tn123

4 ms·

1.
by tn123 5y ago
As I said elsewhere, I reviewed thousands of addons for addons.mozilla.org back in the day. The number of extensions which used XBL directly were just a handful, and usually by the most capable developers. I have no doubt these developers w
2.
by tn123 5y ago
I agree, it's untrue. In my opinion, most of the problems Firefox has stem from mismanagement and utter lack of vision. This has a lot to do with mozilla losing their leaders and rock star devs at a rapid pace in the last 10 years. Som
3.
by tn123 5y ago
>I tried to work with Mozilla to get a couple minor changes made to enable some of the missing features, but that went nowhere fast. Yeah, unless you actually write the code, there is no way. And writing code for the mozilla code base ca
4.
by tn123 5y ago
I (Nils) am the maintainer, and I would more characterize it as slumbering, not entirely abandoned or dead. I keep meaning to fix bugs and make new releases, but as we all know the last two years have been a bit crazy ;) I know, that's
5.
by tn123 5y ago
I (Nils) was the maintainer of it for many years at the point already, and I was genuinely considering to let it die for quite a while. I was furious at what mozilla did to the loyal and active extension community and especially on how they
6.
by tn123 5y ago
Hi Stefano, Nils here, long time no see. Yeah, it was 2006 when I joined you and Federico, if I remember correctly, while you and Federico started DownThemAll! in 2004. #201 is correct :D 2006 was really a long time ago... DownThemAll! went
7.
by tn123 10y ago
I volunteered massive amounts of my time for mozilla for more than a decade now, not only developing. I do not consider my previous statement rushed, but a realistic prediction based in a decent foundation of experience and knowledge, and -
8.
by tn123 10y ago
From Nils Maier, developer of some of the most complex and most popular extensions, DownThemAll! (+ MinTrayR): Read my comments That comment by Giorgio (nice guy btw, shared a room with him on at a couple of mozilla events) is over a year o
9.
by tn123 10y ago
I get this conclusion from over a decade of add-on development, and many years of volunteering my time to/for mozilla in various capacities incl helping other add-on developers, reviewing add-ons for AMO, fixing bugs within Firefox its
10.
by tn123 10y ago
The current Firefox UI is XUL and XBL, tons and heaps of it. Re-implementing it in e.g. HTML is not an easy task, in particular not when you also want the result to look at least somewhat OS-native (took XUL itself ages to get there, btw).
11.
by tn123 10y ago
Sorry, but that is just wrong, Certain types of APIs are infeasible to provide, because mozilla is too time and resource constrained to invest major resources into spec'ing, implementing and maintaining "niche" APIs. So far,
12.
by tn123 10y ago
They are trying I guess, and may succeed for a bunch of use cases to bring what's required. But certainly not all. Even the add-ons that can be somewhat reasonably be ported will have to deal with limitations, and I think the quality o
13.
by tn123 10y ago
Firefox always broke stuff, since the very beginning. Mayor stuff, sometimes for no good reason, sometimes for very good reasons. Add-on developers learned to deal with it. A lot of add-on developers now have an alternative in WebExtensions
14.
by tn123 10y ago
I am the DownThemAll! developer. The statement is still current. I communicated to the mozilla people who got in touch with me that there will not be a crippled DownThemAll!, at least not from me.
15.
by tn123 10y ago
I am the DownThemAll! developer. First and foremost it's technical limitations, other than that it's also time.
16.
by tn123 11y ago
So repeating it makes it more true, eh? >Reaching into content windows is forbidden [modulo CPOWs] in multiprocess Firefox. It is not forbidden, it is just different, using frame scripts or CPOWs. >That alone is going to break tons of
17.
by tn123 11y ago
Thanks for implying I'm in it for the money without even knowing me. Nice ad hominem you got there. Let's just say that the donations do not nearly cover the time I spend developing add-ons, helping other add-on developers out wit
18.
by tn123 11y ago
>Electrolysis apparently breaks XUL extensions. This is wrong. It absolutely does not break XUL extensions per-se. Add-ons will require some (moderate for most add-ons) changes when accessing out-of-process web content. A lot of add-ons
19.
by tn123 11y ago
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, actually look at the vimperator or pentadactyl code... That code interacts and/or
20.
by tn123 11y ago
Since you're addressing my comment there: I don't think I'm overly pessimistic. Apart from having been in the game since mozilla suite and having experienced a LOT of things that didn't turn out so well, to say the least