Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Mozilla to replace add-ons with Chrome compatible extensions
ewemoa:
P.S. If you know of a better browser, or one you're currently having luck with that also runs under NIX - please let me know!
-40hz (August 23, 2015, 12:42 PM)
--- End quote ---
Still looking...I tried some things under:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/List_of_applications/Internet#Web_browsers
But some look / went unmaintained. On a side note, others have mentioned Pale Moon -- I haven't found a package for it for the flavor of *NIX I'm using though so it may be a while before that gets tried.
In the mean time, I've started to migrate my data out of browsers (e.g. bookmarks) so that when the inevitable security problems occur, perhaps the damage will be limited :)
app103:
I don't know if I detect a hint of Firefox wanting to be bought out by Google, but I do detect one of them becoming what the original developers of Firefox were fighting against.
I'm currently using Pale Moon. It's not perfect, but it has x86 & x64 versions available for Windows & it looks like they have a version for Linux as well. It's a Firefox fork that has ripped out all the silliness that Mozilla has implemented lately (user-tracking telemetry, Australis, social media features, etc.) all the while being able to use most Firefox extensions (and not requiring they be signed).
Pale Moon is currently trying to distance themselves even farther from Firefox by coming up with their own web engine to replace Gecko. It's still early days on that so it remains to be seen how fruitful that endeavor will be.
If you like what Firefox used to stand for without the detour into Crazy Town that the Mozilla devs have been on lately, you may want to give PM a go.
-Innuendo (August 23, 2015, 12:54 PM)
--- End quote ---
I love Pale Moon and this news has me a bit worried about the future of the add-ons that I love and have come to depend on. Currently, most of them are hosted and made available through Mozilla's add-ons site. What will happen with that, once the add-ons are phased out by Mozilla? Where will one go to install them? Is Pale Moon ready to pick up the pieces of that and duplicate the entire collection on their own servers? What about the add-on developers? Will they be willing to still support add-ons for what are currently considered Firefox compatible browsers, once they are not really compatible any more?
wraith808:
From a different perspective, I actually like the news. What kept me in one browser or another was really the availability of add-ons. Some are on Chrome, so that even though i want to move- to try Pale Moon or something else- I find that I can't. I need this one for work, or that one for home. And even if there is a similar one on another platform, getting used to the changes and differences is a point of resistance in change. Using something different is enough of a point of resistance. We don't need more, IMO.
The reason I'm still on iOS? The apps. That's the lock in. And that's the same for any platform. The accessories are what keep you there in general, even as frustration mounts. Removing that seems like it would be a good thing, which is why I'm really surprised at the negativity towards it. And I haven't seen any argument that trumps that, which makes me think that with the uniform negativity towards it... I'm missing something.
Can anyone clue me in?
TaoPhoenix:
From a different perspective, I actually like the news. What kept me in one browser or another was really the availability of add-ons. Some are on Chrome, so that even though i want to move- to try Pale Moon or something else- I find that I can't. I need this one for work, or that one for home. And even if there is a similar one on another platform, getting used to the changes and differences is a point of resistance in change. Using something different is enough of a point of resistance. We don't need more, IMO.
The reason I'm still on iOS? The apps. That's the lock in. And that's the same for any platform. The accessories are what keep you there in general, even as frustration mounts. Removing that seems like it would be a good thing, which is why I'm really surprised at the negativity towards it. And I haven't seen any argument that trumps that, which makes me think that with the uniform negativity towards it... I'm missing something.
Can anyone clue me in?
-wraith808 (September 05, 2015, 12:00 PM)
--- End quote ---
The best way I can describe it, is about "mood of the times". This announcement to me feels symbolically like the middle of a Hold'Em poker game where they "show a card", they're holding two secret ones, and there's still an unknown card or two left on the deck to turn over.
So, "all add-ons being forced into Chrome Compatible Extensions"?! That's just massively complex of a market positioning to take in from one well-polished announcement. So this is *totally* a thread to watch all "time capsule" style and see when another card shows up from the top of the deck.
And yes, with the spinoffs of FF, the Add-On API's and so on have been there forever. Will developers have to now produce *two* versions of each add-ons, with different backbones? Some of the small hobbyist add-on devs simply will collapse and retire their add-on!
wraith808:
And yes, with the spinoffs of FF, the Add-On API's and so on have been there forever. Will developers have to now produce *two* versions of each add-ons, with different backbones? Some of the small hobbyist add-on devs simply will collapse and retire their add-on!
-TaoPhoenix (September 05, 2015, 12:22 PM)
--- End quote ---
Why would they have to create two versions? This seems like it would just need one.
For some time we’ve heard from add-on developers that our APIs could be better documented and easier to use. In addition, we’ve noticed that many Firefox add-on developers also maintain a Chrome, Safari, or Opera extension with similar functionality. We would like add-on development to be more like Web development: the same code should run in multiple browsers according to behavior set by standards, with comprehensive documentation available from multiple vendors.
--- End quote ---
That doesn't say what you're inferring.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version