Yessss. It doesn't happen often, but the times when I open up 6-10 tabs for research but then decide they deserve their own window so I can focus on them (and subsequently drag them out one by one) is still a lot.
Super happy right now.
0 - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multiple-tab-...
full disclosure: I'm the maintainer for Panorama Tab Groups right now so I am slightly biased. I do think photodiode and the guys in charge of Panorama View are way better than I am at this, but since they're not active right now, I've created a fork so I can have a more up to date add-on
There's still a five year old bug where firefox thinks the window has the last size from the previous session when you restart it and save open tabs, when using a tiling window manager, but it fixes itself when you manually resize it, I can learn to live with this.
That and the keep-consuming-all-memory-until-all-memory-is-consumed switch, and the killing of GCLI (see: https://joindiaspora.com/posts/77a57160cf470136d1540218b70db...) which makes restarting FF far more fraught. Quite honestly, a "force quit" seems to be the most effective approach.
It has the advantage that it just saves to a special spot in bookmarks, so these sessions sync across devices too:
open source too: https://github.com/ReDEnergy/SessionSync
I used to use the multiple tabs handler addon but it stopped working once I moved to 60esr so I was glad that they introduced it back.
Disclaimer: I am a Linux user since >20 years, using XMonad window manager on Ubuntu 16.04 at the moment.
To test it once you could execute:
If you want a more persistent solution you could add
to your .profile or /etc/profile (if you want it for all system users)
If you'd like to use KDE file selectors in a non-DE setup, you'll need to get `xdg-desktop-portal-kde` working.
> Easier performance management: The new Task Manager page found at about:performance lets you see how much energy each open tab consumes and provides access to close tabs to conserve power
> Improved performance for Mac and Linux users, by enabling link time optimization (Clang LTO). (Clang LTO was enabled for Windows users in Firefox 63.)
Release Notes: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/64.0/releasenotes/
This is pretty neat, now I'm wondering why the webex extension is having "Medium" impact when it should be doing nothing.
At least it's not Google Hangouts. That crap platform will kill any laptop battery in ~30-45 min flat and make it seem like you're rendering some 8K video.
Does this mean I need to build it myself or is the binary gonna ship this way?
I would like these features to be standardised to hands-off-my-fricking-scrollbars.
I’m fed up with impossible-to-grab 1px-wide scrollbars because “everyone has trackpads”. No, they don’t.
If you're uncomfortable with the user realizing the game is a browser game, why did you make it in a browser?
Customising UI elements is a usability antipattern.
Per , predictability and familiarity are key in creating usable interfaces. Making things look nice "because you can" doesn't necessarily mean you should.
> When designing your interface, try to be consistent and predictable in your choice of interface elements. Whether they are aware of it or not, users have become familiar with elements acting in a certain way, so choosing to adopt those elements when appropriate will help with task completion, efficiency, and satisfaction.
I remember having a lot of fun playing Stars! as a child:
Castle of the Winds, Windows 3.11.
Sadly the world has gone the other way and basically ditched the whole concept of native widgets and consistent look and feel.
> Does this principal apply to X for y?
In a vacuum, yes it's a principal.
In reality, while it's an antipattern it doesn't mean you should be afraid let alone disallowed the ability to exercise good judgement and make a call.
Full window, emersive games are the perfect example of UI elements like buttons that should probably be reskinned - wisely. I say wisely because you can still reskin buttons in a way that affords familiarity you can also reskin them in a way that makes them abhorrent.
A converse example is windows based skinnable hardware interface software like MSI afterburner and the like. That sort of thing is absolute unthought, untested garbage.
For website buttons I think the ship has sailed and the default elements actually look alien.
In fact a lot of CSS frameworks improve net usability from defaults anyway.
Now, is it an antipattern to use them? In essence yes, but considering everything no. Caution, many css frameworks have UX issues and you need to make a judgement in your evaluation about which features to use. I like to see how their autocomplete / dropdown features work it's usually a good litmus test because those things are basically impossible to do right.
And this why we have UX people.
It is the marriage and trade off of usability/hci and designers to create a usability experience that delights.
Though things still tend to lean toward design first approaches. Which aren't incorrect approaches but do tend to lack emphasis on circling back to fix usability later.
I think website internals are widely debatable but do have norms you must consider.
I draw the line at breaking out of the window sandbox and altering browser UI. It assumes all browsers work the same and creates a dependency on the browser for a shared experience.
An inconsequential example: setting browser ui color on mobile version of Chrome. Now your whole website design feels very native and is reasoned about with that native feel. That can them lead to inconsistent design assumptions being made on the desktop. Maybe your color selection clashes badly with the desktop grey.
Like I said, inconsequential, but might illustrate why messing with it might be a bad idea.
The other big reason I throw down at the browser window line is accessibility. Messing with things like button sizing / scrollbar sizing and things wrecks absolute havoc on these users. They also make English centric assumptions about designs that are almost always wrong eventually.
One thing I like about the Firefox (Gtk?) scrollbar is that it finally removed (a few version ago already) the "Click on it somewhere, but it doesn't move there but just acts like PgDown/Up", i.e. the non-warping to the exact click position but just inching towards it. This is completely unnecessary in the time of wheels and touchpads and I already miss it everywhere else.
A handful of people love it, most think it's a bug. It's particularly bad if you're using a trackpad.
I would theorize that it's not a well known complaint because most people move on quickly and just assume their computer is buggy.
It is completely necessary for me to have “move one page up on click.”
Definitely no: If I have a hand on the mouse I surely don't want to lift it and hunt for the PgUp or PgDown just to move one page up or down. And no, I don't want to go "there" if it's actually "somewhere" in the middle of whatever, if I just want to see the previous or the next page. Going "there" is much less frequent operation than moving to the next or the previous page.
"Most"? Where did you get that idea? "Most gaming mice" or what? Most of the users aren't gamers.
> that means a PgDown button (I guess it is mostly that direction) on the mouse is missing.
Of course is missing: "normal" (as in the most common) mice have only 2 buttons and the scroll wheel.
The scroll wheel never moves one page up (or down), but just some small number of lines, so the most common operation is then impossible for the most of the users just because a developer (who probably even "lives" in his terminal for most of the time, never lifting the both hands from the middle of the keyboard) thinks that everybody has exactly the gear that he has.
- left click - page up/down
- middle click - go directly to this point.
Moving one of these to the other is confusing and a loss of useful functionality. Reminds me of "chesterton's fence."
For most longer texts, I hate "click to here" on the scrollbars. It's impossible to get it right. Them working as pgup/down makes much more sense.
Don't most mice have scrolling as well? It's not about trackpads.
Long story short, stop fscking with accessibility. If your js code or libraries handles ANY input events, you'd better watch yourself because you're venturing into specialized-interface-by-and-for-assholes-land.
Imagine you cmd + F a phrase and there are 200 responses separated into like 4 chunks of a document. It can be useful to scroll to the start of each chunk to get the context of them.
I realize the benefits of the Overlay Scroll Bar to the majority of users who have scroll-wheels. But it sure would be nice if there was an easy way to revert back to the Normal Scroll Bar ("Classic" scroll bar?). You know, the wide bar that scrolls down exactly one page-length if you click outside of the bar? I've spent plenty of time Googling and in "about:config" and exporting environment variables like GTK_OVERLAY_SCROLLING=0 to no avail.
But not all.
A browser-wide scrollbar styling system, able to be opted into by use of particular CSS, doesn’t imply anything about whether we are talking about just one scroll bar or all of them.
I also disagree about native controls not always being the best solution when it comes to scrolling. We all know how annoying it is when a page jacks scrolling; it’s a usability nightmare that makes pages’ scroll behaviour harder to predict. We don’t need to add to the usability issues by letting one of the most fundamental pieces of chrome in a web browser get jacked even further than the already impermissible state.
I really, REALLY hate that they're killing this feature, but this addon promises to restore it: https://www.ghacks.net/2018/07/30/livemarks-restores-live-bo...
Edit: here's the official GitHub: https://github.com/nt1m/livemarks/
Mozilla did the same with tab groups, then the addon was abandoned. The replacement that is compatible with the new form of extension isn't able to unload the tabs, just hide them, which undoes most of the performance benefits.
[abraham simpson voice] It'll happen to you too! [/abraham simpson voice] /jk
I can't imagine Mozilla crippling the addon API to the point where it can't grab data off an RSS feed and display it.
I don't buy that. It's my browser running on my computer, it's my choice whose code I choose to run on it.
If, say, emacs or vi had this kind of handholding, neither one would be much more than a text editor.
I believe this information is out of date. Firefox 58 brought extension developers the ability to unload tabs: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1322485
And Totally Not Panorama takes advantage: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/basic-panoram...
Wouldn't that indicate that the extension was not that widely used, and as such Mozilla were correct in removing it from the central codebase?
At Mozzila they need to prioritize many different things and I can understand how a constant push to make the browser leaner is foundamental. (especially in cases like RSS feeds)
I don't think most people even knew it was there.
I wish tab handling had a first-class API in Firefox, so that different tab managers could interact with the default tab menu, etc.
Yes, but I don't really want tree-styled tabs, I want tab groups :P The interface is vastly different.
Firefox 64 introduces an entirely new API, browser.menus.overrideContext, which allows complete customization of the context menu shown within add-on content like sidebars, popups, etc.
This is illustrated right in the post by my favorite pain point, the Tree Stye Tab custom tab menu mixing with the regular tab menu.
Still, this update felt particularly user hostile. My user experience was:
- I'm in the middle of browsing and open a tab to do a search, but the new tab shows the "Firefox needs to restart because updates are more important than you!“ page.
- I'm forced to restart. Manually, since the automatic restart is probably broken on my system. Tab state in some SPA tabs are lost.
- Now I have to migrate my live bookmarks. They converted themselves to regular bookmarks- I have to right click and delete those one by one. Then I install Livemarks, import the exported bookmarks data, and then drag those one by one to my bookmarks toolbar.
I'm half considering Chrome. If Firefox is going to be like this, why bother? Might as well start the Chrome dominance and stagnation part of the browser cycle.
Maybe they are also in the wrong if the telemetry is excessive, but the alternative is to never deprecate any feature ever.
Better than keep removing features and reasons to use Firefox from some of their loyalest users, even if they are a minority. User retention seems Mozilla's largest issue at the moment now they're down under 10%.
Also, 0.01% of a big number is still a big number, and given the state of the feature, that number is likely to include a lot of long-time users.
When resources are constrained you have to make decisions about what features you'll continue to develop and which to cut out. Live bookmarks was cut out. Mozilla devs have also mentioned that this feature is ancient code and would have required a lot of coding effort to bring up to date.
I'm sure if you were to invest the time to reimplement live bookmarks with modern code and with the internal restructuring in the browser in mind and you'd volunteer to maintain it and fix all filed bugs, they'd accept it.
They removed the visibility years ago, then progressive updates made them ever less visible, including hiding then removing RSS notification. Once the first step was taken, the route to removal was set, including the telemetry figures.
If they were as visible as pocket, perhaps as visible as pocket stories on new tabs, usage would be hugely higher.
.. now if only Google had used that to notice the things I like about Inbox and keep them :-(
From the linked-to-post, it lacks:
* Programmatic output configuration (xrandr, arandr, etc.)
* CLI clipboard access (xsel, xclip)
* Third party app launcher/window switcher (rofi, dmenu, albert, docky).
* Clipboard managers (parcellite, klipper, Gpaste, clipman, etc.)
* Third party screen shot/capture/share (shutter, OBS, ffmpeg, import, peek, scrot, VNC, etc.)
* Color picker (gpick, gcolor3, kcolorchooser)
Lack of Wayland versions of these apps is a deal breakers for me, and I'm going to avoid Wayland until it gets them.
 - https://old.reddit.com/r/wayland/comments/85q78y/why_im_not_...
* Programmatic output configuration
swaymsg -t get_outputs # get displays
swaymsg output DP-1 pos 0 0 res 1920x1080 # set displays
* CLI clipboard access
swaymsg -t get_clipboard
* Third party app launcher/window switcher
I use gnome-panel with Xwayland, but better than nothing
* Third party screen shot/capture/share
Sorry, no options here yet, but it can be done
swaymsg [title="Top Panel"] floating enable, resize set width 2560 px height 32 px, move position 0 -38
"GNOME and KDE have dbus APIs for some (but not all) of these things, and sway has
its own IPC, and other compositors probably have similar solutions. However, they
all use different mechanisms, which means that if you are writing say, screenshot
application you either have to write a different backend for every compositor, or
choose just one or two to support.
"Something all of these types of applications have in common is they need to be able to inspect and/or modify state from other applications or the compositor itself. Which wayland's security model normally prevents. I think a major gap in wayland, is having a way for an application to run with escalated permissions so it can have access to other applications. Unfortunately, I don't have any great ideas on what that would look like."
and then, later in the thread:
"for simple things using the compositor's screen shot tool is fine. But what if I don't like the screenshot tool for my compositor of choice? My experience with the GNOME screenshot tool (granted this was pre-wayland) was that it wasn't as good as, say, shutter, which has a lot of options, let's you easily crop and edit the screenshot from inside the screenshot tool etc. And then swaygrab doesn't even (currently) have an option to capture a rectangular region."
The entire thread linked to above is worth reading.
My own takeaway is that Wayland is just way too immature to compete with X for my power-user use cases.
It might be ok for users with simple needs.
Window managers can implement their own extra protocols of course, but instead of X11 where everything was standardized and window managers didn't even have to think about it, there is no standard and window managers have to rewrite all the code for it themselves.
It's not an "issue". It's a design decision.
As another example, Linux doesn't have just one desktop environment, like Windows or MacOS, would you say that's an "issue", even if it's a deliberate decision?
Why do we need Wayland?
Also, when I run X just for myself on my own laptop, what security issues do I have to worry about with X that I don't have to worry about with Wayland?
With regards to security, the main issue is that X11 provides no isolation between applications, allowing them to listen to keystrokes and the clipboard at all times. With Wayland, only focused applications have this access.
Currently I'm using an old, slow laptop, with a graphics card integrated in to the motherboard. Nothing special. But I don't do any demanding graphics processing on it. I just watch movies and use web browsers and a terminal. I don't play graphically intense games on it.
"With regards to security, the main issue is that X11 provides no isolation between applications, allowing them to listen to keystrokes and the"
I don't see why this should concern me or 90% of X users, because if any malware manages to run on our systems it'll already have full control over them without needing to resort to any kind of keystroke sniffing in X.
I'm struggling to think of a scenario where malware's running on the same machine with access to a single X session, which doesn't already have full control over the account whose keystrokes they'd be presumably sniffing. They could just substitute their own malware versions of web browsers, shells, editors, or whatever other software the user uses and sniff keystrokes in there, without needing to touch X.
Not that it hurts to have more isolation than you get in X, but I'd need a lot more convincing for me to give up the convenience I already enjoy with X.
Can someone paint me a realistic, relatively common threat scenario where not having Wayland's isolation would actually present a serious security risk?
A compromised web browser doesn't need X to control the rest of your system. It can usually already write all over your system and perform all sorts of other attacks, including substituting applications, paths, LD_LIBRARY_PATH, etc.. not to mention try kernel exploits and the like -- not that they'd need to on a single-user system, as they could just get your sudo password by one of the other means mentioned above, all without touching X.
Anyway, if a typical user's browser is compromised, they're already completely screwed, as they typically access their online banking and webmail through it. Once again, the attacker does not need to touch X to get access to any of that.
To me it still sounds like Wayland's security model is trying to solve a niche problem that most X users don't really suffer from -- and charging an arm and a leg for it.
Not necessarily. Properly sandboxed applications like Chromium have a seccomp filter, separate pid/user/etc namespaces and bind mounts setup to isolate themselves from the rest of the system as much as possible.
> Anyway, if a typical user's browser is compromised, they're already completely screwed
It really depends on which part of the browser is compromised. Again, Chromium has some pretty good isolation. Having one malicious website exploit a vulnerability does not necessarily mean the attacker gets access to any of the other browser data.
For instance, only the currently focused tab should have access to the X clipboard.
Wayland makes lots of things possible: multi-monitor HiDPI, touchpad gestures like pinch to zoom (just like Macs could do ages ago), touchscreen support that's actually independent of the mouse pointer instead of always dragging it along… and there's finally no goddamn screen tearing. Every frame is perfect™.
Might be true, never happened to me. But what about FPS in Games. X11 beats it there for me. Or what about in the most important metric of them all: Latency. In all my Tests Latncy on Wayland is always a regression, compared to X11. (I use Intel and HDxxxx era AMD Graphics, can not say anything about Nvidia)
> Wayland makes lots of things possible
That might be true. But X11 can be extended and has been extended very often (hence the messy code). One thing I need regularly, namely OpenGL pass-through via SSH, will never be possible with Wayland.
> Every frame is perfect™
To me far less important than latency. Wayland should only care about tearing when I play full screen games. When I type on the terminal I want my characters appear instantly, then I don't care about tearing at all.
On my own testing (GNOME, latest Kernel, as well as Sway temporarily) latency and FPS were better on Wayland than X11 (though only on my beefier graphics card, windows rendered on the second one had higher latency and comparatively lower FPS than expected. But I don't game on that card.
>One thing I need regularly, namely OpenGL pass-through via SSH, will never be possible with Wayland.
Correct because Wayland isn't a network-like protocol as X is (though I've had X network passthrough break or fill up a gigabit ethernet connection worth of bandwidth on more than one occasion).
If you want remote desktop on Wayland, you need a tool specifically designed for that.
It's the unix mindset after all; why have one tool (X) do everything when you can have lots of tools interact and each solves it's own little problems (Wayland + tools)?
>Wayland should only care about tearing when I play full screen games.
If you run a game on wayland you usually get control over the screen anyway when you go fullscreen, once you have exclusive control you can go tearing all you want.
Though with adaptive sync becoming more common (and already being common on laptops) the perfect frame is less costly than tearing; the display will run at the FPS you can manage (within bounds). For it to work you only need to VSync and the GPU driver handles the rest.
In my experience, Wayland has way better and smoother performance than X on adaptive sync displays.
Every frame is great. If a frame is missing, ### gets quite irate.
With Gnome et al you are most certainly in high latency hell on X11.
For those using Firefox, I have one question. Is there any way to replicate Chrome's tab-to-search feature? It's literally the ONLY reason I'm still on Chrome.
Let me explain by showing how I would search for "apples" in youtube across both browsers.
1 - Ctrl+L (go to location bar)
2 - Type "you", press "down" to select youtube from history.
3 - Wait for site to load......
4 - Click on search box
5 - Type in "apples"
6 - Press enter
1 - Ctrl+L (go to location bar)
2 - Type "you", and if youtube is first item in history,
3 - Press "tab"
4 - Type in "apples"
5 - Press enter.
Youtube opens up with my searched item. Nice and easy with far fewer key presses no waiting nor mouse clicking.
Works for youtube, hacker news, wiktionary, google images, and a heap of other sites I use daily.
Go to youtube.
Right click on the youtube search bar.
add a keyword for this search.
choose your keyword (ex: yt)
now you can type in the omnibar "yt my search" and it will do directly the search.
It's not as good as chrome solution but it's the only thing for now.
This'll actually make a measurable difference to me on a daily basis with how much I search youtube for study at the moment. Thanks.
1. Got to the Bookmark Library and Right Click > New Bookmark and fill it as follows:
Name: YouTube Search
2. Click Add
3. Now in the Location bar type "you apples" and apples will be searched on YouTube.
I use this for a lot of sites with search inputs. I often do searches using ddg of sites I visit with forums or other buried content. Any search that has a URL that you can input a set of terms into can be used. Just use %s in the location for where the terms are in the URL.
Example using DDG to search CarForum.com:https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3CarForum.com+%s&t=ffab&ia=we...
This does the query "site:CarForum.com %s" on DDG.
Maybe there's an extension that does the Chrome thing, but I searched in the past and didn't find one.
I am using firefox with duckduckgo.
Firefox + DDG = Ctrl+L - Type "!yt apples", press enter
To search for "apples" on Youtube, press Ctrl-E to focus on the search bar, type "apples", click on the Youtube icon or press Ctrl-down/up arrow to choose Youtube, then enter.
Also - too many actions in your example vs. very simple and effective tab-to-search or keyword search available in Firefox.
 open youtube.com
 right click on the search bar and select "Add a keyword for this search"
 in the dialog enter the character "y" as the keyword.
now to search youtube from the address bar just enter y followed by the search terms!
Firefox requires the user to add the search engine manually:
1 - Ctrl+L (go to location bar)
2 - Type "yt! apples"
3 - There is not step 3.
Firefox uses it to populate the search bar drop down menu with the available search engines for a site, but it does not add them automatically like Chrome does.
That being said, there are a few alternatives. Firefox Top Sites supports search engines, as described in https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/save-a-search-step/. Additionally, if you use DuckDuckGo as your default, you can use bang patterns, which I prefer as they are curated.
example search 'g test query'
then choose "Add Search Engine"
// 'Dispatches' doesn't make sense to users, and it's difficult to present
// two numbers in a meaningful way, so we need to somehow aggregate the
// dispatches and duration values we have.
// The current formula to aggregate the numbers assumes that the cost of
// a dispatch is equivalent to 1ms of CPU time.
// Dividing the result by the sampling interval and by 10 gives a number that
// looks like a familiar percentage to users, as fullying using one core will
// result in a number close to 100.
let energyImpact =
Math.max(duration || 0, dispatches * 1000) / UPDATE_INTERVAL_MS / 10;
// Keep only 2 digits after the decimal point.
It reminds me of old platform video games before Super Mario Bros. (and for a while after) Superficially, they looked and played kind of the same, but there were a thousand little tweaks in how Mario handled that made it feel right.
I'm definitely going to give Firefox a spin and see how it handles these days.
I don't mind the different styled settings or menu items at all. The balance (or lack thereof) between font-sizes/font-weights, line weights, the darker gray lines etc. is what perturbs me. Maybe they should look at making the UI look a little 'lighter', like Safari and Chrome.
I have several userChrome CSS changes to make it look exactly as I want. All these taming took me some time, but it's totally worth it because this is a software you spend a few hours every day on.
Other places that could use some revamp are manage bookmarks dialog.
I have a local html page devoted to news. An entry for a specific site will see at least two urls: The main site's URL and a link to it's RSS feed.
Linking to the feed directly was a great way to bypass all the modern garbage on the home page to see a simple list of articles (not unlike HN's home page). It's borked now...
None of my RSS links render. Chromium was very bad at this but at least it rendered a few (a couple of examples below), FF64 doesn't render any (in any form):
A huge part of my ability to enjoy the web has just been destroyed.:( I'll have to test this on other browsers...
edit (update): both sample links above are working now (odd). Most others with XML, RSS, Atom extensions do not render (FF offers to open in external app or save).
Recently switched to Miniflux: https://miniflux.app which is much better for my needs. Small efficient Go app that works great with a PWA on mobile.
Since Thunderbird is also my email client, it becomes a very pleasant experience of catching my email, my newsletters and my blogs in the same client.
I actually use The Old Reader for most tech sites (including hnFrontPage and showHN). There are other sites that I'm only partially interested in or they have so much content, I don't want them in my Reader.
When I have time, I'll access the Feed Link and give the stories a bird's eye view. Also, some of these home pages are a nightmare in the Times Square sense of the word.
The Old Reader also keeps the the Feed Link accessible. Sometimes I'll hit the [mark all as read] but later on, I might go back and look at the day's listings for a particular site. I'm surprised how often I do this for some sites (mostly to reread an article or follow up on a comment I made). That flexibility is lost now.
Also, I don't subscribe to general news sites. The amount of articles would be overwhelming. News sites with RSS Feed Links make them manageable. I've essentially lost this - so I'll either have to access their obnoxious home pages (with anti-trackers fully loaded) or find other means.
I used to go local on my feeds... and while I avoid the cloud for most things, feed listings feel very natural there (also they don't take up local storage).
It's workable but I'm a bit annoyed that an application built on rendering (simple) tags (rq'd little/zero work to maintain) decides that things associated with RSS are going to be killed off (maybe??... in favor of their own news sources - which require much more work to maintain).
I've tried to find an extension for FF that does this, but so far I was unable to find one.
I think it would solve the GP comment's problem better too. There's not so much need to use multiple windows if you can just use multiple trees in the same window.
As a bonus there are many plugins for the plugin (!) such as one that lets you use the mouse wheel on it to switch tabs.  This is more useful in the tab tree than the normal tab strip, especially since it skips over tabs hidden in collapsed subtrees.
All that stuff about browser engine competition is great but TST is the real reason to use Firefox rather than Chrome.
Even if you do want a new window - drag the common parent tab to a new window and it takes its children along for the ride.
While I love the tool, it definitely has some rough edges with integration.
It has the same problem Firefox Multi-Account Containers has: Trying to change internal UI for an internal feature by using an addon simply isn't practical (yet).
1. rebuild the UI from scratch
2. rebuild basic tab handling behaviour from scratch
3. build tab stacking on top of that
4. (ideally) hide Firefox's existing tab bar
And there's two issues with the above steps:
(a) 4 hasn't been possible with the new extensions API sofar (it was in progress last I checked, maybe it's possible now)
(b) the dev effort required is big, so results have not been very polished sofar
they're getting there though
On the other hand, if you want to try something resembling that as-yet-unsurpassed 2010 UI today, Vivaldi is working on replicating it natively.
I'm never keen to recommend Vivaldi because it's (a) closed source, which is why we don't have Opera anymore and (b) it's Blink, and we need diversity there. But it's a very good browser otherwise.
An extension exists NOW that people enjoy using. Building THIS into firefox isn't a replacement for a robust extension interface unless you suppose that first party developers can think or implement all the good ideas that will ever come about.
People in truth give zero damns if its easier to implement or more elegantly done any more than they care if their tv is beautifully engineered because their priorities aren't yours. They care about functionality. Right now firefox seems to be lighter and even post quantum have better extensions. Throwing either of those out will cause it to cede more marketshare to chrome.
Er, no. What I think is that becoming a "first-party developer"—when you already know as much about the internals of Firefox as is required to maintain an extension such as TST—isn't that hard. Firefox is a FOSS project, with internals that are well-maintained and well-documented, and the UI layer is abstracted out to make working with it easier for frontend engineers (which is why, unlike any other browser, you constantly see versions of Firefox with new "experimental UIs.")
> There are certainly good arguments for it being easier for it to be built in vs as an extension if you were building from scratch right this moment but such an argument misses multiple points.
I mean, that was my argument, yes. And I don't see how it misses the point, because I'm not coming at this from the perspective of a Firefox user, nor am I coming at this from the perspective of one of the existing TST maintainers. I have no dog in the fight of Firefox's extension system, because—at the earliest point I'd even start using Firefox—it'd already be a “fact of life” that it only has WebExtensions. I'd just have to take it as a given that you can't do what TST does (did) as an extension, and ask the question afresh: how do you implement something like TST?
And the answer is: natively, in the browser chrome, and thankfully so, because that's what TST should have done in the first place and it'll make many parts of the implementation a lot easier. (See my sibling reply.)
Though, also, never mind Firefox. I'm also coming at this from the perspective of a developer who would want to implement TST-like functionality for any FOSS browser. For example, TST-like functionality for Chromium.
The fact that TST already exists for "old Firefox" doesn't really matter. That's a different web-browser than the one we've got now, and no current browser lets you do what TST did at the extension level. I don't care about ideological arguments about whether they should let you; I care about the practical facts of how to go about having TST functionality in the present/future of the browser landscape.
There are some features that are rightly being removed from core in favour of being served by an extension (Container Tabs is a great example—one of my favourite and most-used features personally, but I prefer it in an extension for a few reasons). Better tab management is the opposite: this is something Firefox should work on getting right out of the box.
I get that unless/until it makes it into core, we need good, working, popular extensions to bridge the gap, and perhaps to convince core devs there's an audience, but that's no reason to stop asking for it.
Would also recommend people trial Vivaldi, or even Opera 12 (probably still downloadable from somewhere out there) to try out the general UI concept.
For an example I've experienced personally: LinkedIn provides a data API... for a price. There are entire companies, however, that scrape LinkedIn's data instead of paying that price, and then try to work with the scraped data (which has been "baked down" through all sorts of views, localization, projections, etc.) as if it was the API data.
How much more code do you think such a scraper consists of, compared to an API client?
(The LinkedIn case is even worse because LinkedIn has stateful firewalls that actively thwart scraping, and these scrapers have to have code to trick the firewall, as well.)