In less than a year Firefox addons will be restricted to using

File: grashing-dis-blane-ddddd-with-no-surbibors.png (117KB, 500x643px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 500x643px

>>59238483
As long as uMatrix works.

>>59238600
>ff in ebin
>mozilla in ebin
>rust in ebin
Next year will be great.

>>59238483
What the hell is the point in using Firefox if it's just like Chrome?

>>59239254
So you don't have Google Botnet.

>>59239295
It have botnet, but you can disable it currently.

>>59240310
You think you can, maybe. They've got several hidden layers of botnet that even the pros hadn't hacked out.

>>59238483
Pale Moon is a fork from Firefox 24 ESR and will never have this problem.

>>59238483
I also thought it's a catastrophe, but their last testpilot experiments is very promising. We'll see if they manage to reimplement all needed low-level apis in webextensions stack, technically it is possible. If so, we can just drop obsoleted xul in favor of modern wide-compatible environment without losing anything. Not as bad as you think.
Also
>cockona

>>59241021
yeah, they're normalizing their API with chrome's but they aren't LIMITING it to chrome's. Chrome has always been stingy about letting people under the hood.

>>59241021
The concern would be nice extensions that aren't wildly popular and/or are unmaintained.
Adblock and greasemonkey will be supported but the little guys might get left in the dust.

>>59241118
well they're ALREADY left in the dust without e10s support, just look at vimperator/pentadactyl AGAIN.

>>59241021
Is there any benefit from the switch to webextensions
Why do they do it?

>>59241575
Well they had another system they were trying to move into before but it flopped something fierce. Jetpack/addon SDK. Literally userscripts.

>>59240763
>trade one problem for 500000 problems

great idea anon haha

>>59240763
Current codebase is forked from ESR38

Time for a new browser.

File: maxresdefault[1].jpg (104KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1280x720px

>>59238483
FLIPFLAPFLIPFLAPFLIPFLAPFLIPFLAPFLIPFLAPFLIPFLAPFLIPFLAPFLIPFLAPFLIPFLAPFLIPFLAPFLIPFLAPFLIPFLAPFLIPFLAP

>>59238483
good, saves me the work of writing all my addons for 2 browsers completely separately

>>59238483
Will I still be able to style the userchrome with css? That is literally the only reason I use firefox over chromium.

FUREEPFURAPPINGUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

>>59241772
Why not just use Vivaldi if that's what you want

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/firefox-dev/TTgBjmeFoKA

> I don't think Activity Stream necessarily needs to be rewritten as a WebExtension, and especially not in the short term - it's going to require a bunch of new WE APIs that will take time to stabilize, Activity Stream will almost certainly need features that we don't want to extend to WebExtensions in general.

KEK, Can't even rewrite their own system addons to webextensions in time, or even wouldn't do it at all apparently, but forced developers to do it with their addons. What a hacks.

>>59242877
Good, addons are the proper place for stupid features that ought to be optional.

>>59239254
Firefox is to Chrome what AMD is to Intel. An argument against the notion Chrome/Intel is a monopoly