vim-like
command line interface to the browser's functionality.

~~~
jmiserez
And it's going to kill TabGroups too. And a lot of other addons from other
authors will probably suffer the same fate.

~~~
Jaepa
The author of the posted article is the author is TabGroups.

~~~
jmiserez
I know, which is why this is doubly sad.

------
wvenable
If this WebExtensions move makes Tab Mix Plus stop working (I use multi-row
tabs extensively) then I will no longer have any reason to continue to use
Firefox. I put up with it's poor performance and instability merely for this
one feature.

Nobody needs a clone of Chrome; we already have Chrome.

~~~
AznHisoka
I also wish chrome would stop prepending [http://](http://) everytime i copy
an ip from the url bar.

~~~
grzm
Is it prepending it on copy, or hiding it for display in the url bar?

~~~
kopijahe
It's both.

------
DashRattlesnake
Just curious will the new Web Extensions style allow add-ons like Classic
Theme Restorer [1] and Tree-style Tab [2] that change the Firefox UI?

[1] [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/classicthemer...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/classicthemerestorer/)

[2] [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-
ta...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/)

~~~
guelo
The Classic Theme Restorer page says "CTR will stop working on Firefox 57
(release) when Mozilla drops support for XUL / XPCOM / legacy add-ons, but it
will still work on Firefox 52 ESR until Firefox 59 ESR replaces it in 2018
(~Q2)."

~~~
IChrisI
It sounds like Tree-style Tabs will stop working then as well. That will be a
sad day. Tree-style Tabs and some form of mouse gestures are pretty much all I
need.

~~~
a3n
I won't need either of those, but this is a major part of why I like Firefox,
each person can make it their own.

These in particular make Firefox _my_ own (your Firefox is not my firefox, but
your firefox is OK), and I will be sad if they disappear without replacement:

Disable Style Button [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/disable-
style...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/disable-style-
button/)

Disconnect [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/disconnect/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/disconnect/)

Flash Control [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/flash-
control...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/flash-control/)

Ghostery [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/ghostery/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/ghostery/)

It's All Text [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/its-all-
text/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/its-all-text/)

LastPass [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/lastpass-
pass...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/lastpass-password-
manager/)

One Tab [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/onetab/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/onetab/)

Pinboard [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/pinboard-
exte...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/pinboard-extension/)

Privacy Badger [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/privacy-
badge...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/privacy-badger17/)

Suspend Tab [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/suspend-
tab/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/suspend-tab/)

uBlock Origin [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-
origin...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/)

Uppity [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/uppity/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/uppity/)

VimFX [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/vimfx/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/vimfx/)

I have a few others which aren't much important to me, but these make FF my
own.

~~~
superflyguy
The only plugin I really care about is ublock origin. If that stays, I'll keep
ff otherwise I'll go back to chrome. I suppose there's no way of knowing
whether a given plug in is possible in future without having access to the
source.

------
elpocko
I'm only sticking to Firefox because there's a specific set of extensions I
want to keep using. If only one of my key extensions breaks, my last reason to
use Firefox vanishes, and I will immediately switch to Chromium/Iridium and
never come back.

~~~
aembleton
Same here, if tree style tabs stop working then I'm off to Vivaldi.

------
abeyer
It's sad, but I am seriously worried that this could be the end for firefox.
Add to that the recent refocus/re-prioritization on firefox within mozilla, it
could be a first death knell for the organization entirely.

I know in my own case, and it seems from comments here and other anecdotal
experience, that a significant chunk of remaining firefox users depend on at
least one extension that has no migration path, as there simply aren't
equivalent APIs implemented or even planned. I really don't understand how
they think they are going to maintain a userbase when they remove the last
remaining feature that differentiates firefox from the other common browsers.
Mozilla starts out in a tough competitive position, as they don't have an OS
or platform to bundle a browser with. Alienating the users with the most
reason to seek out an alternative seems to just be digging themselves deeper
into the hole.

------
e15ctr0n
The developer of the ePubReader add-on for Firefox is looking to raise $26,685
in funds in order to rewrite the add-on for WebExtensions.

[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/epubreader/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/epubreader/)

[https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/569473473/epubreader-
fo...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/569473473/epubreader-for-future-
firefox)

------
mnarayan01
I've been praying that Mozilla would rethink this, but that looks increasingly
unlikely. I guess switching to a LTS release will tide me over for a time, but
this really does feel like the end of an era.

~~~
vacri
This was my thinking as well. I'll probably move to the last ESR ('extended
support release') before the cutoff period, just so I can keep using Tab
Groups.

------
sp332
This makes me curious - does Mozilla's new Tab Center experiment use Web
Extensions? Or are they refusing to take their own medicine, and using
inaccessible internal APIs? [https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/tab-
center](https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/tab-center) (Edit:
Deprecated, not inaccessible.)

~~~
detaro
From a quick look at the source[0] it uses the deprecated Add-On SDK[1].

[0]
[https://github.com/bwinton/TabCenter/blob/master/main.js](https://github.com/bwinton/TabCenter/blob/master/main.js)

[1] [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-
ons/SDK](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/SDK)

~~~
evilpie
There is a rough version [0] based on the sidebarAction API [1], this is
probably going to improved when it actually lands in Firefox Nightly, which
should hopefully be soon.

[0]
[https://github.com/bwinton/TabCenter/tree/webext](https://github.com/bwinton/TabCenter/tree/webext)
[1]
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1208596](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1208596)

------
jimmyswimmy
I am not familiar with Web Extensions, but I am familiar with the fairly
common event in which application vendors severely change functionality, with
significant downstream effects. Such behavior seems more common amongst open-
source products. Consider Python 3. Asterisk's scripting language. Perl 6.

Incompatible version changes drive away users and developers. The uncertainty
that comes along with a planned update in which compatibility is not
guaranteed makes us all shy away from developing in that application at all,
not just on the old version.

Microsoft always seemed to do a good job at maintaining compatibility over its
versions. Most applications that used to run on Windows still do, although
there are a lot of exceptions. Python's change to the print statement broke
everything, though the fix was easy; most of the time the fix is not easy -
and even when it is, nothing works until someone gets around to the fix.

I appreciate the need to move forward, and sometimes you have to break stuff
to make it better, but these incompatible changes just destroy momentum. It's
a shame to see it happen.

~~~
syshum
>>I am not familiar with Web Extensions,

Chrome....

Mozilla is turning Firefox into just another Chrome Browser...

Firefox 57 will like see me stop using FireFox it will be no different than
chrome so I might as well just use chrome

>>and sometimes you have to break stuff to make it better

It is yet to be seen if it will be better, so far everything they are doing in
firefox to make it more like chrome I am 1000000% opposed to.

~~~
a3n
> Firefox 57 will like see me stop using FireFox it will be no different than
> chrome so I might as well just use chrome

Firefox probably won't phone google.

~~~
syshum
Yea that is not a concern for me... I am logged in to Google services all the
time anyway and I have a Android Phone sitting 3 ins from my computer.

I use Firefox for a few Productivity Extensions that will likely stop working
in 57, as such there is no reason for me to continue to use FireFox.

~~~
marcosdumay
Just today I was unable to access a modem configuration site (at
[http://192.168.1.1](http://192.168.1.1)) with Chrome, because without
internet it couldn't phone Google to decide wether to use it as an address or
a search term.

~~~
fiddlerwoaroof
I have never had this problem with chrome.

------
barrkel
Classic Theme Restorer, Tree Style Tabs and Tab Mix Plus are the three
extensions that add up to differentiate Firefox from Chrome for me.

Unmodified Firefox is just an inferior clone of Chrome. Firefox is pointless
without its UI-altering extensions.

Quite amazing.

------
mintplant
Oh no! I've become dependent on Tab Groups over the past year or so; even
kicked in a donation. Thanks Luís for all your hard work.

------
johnny22
Am I the only person here who was considering switching away from Firefox a
few years back because I didn't think they had a plan to really move their
efforts further?

Honestly, I'm really impressed with their plans for Servo, WebExtensions and
other recently active projects.

I plan on sticking it out for the long haul.

EDIT: qualified when I wanted to switch.

------
PetitPrince
Aw snap, Beyond Australis and its slim chrome is one of the best way (along
with tree style tabs) to regain some vertical space with sub optimal
resolution (namely, the 1368x768 of my x220t).

------
tezza
mozilla is pulling a nokia here.

greasemonkey and add-ons are why people continue to use FF beyond the brief
evaluation phase.

now mozilla are clearly in the thrall of Abstraction Astronauts and know-
nothing UX Design 'gurus'.

just like Nokia before the iphone

------
toyg
I don't expect much from the leadership who brought us FirefoxOS, and indeed
the WebExtension migration is being mismanaged - _BUT_ : the hard truth is
that the Chrome extension ecosystem is already on top and growing, while the
Firefox one has been waning for a while.

If you build a browser extension today, you build it for Chrome; if you have a
Mac, you also get a Safari version almost for free; and then _eventually_ ,
_if you have time_ , _if you can be bothered_ , you port it to FF. This could
not go on, something had to be done. And they did it: JetPack/Webextensions,
despite the uber-confused documentation, is an almost-complete compatibility
layer that makes porting extensions from Chrome much easier. If they'd left it
at that, nobody would have complained.

Unfortunately, the next step is to gut the old infrastructure. They might have
their technical reasons for that, but it seems a suicidal move from a
commercial perspective. They are throwing overboard almost 20 years of
competitive differentiation and community engagement. It's like Microsoft told
people to rewrite their .Net apps in ObjC.

------
hendersoon
I completely rely on Firegestures, the premiere mouse gesture addon.

Mouse gestures are in my muscle memory. I can't live without them, and every
single Webextensions Chrome mouse gestures addon either:

a) Sucks. Doesn't work at all on internal pages including new pages (which is
not a blocker, but sucks), and more importantly doesn't work _well_ ANYWHERE.
Inconsistent behavior, poor performance. Just unacceptable.

b) Is actually literally malware. Once Chrome extensions get popular, a shady
Chinese or Russian consortium buys them up, adds user tracking, and silently
updates the extension so your every move is followed.

Chrome has been around for almost 10 years now, so I'm absolutely convinced
that Webextensions are unable to support _GOOD_ mouse gestures.

Now that Firefox will shortly become hot stinking Chinatown garbage, my only
hope will be Vivaldi, a browser using Blink (Chrome's backend). Its mouse
gestures are really close to being usable-- it only lacks configurable mouse
button chording.

[https://vivaldi.com/](https://vivaldi.com/)

~~~
sedro
I'm with you. I was hooked on mouse gestures after using Opera 12. They came
built into the browser, and you could tell. Gestures worked everywhere-- on a
new tab, on a loading page, even on the browser window outside a tab.

Now I'm using Firefox plus a dozen extensions to poorly replicate a base Opera
12 installation. The e10s update already broke some FireGesture in some minor
ways (e.g. wheel gestures scroll the page content now). Other extensions
stopped working completely.

Time to give Vivaldi another shot...

------
sjellis
Personally, I use Firefox because Mozilla is a non-profit organization with a
mandate to support a free and open Internet, which includes protecting the
privacy of Internet users. That sounds like very fine words, but they do the
technical work to make these things happen, such as their collaboration with
the Tor project: [https://blog.torproject.org/blog/tor-heart-
firefox](https://blog.torproject.org/blog/tor-heart-firefox)

I use Chrome as well, but ultimately Chrome belongs to Google, just as Edge
and Safari belong to rival corporations. Using a corporate Web browser is a
reasonable choice, but it's not something that I would do for UI reasons.

------
protomyth
I think there is a niche for a programmer's browser. I often think something
half-way between a web browser and the old Lisp and Smalltalk machines.

~~~
navaati
Oh, it's called Emacs (being half-serious here)

~~~
rekado
Emacs can already embed a webkit widget, but much more work would be needed to
make interaction with the widget "emacsy". At the moment all you can do with
it is send JavaScript snippets to it to make it change internal state. It
would be great to intertwine this more with Emacs so that e.g. completing-read
could be used on the DOM.

~~~
protomyth
It would be rather fun to download a webpage in "BrowserEmacs" and have a REPL
available with the page turned into a S Expression for you to manipulate at
your or your plug-ins leisure. Throw in the tools to make plug-ins have there
own UI and you have a developer's browser.

~~~
sp332
Ubiquity
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiquity_(Firefox)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiquity_\(Firefox\))
(now defunct) had natural-language commands with localization including
subject/verb/object order. It supported subscribing to commands too, so you
could keep up with changing APIs automatically. It even understood pronouns,
so you could write "email this to Dave" and it would email your selected text
to your gmail contact named Dave. The only thing it was missing was a
permissions model to limit what untrusted command code could do.

------
affected
Tree Style Tabs is a true differentiator for Firefox and it is a perfect
expression of Mozzilla Mission: [https://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/mission/](https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/) "Our mission is to ensure
the Internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all. An
Internet that truly puts _people first_ , where individuals can __shape
__their own __experience __and are __empowered __, safe and independent. "

Seeing Tree Style Tabs continuity halted and more importantly a developper
motivation deeply affected is not a good sign for the community and users who
engaged with Mozzilla's goals and with its addon community.

Tree Style Tabs empowers the user browsing activity at a level rarely seen. It
brings to awareness constant history (tab tree) and allows the user to mature
its browsing profile with structure.

An deeply thought addon that really shapes the browser into a navigation tool
that empowers its users and allows building more mature browsing focus and
improves the individual's independence.

Mozilla should review carefully the resulting loss of differentiating value by
letting a valued and committed add-on developper go and how this diffuse into
impacting its mission.

------
throw2016
Firefox has literally been kicked by its userbase and Chrome to get into its
current semi competitive state. One understands the need to evolve but change
just for the sake of change and activity can just be spinning your wheels. We
don't need another Chrome clone. Firefox and Chrome's objectives are
completely different.

We definitely need more browser competition but growing complexity rules out
one person or small team efforts like before all over the open source
ecosystem.

Untill open source users can get their act together and find a way to fund
development they will find projects increasingly less accountable to them than
their corporate sponsors.

------
mindcrime
Sad, but hardly unexpected. The truth is, the mozilla leadership has never had
much vision. In the early days of Seamonkey (and then Firefox) there was a
slavish devotion to chasing Internet Explorer, and far too much
rationalization of feature selection based on "IE has it" or "but IE doesn't
support that." Later, with the ascension of Chrome, Firefox began to try and
mimic Chrome the same way.

Other than MathML support, I'm having a hard time thinking of anything truly
unique about Firefox, as compared to Chrome these days.

~~~
abeyer
> _The truth is, the mozilla leadership has never had much vision_

I'm not sure I agree there. I feel like they've had at least a few pretty
strong points of vision. The failure has been more on the execution of
producing and maintaining useful software in support of that vision.

------
tradesmanhelix
FWIW, I created a petition here to see if we can get Mozilla to reconsider
this decision: [https://www.change.org/p/mozilla-save-mozilla-firefox-s-
best...](https://www.change.org/p/mozilla-save-mozilla-firefox-s-best-
feature).

May be a Hail May, but worth a shot if we as Firefox users really care.

------
erikbye
For now I prefer Vivaldi. As for tabs I don't require anything more fancy than
vertical tabs, pinned tabs, and tab stacks. And Vivaldi's is the only UI I can
customize to my liking, and I really like it's quick-command dialog.

[https://s27.postimg.org/rmbo9jgwx/vivaldi.png](https://s27.postimg.org/rmbo9jgwx/vivaldi.png)

------
voidz
Ok, so, the only way I seem to be able to vote against this is by not using
firefox anymore. Then that's what'll happen.

------
Grue3
Guess I'll have to use an outdated version of Firefox forever. Tab Groups is
absolutely indispensable add-on, and Mozilla was idiotic to remove this
feature in the first place. And now they're making it impossible for add-on
authors to keep working on their add-ons.

------
mwill
I use Tab Groups constantly, I switched from Chrome to firefox almost entirely
for Tab Groups. Runs terribly on my machine, I'll be back on Chrome the second
Tab Groups are gone, unfortunately.

I've been worried since web extension only announcement we were heading for
something like this.

------
131hn
Can someone explain me in a simple way the "xul prevent us to switch to multi
process" argument ( when i'll naively think - just use one more dedicated
process for xul. ?). Xul design & gecko

~~~
kevincox
There isn't one. The actual argument is "multiprocess can break some /classic/
extensions". Then they lumped in "existing extensions can cause bad
performance". And now they are using that bandwagon to remove tons of power
from extensions.

I wish we had both, because I would prefer webextensions (proper permissions)
but when I needed to I can still use a powerful /classic/ extension.

------
Aardwolf
Would those add-ons still work with SeaMonkey? That might be a way to keep
them

------
jhlgkhkhil
When vimperiator, Zotero and tree style tabs stop working I will need to find
another browser.

What a clusterfuck Mozilla is becoming.

------
stephengillie
Isn't Firefox open source? Can't you just fork the project and start your own
browser, where all these changes don't get made?

Is the real concern about forking the userbase and ecosystem, and the fork
won't have the critical user base to become self-sustaining?

Edit: added paragraph for clarity.

~~~
iancarroll
Maintaining a fork of a large browser is extremely difficult, especially for
coordinating and merging vulnerability fixes.

~~~
stephengillie
Do no other extension developers have this issue?

~~~
dsr_
The EPUBreader extension now notifies you on each relaunch that they need
donations to fund a complete rewrite to work in future Firefox versions.

------
reachtarunhere
This is how Firefox dies.

------
fdsfsaa
Do you want a fork? Do you want to drive more people to Pale Moon? Do you want
to become even less relevant relative to Chrome? Do you want to make the web
even less user-centric?

A change like this is how you do that. Good job, Mozilla.

------
akjainaj
Heh. Funny that I just updated to Firefox Developer Edition 53 and now Tree
Style Tab (one of the addons that will go when XUL stuff does) has severe
theming issues and weird flickers.

It'd be nice if a mod could change the title to "I cannot continue working on
my Firefox add-ons"

------
ssdev
It's time for me to try and deploy everywhere some small WebKit-based browser,
like dwb or its clones. Not very sad, but waste of time.

~~~
pvdebbe
Came to say this. Vimperator cannot operate within constrained add-on
sandboxes. Chromium already demonstrates how it works -- you get your vi keys
on the page but as soon as you open a new tab and start entering your URL,
nothing familiar works as Chromium takes ownership for the new tab.

I dabbled with DWB a few years back. It shows a lot of promise but it wasn't
worth the hassle back then. If firefox is sure to go down, then all bets are
off.

(Btw, dwb is deemed dying too, on the account of using webkit. uzbl is more
maintained but uses webkit as well.)

