
Save Mozilla Firefox's Best Feature - tradesmanhelix
https://www.change.org/p/mozilla-save-mozilla-firefox-s-best-feature
======
yalogin
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.

~~~
SAI_Peregrinus
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.

~~~
atopal
Can you say why you would drop Firefox for Chromium?

~~~
barrkel

      Firefox-now: TreeStyleTabs + ok browser
      Chromium-now: fast browser
      Firefox-future: ok browser
      Chromium-future: fast browser
    

As long as TreeStyleTabs > (fast browser - ok browser), then Firefox is a
better choice. Without TreeStyleTabs, Chromium (or Chrome, or whatever fork is
better at protecting privacy) is the better choice.

~~~
nandhp
I believe one of the key reasons for dropping XUL extensions is because they
don't work very well with e10s (multiprocess Firefox). I recently had occasion
to use a fresh Firefox without any e10s-incompatible extensions installed, and
it really felt much faster, so I think Firefox-future may also qualify as
"fast browser".

------
sgarrity
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.

~~~
abrowne
I agree. There's a lot that makes me prefer Firefox that's not extensions.

~~~
RileyKyeden
I barely use extensions these days. Most of what I want is built in to all the
browsers now. All that's left, more or less, is some way to save articles for
later and make the few I want to read now easier to follow.

Firefox has a reading mode, supports Pocket (though it's integrated now), and
lets me use uBlock Origin on mobile, so it's already perfect for my needs.

------
metajack
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].

1\. [https://github.com/servo/servo](https://github.com/servo/servo) 2\.
[https://github.com/browserhtml/browserhtml](https://github.com/browserhtml/browserhtml)

~~~
dman
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.

------
JohnTHaller
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.

~~~
tradesmanhelix
Please see my comment here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13590456](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13590456).

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
As a happy vimperator user, I was very disappointed when I got to know that
the days of this extension are counted because of that.

[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/vimperator/re...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/vimperator/reviews/841717/)

------
RubyPinch
* 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.

Haven't they already been doing that?

[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1215059](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1215059)
[https://webextensions.uservoice.com/forums/315663-webextensi...](https://webextensions.uservoice.com/forums/315663-webextension-
api-ideas)

~~~
tradesmanhelix
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.

[1] [http://fasezero.com/addons/](http://fasezero.com/addons/)

~~~
RubyPinch
I will note that that page does mention the relevant mailing lists, and I do
know that the Vimperator devs also know of the relevant bugs/mailing lists
(since that is where I found them)

~~~
tradesmanhelix
That's great, but realistically how are non-FF devs supposed to take part in
this discussion? There are many users who will be affected by these changes
but are not being given any voice in them because of the way Mozilla has
handled the discussion. Hopefully this petition and other efforts can raise
awareness beyond the FF dev community.

------
gerdusvz
Firefox's best feature is that it is made by a non-profit organization.

~~~
Endy
No, because when said non-profit is deaf to the complaints of users, we can't
hurt them the same way we can a corporate entity of reasonable size.

~~~
hvis
Both Google and Mozilla track browser usage, installed addons, etc.

You can bet your posterior that if Mozilla decides that a given slice of the
user base is marginal enough to have its demands ignored, Google would do that
in a heartbeat.

------
xemoka
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.

~~~
tradesmanhelix
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?

------
tradesmanhelix
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.

------
ishitatsuyuki
Mozilla is open, and they can simply join the bug tracker to talk with devs.
They are doing the wrong way.

~~~
Endy
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.

~~~
hvis
Does your 70-year-old mother use Tree Style Tabs or Pentadactyl?

~~~
Endy
Would you believe me if I told you I don't know exactly what extensions she
uses? I believe the main one she has that will break is ePub Reader, though.

~~~
hvis
See this release note:
[https://addons.mozilla.org/ru/firefox/addon/epubreader/versi...](https://addons.mozilla.org/ru/firefox/addon/epubreader/versions/?page=1#version-1.5.0.11)

Your mother is likely to weather the transition to WebExtensions well enough.

------
zb1plus
Firefox is open source, just fork the project and make your own custom build
that retains these features.

~~~
digi_owl
Palemoon says hi...

------
Illniyar
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).

Mozilla have usage statistics for add-ons.

------
danpalmer
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?

------
harrygeez
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.

I hope he'll be happy with Chrome.

~~~
reitanqild
_trying to hold back progress._

Don't think this is what they try to do rather than stop Mozilla making FF
just another browser

------
richardboegli
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.

------
reitanqild
I thought the deal was not to remove anything until web extensions were
complete enough to replace the old XUL?

If Firefox is going to neeuter their extensions after all I guess I'll be
looking for a new browser after all. :-/

------
_Codemonkeyism
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.

------
DeepYogurt
Why don't we just get a group effort to port old add ons going?

~~~
_Codemonkeyism
Replacement technologies for XUL do not support the same extensions than XUL.

So there is no way to port addons if Mozilla doesn't add more technical
capabilities.

------
notatoad
has any change.org petition ever accomplished anything?

~~~
xenithorb
Yeah sure, they all steal your personal information. One of the reasons I
forbid myself from ever signing something there.

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.

~~~
tradesmanhelix
Ideally, I would have chosen a more FLOSS solution for this petition; however,
time constraints led me to choose change.org.

I totally understand your privacy concerns and applaud your choice to choose
not to sign vs. doing something you feel would violate your privacy.

------
pokemongoaway
This reminds me to try using change.org to petition Google to fix a bunch of
stuff...

~~~
tgsovlerkhgsel
The difference is that Mozilla seems more likely to listen.

------
kr0
I need to make a change.org account to sign a petition? That's stupid.

~~~
irontoby
How else would you propose they give any level assurance that it's real users
signing them?

