
Firefox 2012 Roadmap published - tbassetto
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Roadmap
======
masklinn
There's one thing I don't understand of Firefox's current evolution: developer
tools.

Firefox already has an absolutely excellent (third-party driven) devtool, at
the root of basically all modern (browser) devtools, in Firebug. Firebug is
pretty much the source of Webkit's Developer Tools (Safari and Chrome), of
Drosera (Opera) and even of the utter dreck that are MSIE8+'s builtin
developer tools, and one of Firefox's greatest gifts to web development (along
with taking down MSIE and the idea that following standards might be a good
idea from time to time)

It's not perfect by a long shot and it does have issues (which get addressed
over time), but it's there and more importantly its _good_.

Yet they are reimplementing it bit by bit, in a less-integrated, less
practical, and overall shittier way.

Why?

Why is mozilla wasting time on that?

Why couldn't they instead focus on making _Firebug_ better and providing a
better, deeper integration between Firefox and Firebug? Or by developing new
API and panes trailblazed by the Webkit devtools (e.g. rendering timeline)? In
fact, why not look into merging Firebug into Firefox pretty directly (disabled
by default of course)?

Does anybody know? Because it boggles my mind, Firebug has had a complete
console for ages and Firefox 9 added a shitty one (which mostly spends its
time being spammed by irrelevant garbage due to not having a network tab) as a
"quake console" (opens from the top), and Firebug has had an (excellent) DOM
inspector for ages (again) and Firefox 10 adds a completely shitty one[0]...
but at the bottom of the window so using both the inspector and the console
takes twice as much visual space, and if you open the "styles" pane your
visual space shrinks down to a postcard.

Please help, because they've lost me completely with that strategy.

[0] seriously, can't create new attributes, can't add content to an empty one
(can only change existing non-empty content), pointlessly huge breadcrumb
trail, blue-on-black theming which looks completely out of place, no
autocompletion of CSS properties, no hyperlinking of CSS files or elements, no
layout display, no object inspection, no DOM changes breakpoints, no HTML
edition, no separate window, what's there is barely useful, we're talking
IE8-level of functionality (of the inspector tab, IE8's devtools at least have
a debugger) if even that (thought hopefully not as terminally buggy) and I'm
probably forgetting half of it

~~~
InclinedPlane
There are some pretty strong fundamental reasons why you want to have
debugging tools be exactly in sync with releases, especially when you are
making major changes to feature support and rendering. Also, in this day it
just makes sense to have such tools integrated in the browser.

Now, the Firefox team might not be pulling off the execution very well (though
it's a little unfair to compare an early generation product to a more evolved
product) but I think it's probably the right decision for the future,
hopefully they'll iterate on it enough to get it into a good state.

However, all of this is sort of beside the point. The Firebug lead went to go
work for the Chrome team, so the Firefox team is in a bit of a pickle.

~~~
masklinn
> There are some pretty strong fundamental reasons why you want to have
> debugging tools be exactly in sync with releases, especially when you are
> making major changes to feature support and rendering. Also, in this day it
> just makes sense to have such tools integrated in the browser.

That's cool and I can see that, but it does not explain why they're not
building on Firebug's established base.

> However, all of this is sort of beside the point. The Firebug lead went to
> go work for the Chrome team, so the Firefox team is in a bit of a pickle.

Firebug already survived the departure of its founder years ago, if there's a
will it can survive Barton's as well.

~~~
InclinedPlane
As I understand it there are limitations to the way firebug (as an extension)
works that would make continued development and adding new features
problematic. I don't know enough about Firefox's dev tools work to say whether
or not it even makes sense to make use of firebug's code base and whether or
not that sort of thing will happen in the future. It would be a huge failure
if the firefox devs couldn't even manage to match the functionality of
firebug, but it's more than a little too early to say that that will be the
case.

As to the development team, there's a difference between surviving and
thriving. Especially as the pace of firefox development has been accelerating
I think bringing dev tool support in house is the only rational choice.

------
51Cards
_Firefox Hotfix: There are small issues that can occasionally affect Firefox
users after a release. Correcting those small issues should not require a full
Firefox update. With a new hotfix system, Mozilla can patch minor issues in
Firefox without requiring a browser restart._

This is great.

~~~
icebraining
That's just the first part; in Q2 there's:

 _Silent Update: The Firefox update process will be moved to the background
and Windows admin passwords and/or UAC prompts will be removed. Also, users
with the rare incompatible extension will have a gentler upgrade process._

~~~
afhof
I can't help but think that requiring a prompt to modify Firefox binaries is a
good thing.

~~~
gcp
Do you think this is a good idea for Windows updates for the big public? If
not, how is Firefox different?

Firefox installers are signed (and so are updates), so I don't see any
security issues here. On the contrary, removing the need for people to approve
all those useless UAC prompts makes it more likely they will actually look at
the next one to pop up and see if it is legit.

~~~
weaksauce
Is there an issue with mitm attacks at hostile wifi points of access? Dns
pointing to a bunk certificate authority maybe? I am not fully versed on this
though so I don't know how possible this attack is.

~~~
mbrubeck
The update payload itself is signed with a private key controlled directly by
Mozilla, to avoid vulnerability to CA compromises [1]. The connection to the
update server performs additional checks to ensure not only that the SSL
certificate is valid, but that it matches one of a small list of known certs
or issuers, so that a fraudulent CA can't hijack the connection with a forged
certificate [2][3].

[1]:
[https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Reviews/Firefox10/SilentUp...](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Reviews/Firefox10/SilentUpdateOSDialogs)

[2]: <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=544442#c24>

[3]: <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=583678>

(As a side note, the fact that this is necessary points out some of the major
risks in the current CA system, which will hopefully be addressed in whatever
eventually replaces it...)

------
ivanbernat
> Based on the Verified Email standard, Firefox users will be able to log in
> to Firefox to enable Sync and user-centric site logins. Users will finally
> be able to say goodbye to remembering countless passwords.

This! It would be great if Firefox could automatically log you into websites
you already are registered on and have associated with your FF login.

~~~
callahad
That's indeed the promise of BrowserID. Learn more at <https://browserid.org/>

It's already being used for sign-in at <https://developer.mozilla.org/>, and
it will only get better once browsers and identity providers ship native
support.

------
51Cards
Off topic (somewhat)... I have also been using the latest Firefox Mobile
nightlies on my tablet... wow. It's responsive, it's slick, it's fast... it's
buggy... (it's a nightly). It's also a sign of brilliant things to come from
Mozilla this year. I can't wait for the current Mobile nightlies to hit open
release.

~~~
bergie
The release versions of Firefox Mobile were good enough to be the default
browser on my 7" HTC Flyer tablet, but don't seem to handle the bigger
resolution of Transformer Prime that well (lots of screen flickering when
scrolling).

I just tried their Aurora nightly, and there things were quite smooth. Not yet
Chrome-on-Android smooth, but getting there.

As always, Firefox Sync is the killer feature on mobile.

~~~
pcwalton
I work on Firefox Mobile. What in particular made you feel that Aurora was
less smooth than Chrome?

~~~
bergie
I still see a lot of areas in the process of being redrawn while I scroll.

A lot better than "this process is frozen, Kill?" that I get with Browser,
though.

I didn't check yet with Aurora, but do you handle keyboard shortcuts? One
thing that keeps me with Browser instead of Chrome is that it supports
desktop-style shortcuts like Ctrl-L and Ctrl-R when I'm using the hardware
keyboard.

~~~
51Cards
Oh yes! Strong second for keyboard support in Firefox Mobile. I have an ASUS
Slider, also with a hardware keyboard, and I keep wanting to go back to the
keyboard when browsing. I know it's not common on tablets but when you do have
a keyboard attached (or built in) it's great to have.

~~~
bergie
Ok, verified that the shortcuts indeed don't work in Aurora and filed a bug:
<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=726716>

Please add comments there if you have any.

------
NDizzle
I really think Firefox should have nailed down addon compatibility and silent
updates before embarking of this FF4+ versioning adventure. It's good to see
that they are both on the roadmap, but I fear it's too little too late.

~~~
samstokes
As far as I understand it, they did largely nail down addon compatibility at
least around the same time as the rapid releases began. Addons hosted on
addons.mozilla.org have since last April [1] got automatic compatibility bumps
each time a new version of Firefox is released.

What they didn't realise was that only 25% of addons in active use were hosted
on AMO, and the vast majority were self-hosted. The change referred to in this
roadmap is to make the browser itself (rather than just AMO) treat extensions
as compatible by default (and presumably quite a lot of supporting work to
make sure that's a responsible way for the browser to behave). That change has
also now landed [2].

These are important problems to tackle, but we should give credit where it's
due, and it's rather more than just "on the roadmap". Justin Scott gives a
good overview of their thought process and actions taken: [3]

[1] [http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/2011/04/19/add-on-
compatibili...](http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/2011/04/19/add-on-
compatibility-rapid-releases/) [2] <http://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/10.0/releasenotes/> [3] [http://blog.fligtar.com/2011/09/26/add-on-
compatibility-prog...](http://blog.fligtar.com/2011/09/26/add-on-
compatibility-progress-plans/#more-1246)

------
BCM43
Add-on performance indicators would be awesome. I'm looking forward to addon
syncing too.

~~~
starwed
I recently read about a Mozilla authored extension that gives you more
performance insight. I think some features only work with special FF builds
right now, though. :)

[http://www.visophyte.org/blog/2012/02/04/aboutnosy-is-
aboutm...](http://www.visophyte.org/blog/2012/02/04/aboutnosy-is-aboutmemory-
with-charts-helps-you-lay-blame-more-easily/)

------
abcd_f
> _The Firefox update process will be moved to the background and Windows
> admin passwords and/or UAC prompts will be removed._

Oh, God, no. If Chrome does it this way, it is not a reason to blindly copy
the idea. Why the hell would I want another privileged process running on my
machine?

~~~
gcp
Because it's the best solution to deal with the problem at hand (updating
another process's .exe without requiring an UAC prompt). Google and Mozilla
aren't idiots, you know. Internet Explorer can circumvent this due to being
able to use Windows Update. Safari and Opera (AFAIK) don't do rapid release.

~~~
abcd_f
Well, no, it is _not_ the best solution by a wide margin.

There is no reason Firefox has to go into a _system_ ProgramFiles directory
when it is installed by a user. It needs to go into the _user's_ ProgramFiles.
If it is installed by an admin, then, yes, it should go into the system
directory, and it is reasonable to have the updater process run as a system
service. But if it's me, Joe User, installing Firefox on a shared box for my
own use, then (a) I should really be able to do that within the confines of my
account permissions (b) the updating mechanism should also fit into the same
set of restrictions.

Just think about it for a minute.

PS. "Google and Mozilla aren't idiots" is not an argument. Microsoft aren't
idiots either, but look at Vista.

~~~
gcp
But Firefox _already works like that_. If you install as a (non-admin) user,
it goes into your user dir and there is no update service.

If you install as an admin user, it goes into Program Files, and by your own
admission, there's no other way to update it than to have the update service.

------
kijin
The new "Australis" theme (on the roadmap for 2H) looks like Mozilla is trying
to copy Chrome yet again. Don't get me wrong, Chrome does a lot of things
right, but shouldn't a browser have some sort of... unique visual identity?

[http://people.mozilla.com/~shorlander/firefox-ui-
design/fire...](http://people.mozilla.com/~shorlander/firefox-ui-
design/firefox-visual-design-across-platforms.html)

~~~
wvenable
There's a push towards minimalism by all the browsers and there is only a few
ways to do a minimal browser UI.

~~~
gcp
True. Merging the search box and urlbar is a logical step. I was worried at
first at blurring the distinction between "search in my local
bookmarks/history" and "send to Google", but if it works like in the mobile
browsers than I might be able to live with it (show local results and offer
"search on google" as an option). But I wonder how usable that would be with
many search engines.

Don't like:

\- The Firefox menu at the top of the window is moved to a Chrome-style
settings menu on the right. Yet, no vertical screen estate was won. (I realize
why this is: the top must remain free to make the window draggable, but it
also shows how pointless moving it was, as you've now lost horizontal estate
for no gain)

Makes sense:

\- Home button replaced by home pinned tab. \- New downloads UI. Prior to 4.0
I used an extension that showed something similar to what you see in those
screens.

~~~
CrazedGeek
Regarding the menu, no vertical space may have been won, but definitely a bit
of horizontal -- it looks like there's enough room for an additional tab there
now, which is nice. (maximized on 1366*768, it's rare that I never have tab
overflow)

~~~
rplnt
If you often run out of tab space, reduce the minimal width of tabs. I don't
quite remember the exact variable in about:config but I was always able to
find it (search for width probably). One of the first things I had to set when
I was using Firefox as my secondary browser. It was 3.x but I don't think they
would remove the little configuration they offered.

~~~
CrazedGeek
It looks like they did: <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=574654>

Someone did package up the CSS and put it into an addon though:
[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/custom-tab-
wi...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/custom-tab-width/)

~~~
eCa
Tab Mix Plus is great for all sorts of tab settings.

<https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tab-mix-plus/>

------
chj
I would love to try it when it reaches version 20.0.

------
st3fan
No mention of OS X Lion on the roadmap makes me sad.

------
iso8859-1
List of stuff already in Chrome:

\- Inline PDF View

\- In-line Preferences Manager

\- Network Installer

\- Integrated translation service

\- Silent Update

Anything else?

~~~
shmerl
Did Chrome ever use anything like pdf.js?

~~~
unwiredben
My understanding is that Google licensed the FoxIt PDF viewing engine to embed
into their Chrome binaries. It probably isn't available in the open-source
Chromium.

~~~
xxpor
I can confirm it isn't.

~~~
shmerl
In KDE at least, KParts Firefox plugin does a very good job for PDF viewing,
using Okular.

