9 ms·

Yeah, and the not-so-popular add-ons can screw themselves, I guess. Your add-on only has 10.000 users? 200 users? uhhh... Sorry, priorities. Then again, actual

• brighteyes 11y ago
  Maybe the Chrome API stagnated, but that doesn't mean the same will happen here. The stated goals already include addons impossible in Chrome's API.
  • the8472 11y ago
    But that still means you have to ask the gatekeeper first to please make an API available for what you have in mind. And the gatekeeper might say "no". Or say "sounds nice, but our backlog is thiiiiiis long". With the old model nobody had to ask for permission, they could just develop and then mozilla could choose to support their use-case through a less hacky API.
    • brighteyes 11y ago
      It's true that the new model will be more limited. But you can't deny the old model had downsides. That's why Firefox is moving away from it, and why no other browser uses the old model. It might be interesting for someone to make a browser that is easily extensible in every way. That probably wouldn't become a mainstream browser, so it wouldn't compete for market share with chrome, firefox, edge, and safari. But it could be fun for power users.
      • the8472 11y ago
        > But you can't deny the old model had downsides. Sure, but also upsides. That doesn't mean the change, as announced, is the ideal trade-off. You could easily add an "you can continue to access all browser internels if you flip this switch" option to let those who are willing to break their browser do so and let everyone else be nannied by mozilla. > That's why Firefox is moving away from it, and why no other browser uses the old model. That is a distinguishing factor to many users. Maybe not to the majority, but that majority might also be just as happy with chrome and simply stick with firefox due to inertia, who knows.
        • brighteyes 11y ago
          Of course I agree, it had upsides as well. But you can't add such a switch - if it's there, malware can access it. A switch might prevent other problems, but not that main one.
          • the8472 11y ago
            > if it's there, malware can access it If malware is already on your system then your system is already compromised. It could also patch firefox or download a firefox with signature verification disabled. Or it could just send your password store file to some server in russia, encrypt your harddrive and extort money from you. Really, if malware is on your system then some extension sideloading is not really a big concern in the grand scheme of things. I totally cannot follow that argument. To me it's like being relieved that your wallet hasn't been taken after someone knifed you and you're rapidly losing blood.
            • brighteyes 11y ago
              This isn't my argument - it's the argument used by Chrome, Firefox and other browsers. It's why browser plugins like NPAPI are being disabled (Chrome did it earlier this year). Yes, local attacks are not impossible without this, but the point is to make them harder. A simple switch that opens up a lot of entry points is an easy target for malware. Some malware might not need an easy target, but you at least prevent some malware by removing it. The harder it is, the fewer attacks will succeed.
• nextos 11y ago
  This is really sad. I cannot surf the web without vimperator/pentadactyl now. It's so useful. I have quick keybindings for switching to an ssh tunnel, or doing site specific web searches, etc. I don't see anyone developing a vim/emacs-like browser from scratch. Many projects like uzbl or luakit failed. It takes a lot of manpower. Doing things on top of Firefox made it relatively easy, not a heroic effort.