logs archiveIRC Archive / Freenode / #firefox / 2015 / August / 24 / 1
azaki
gildarts, if you check the webextensions wiki, they are already working with the noscript developer, and many other extension devs to add APIs needed for those extensions.
webextensions will be a *superset* of chrome's extension api, not 1-for-1 the same.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions#Additional_APIs
https://billmccloskey.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/firefox-add-on-changes/
as you can see, they've already taken into account adding APIs for stuff like tab customization extensions, noscript, vimperator, classic theme restorer, etc. which already covers quite a lot of bases.
gildarts
Yeah, I have been reading that.
I like that they are working on that stuff.
I am mostly withholding judgement until I see how it is done.
azaki
i think mozilla might need to make a second blog post to clarify this stuff, because a lot of people are getting the wrong impression, and spreading FUD about firefox getting restricted like chrome =\
gildarts
But again, if it works like Chrome I don't really consider that working since things like ads still get loaded and processed and are hidden. Not really blocked, iirc.
azaki
yeah, i agree. pretty sure they're not going to be doing that.
google did that likely because they're an advertising company =p
thufir
haha, exactly
azaki
also, not sure if chrome still works that way. ublock origin claims to reduce mem/cpu usage even on chrome, so yeah.
b0at
to be fair, a way to moderate extensions' capabilities would be very useful. i just wish it didn't have the smell of FirefoxOS and Android as prime platforms.
gildarts
I think they did it because they didn't want to give extensions /any/ hooks into the loading process.
         

thufir
they did it because they are a for profit corporation and thus seek profit above anything else. anything else they say is just marketing
b0at
i wish. then they would've gotten money for pocket integration.
thufir
they don't want to integrate others tech that they themselves will offer and profit from
gildarts
I have been reading the governance thread about the Pocket integration. It is just annoying at this point.
azaki
b0at, i think thufir is talking about google/chrome.
not firefox.
thufir
yes,
b0at
ah
azaki
i dont even know what pocket is, can't we just not-use it. what's the big deal with it?
i just click customize and hide both pocket and hello in the hamburger menu.
=p
b0at
yes. any ui change sends certain people into a fuss, though there are more worrysome things under the hood, like that speculative loading junk
azaki
i'm just glad that xul is finally gonna die. maybe we can finally look forward to a snappy and fast UI.
and responsive with electrolysis.
thufir
yes, that speculative loading type junk has to be stopped. by default off or it will kill firefox's value proposition, that is, non profit browser
user first versus profit first
azaki
only annoying thing is how many months more we'll have to wait for this stuff. =c
gildarts
The deal is that it used to be an extension and is now included by default, is non-removable, uses private undocumented APIs, excludes other service providers, and completely bypassed the normal release cycle, putting untested code into stable.
azaki
well, how private can the APIs be in an open source product?
thufir
to general user who can't edit the code to remove it, private enough
to kill firefox as a browser for security concious people
azaki
general users usually rely on others for security/trust anyways; people who know how to review code. there could be malware in any open source project, we generally count on the peer review process to filter that out
thufir
exactly, and right now, the peer review concensus is to get that junk outta there
gildarts
Well private for the Pocket API. Basically their terms of service says that you are violating them if you use an API that is not documented. You could read that to mean that anyone who compiles their own copy of Firefox (and doesn't have a specific license/deal with Pocket) is by definition violating the terms.
Also, Pocket's license states that you agree to it by installing any of their software, which the integration could be construed as being.
thufir
wow, that is horrible
gildarts
The main think that made the thread long running and toxic was that several people with @mozilla.org email address replied to the /governance/ thread and basically said "trust us" and "let the experts handle it"
thing*
         

thufir
firefox will get forked if they keep this up
gildarts
They already have at least once.
Palemoon... or something like that.
thufir
well, i mean it will get forked and the fork will win because of the mounting reasons to switch caused by these types of user last decisions
XXCoder
weird
firefox had one tab that was hidden and could not be accessed
but it was easy fix anyway. uncheck restore tabs on open, and it shows homepage only. then revert to restore tabs
hidden tab is gone
TheFran
Is this April fools
Who thought killing off the main advantage ff has over chrome is a good idea
rctgamer3
TheFran: It's not that bad
TheFran
Yeah it's even worse
rctgamer3
It's a decision which won't take place for years
it's /that/ deeply integrated
so I wouldn't worry
b0at
well, part of it is that the xul engine is not getting the attention it needs, and it duplicates effort
TheFran
Which is why we need to stop it now
Makere
firefox is slowly killing itself
TheFran
Me too
rctgamer3
good luck lol
Makere
sure chrome rocked the boat when it came around, but since then I think every decision mozilla has made about firefox has been about stabbing it
rctgamer3
Makere: there's always pale moon
b0at
pale moon has a bus factor of 1
so i read
rctgamer3
(Action) has no idea what that means
b0at
and the more it diverges from firefox, the more work it takes to maintain it
Makere
rctgamer3: so just because there's an option, one can't critize about mozillas decisions?
b0at
bus factor means how many people disappearing would lead to the collapse of the project
synapt
What exactly happened?
I apparently missed something
XXCoder
end of xcom plugin support (im sure I got name wrong)
b0at
just a blog post announcing the impending deprecation of xul
Makere
mozilla decides to drop firefox addon support and use chrome extensions
XXCoder
and start of chrome type plugins
b0at
yeah, and the deeper interfaces
XXCoder
chrome type are much less ingerated to browser from what I understand
b0at
XXCoder
so some addons would be impossible. like maybe noscript
synapt
Chrome type or literal chrome extensions? And deprecation doesn't mean immediate removal, have they at least given an ETA to when it would be removed?
rctgamer3
XXCoder: wrong
synapt
XXCoder: seeing as there are noscript like things for chrome, I doubt that
XXCoder
synapt: only chrome TYPE I dont think actual is compitable
Makere
but yeah, in 5 years, firefox will be like opera, using chrome engine with different skin
XXCoder
synapt: may be wrong exa,ple
rctgamer3
Makere: stop spouting bullsh*t, that'll never happen
b0at
synapt: no timetable yet. this is the very first official mention
rctgamer3
Gecko =/= XUL
b0at
it's still early days
Makere
why it wouldn't happen?
firefox has moved to wannabe chrome in past 5 years
rctgamer3
Makere: XUL is just the interface, Geck, the rendering engine has nothing to do with that
Makere
I don't see why it wouldn't jump completely
b0at
Makere: but gecko and its js engines are thriving
rctgamer3
*Gecko
synapt
tbh the only thing firefox ever did chrome like was the general interface view
firefox at least still manages on memory significantly better than chrome does
« prev 1 2 3 4 5 next »