>mozilla is going to kill XUL on firefox >their userbase

I'm glad there getting rid of addons that slow it down.
Also, whats with all the anti-firefox threads in the last 10 min? Same autist, shills?

>>62021424
>I'm glad there getting rid of addons that slow it down.
If you're worried about speed switch to Chrome. I use firefox because it has so many addons availible.
>Also, whats with all the anti-firefox threads in the last 10 min? Same autist, shills?
My first thread on /g/ in a week. Can't say anything about the other posters.

>>62021514
I'm more worried about privacy than speed. Speed is just a welcomed addition. Most addons are compatible or jave alternatives. Some will take time to be developed, or some may never work. We really don't know.
>My first thread on /g/ in a week
Check the catalog dumbass, we have enough browser threads

>>62021390
>mozilla is going to remove the legacy addon model that is preventing them from making substantial changes that will make Firefox a lot better
>it is going to be replaced with a new api that's maintainable and also a lot more powerful than what chrome has
What's not to like?

>>62021679
Most of the more powerful ones are literally impossible to implement in webextensions because webextensions locks it down so tight.

See: http://fasezero.com/

>>62021712
Literally useless addons. At least to me.

>>62021784
I use tabgroups daily

>>62021712
>omnisidebar
Sidebar api already exists and lets you create arbitrary sidebars.
>beyond australis
Toolbar api is not yet ready but once it's finished it will be possible to create custom ui that replaces the default tab and url toolbars.
Even Vimperator folks are working on a port.
>findbar tweak
Editing the find popup probably isn't possible but I see that it also works by creating a new sidebar.
>puzzle bars
Might be possible with the toolbar api but I'm not sure.
>tab groups
The api required for creating tab group functionality has already been approved but not yet implemented.

>>62021801
Sucks for you

>>62021679
the fact that that new API is deliberately crippled, and that several major current addons can't, by design, be implemented in it?

>>62021860
>several major current addons
Which ones?
Most major addons already have replacements and even extremely niche addons like vim-like navigation are getting custom apis.

>>62021860
Do you not understand this was done for speed and security? Old firefox was vulnerable as shit.

>>62021390
>their userbase hates this
an occassional sperg on /g/ or /leddit/ is not "userbase". I switched to nightly 57 after having used chrome exclusively for the last year

>>62021911
blocking javascript does more for the speed of the browser than any of this multiprocess memery ever will. Active content on the web was a mistake.

>>62021948
Do you really think everyone does that? Most sites people use wouldnt work.

>>62021948
If you don't care about modern web then go use w3m instead of trying to hold back products for people who need their browser to actually function properly.

>faster
>more secure
>b-but muh 15 year old meme addons :(((

>>62022010
You'd be surprised how many places you can still read the content on with either JS entirely blocked, or only first-party JS allowed. Looks ugly but is fast, and you're there for the steak and not the sizzle, right?

>>62022048
I care about taking the """modern web""" and dropping as much of it as possible in the garbage because it's so shitty. But enjoy your ad-delivery platform, I guess, that's the vast majority of what the JS is there for.

>>62021939
>an occassional sperg on /g/ or /leddit/
It's the entire fucking comment section on the announcement

>>62022134
µBlock origin is entirely sufficient for that. Anyway, NoScript is getting webextension port, so I don't know what you're whining about.

>>62022226
proof
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2016/11/23/add-ons-in-2017/comment-page-1/#comments

>>62022226
>>62022264
that's just typical uninformed whining from folks who like to complain about everything and jump to conclusions.
since then people have seen with their own eyes that the browser is snappier, most of the extensions are getting ported/replaced and mozilla is open to adding missing functionality to the new api
let's wait until 57 hits stable and then see what the general reaction is

>>62022327
>most of the extensions are getting ported/replaced
literally 16%

>>62021390
Only meme addons will be left behind anyways. There's no reason to cry over it. You can always use palememe.

>>62022347
>Meme meme meme meme
Fuck off shill

http://www.downthemall.net/re-downthemall-and-webextensions-or-why-why-i-am-done-with-mozilla/

>>62022344
*most of the relevant extensions. I'm actually surprised that's it's whole 16%. I'd expect more to be irrelevant shit that almost nobody uses.

>>62022375
All important addons are already supported on nightly. Your garbage abandoned addons are irrelevant to 99% firefox users.

>>62022386
Nobody cares about that whiny faggot.
People are already making replacements and Mozilla isn't even done implementing all of their custom apis.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bulk-media-downloader/

>>62022347
>>62022375
>>62022388
see >>62022386 and >>62021712

didn't realize we had actual mozilla shills here

>>62021390
Good. XUL is a liability. If they weren't completely incompetent they would have dropped that deadweight years ago.

>>62022420
>>>62022375
meant for >>62022391

>>62022419
cool reviews, sounds like solid product

>>62022420
>browser getting integrated features instead of relying on addons is bad
Fuck off and see >>62021832

>>62022388
Fuck off shill

>>62022461
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/download-star/

>>62021390
Never, you smelly NEET bastard.

>>62022476
Shush, you. We both know that mozilla doesn't care enough to shill in this shithole. If anything, they'd pour the money into shilling "diversity" or something similarly irrelevant.

>>62022487
odd, the reviews still tout it as a knock off version of a superior product
i wonder why that is

it's a "people who don't know how to use firefox band together with chrome users hoping the one viable browser can be dumbed down to the point where it also becomes shit" episode

firefox without tree style tabs and multiple tab handler is as good as dead. the mozilla alternative to tree style tabs is garbage and it's only half of the problem. not to mention that even if current noscript is supported, no one will be able to develop similar extensions with amazing new functionality since we'll be limited by this new shitcan of an extension model

current web will be as limited as watching tv in a couple of years

>>62022553
>tree style tabs
not a fan

>>62022553
/thread

>>62022553
>several vertical tab addons are already available and Firefox 57 is still more than two months away
>people are still complaining

>>62021390
Pale Moon has NoScript, uBlock, Stylish, Tree Style Tabs, and Guerilla Scripting (Greasemonkey compatible). It's bretty good. I'm using it until NoScript 10 is ready for FF57.

>>62022624
/thread

Firefox stopped supporting Gtk+2 past version 52, so I'm never going to upgrade until the GNOME devs get off their asses and patch some bugs that have been around since 2015. Not Mozilla's fault, I guess, but still.

>>62022624
it's not just about the tabs being vertical. when you open a new tab, it spans as a child of the current one. if there are tabs there, it goes to the end. you can delete a block of tabs, or move it elsewhere, or many other things. all the replacements are shit, with missing functionality

and again, even if there was a perfect tree style tabs replacement, in the future, there won't be a similar groundbreaking extension developed since the api will limit the development of anything that doesn't exist right now. essentially, the browser will always be as locked as whatever arbitrary point they decide is enough, rather than letting users decide it themselves

we've gone from a model of firefox where users could have sane defaults and do whatever they want to one where everyone is limited to being a shitter (although MAYBE half a shitter since enough people are complaining)

i'm not sure if you're a chrome shill or simply someone who doesn't know how to use a browser, but either way, this doesn't bode well for the web, and if power users don't find a way out of this mess, the web will become more and more locked every year

File: IMG_0830.png (22KB, 128x128px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 128x128px

P A L E M O O N
A
L
E

M
O
O
N

>>62021390
Mozilla devs are some of the most arrogant fucks on the planet. They won't alter their stupid plans no matter how unpopular they are.

>>62022734
this
they're like jews, but instead of wanting money, they're stubborn

>>62022707
If there is functionality missing it's not because it can't be done but simply because nobody wrote it yet.
Everything you need to replicate the core functionality of tree style tabs is already in Firefox right now.
One notable thing that is currently missing is the ability to hide the native tabs.

I don't think you understand how open mozilla is to adding new apis to support existing addons.

>>62022707
>this doesn't bode well for the web
You're a delusional moron if you think that mozilla with their 10% browser share has enough power to stop the web 3.0 creep. They can correct the course a bit at best and even that wouldn't last long, if they didn't make firefox not slow as fuck.

>>62023009
it isn't about mozilla stopping anything, it's about having a browser than can be controlled and effectively stop drm for the most part. if the users can't control their browsers, we're open to drm which in turn increases the chancces of the web as it exists today becoming tv 2.0

it also cripples the browsing usage of advanced users, which would have even less reason to use firefox. yes, it will still be better than chrome in general, but if mozilla kills 50% of the reason for you to use their browser, you're much less likely to keep using it, supporting it and so on. firefox may have only 10% of the browser usage, but in that 10% is also most, if not all the power users

>>62023076
Firefox offers more control than most browsers.

You are getting ahead of yourself. There is still a lot to be done with firefox. They are moving in the right direction.

>>62021390
>Uprising when?
Uhh, it's open source. Fork it and add it back in, call it UrXULa or something retarded like that.
>b-but muh uprising

>>62021832
> arbitrary sidebars
Only on the side, with a non removable title just one per addon, can't customize size.

>Toolbar api is not yet ready but once it's finished it will be possible to create custom ui that replaces the default tab and url toolbars.
Instead of tweaking the tab or url bar a little you have to re-implement theme fully using javascript inside a new bar.

>Even Vimperator folks are working on a port.
Commands being declarative instead of programmatically added, shortcut api not ready.

> puzzle bars
Depends of the toolbar api that's not ready yet, still can confirm it'll be a full bar that can't be resized.

> tab groups
Less powerful, not ready.

There's APIs that are not going to be ready for 57 and they'll still trying to convince users that the addon devs are lazy and that's why they haven't ported the addons.

>>62022327
> people have seen with their own eyes that the browser is snappier

It's hilarious how dumb people still thinks that firefox 57 is snappier cause of the xul deprecation... install one of the firsts releases of nightly 57 install legacy addons, its still fast as fuck and addons keep working.

Mozilla did a great move there deciding to hold the release of multi-e10s, APZ, Stylo, and several parts of the quantum project for the xul deprecation so they can convince normal users that the browser is faster thanks to the addon removal, but most of that stuff was already on nightly on 56 and can be turned on using flags, i was testing that changes back then and i haven't notice any significative improvement with 57 even with all addons disabled.

note: All the legacy extensions i use do not use shims.

>>62022344
Search for web-extensions 30% of them are youtube downloaders or youtube little enhancements shits.

>>62022422
> If they weren't completely incompetent they would have dropped that deadweight years ago.
The retard troops are strong today, let my explain that again, Firefox is still using xul and will still use xul on 57 and 58, 59 probably beyond 60.

They only have removed a little part and renamed most of the old apis but some of the new work they're doing today still requires xul and they don't know what technology use to replace it.

>>62025652
>Only on the side, with a non removable title just one per addon, can't customize size.
Which makes it literally the dumbest thing ever.

>>62022824
> don't think you understand how open mozilla is to adding new apis to support existing addons.
neither do you

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1199718

>>62022388
"The addons you use aren't relevant"

No, fuck you, that's a terrible approach to design.

>>62022624
>several vertical tab addons are already available
I've used them, they're garbage.

>>62021390
can anyone else confirm that firefox shits itself and displays loading circles for every fucking tab and refuses to work until you completely close it and restart it?

>>62025973
I don't see that, but I feel like when I have, it was because of a misbehaving legacy addon.

>>62025887
> literally the dumbest thing ever.
Well i hate all the APIs that has to be declared inside the manifest.json file and can't be added programmatically.

You want to add a command programmatically, too bad.
Oh, it will be cool to add a content script that matches some user criteria, hahhaa, NO.

Seriously WHY? why cripple even the existing web-extensions APIs requiring them to be hardcoded on the manifest.json? of course you can write your own code to do the same fucking thing but the api should be cleaner and probably more efficient that having to write hacky code to emulate features that are crippled for NO REASON.

What about context menu APIs, well you can add ONE FUCKING BUTTON TO THE BOTTOM OF THE ROOT then if you need more than one you have to add submenus inside that one button that you can add at the bottom.
Fine, then WHY WEBSITES CAN ADD AS MANY CONTEXT MENU ITEMS AS THEY WANT??? why a fucking extension installed by the use has more restrictions that random fucking webs or even popup adds or iframes?.

>muh fast browser
Why not just leave XUL support in and let dumbfucks like me potentially install addons that might slow firefox down? It's not like normalfags actually install addons anyway. I can handle a theoretical 1% decrease in "snappiness."

>>62025980
Install zoom page (webextension) restart browser startup 1800% slower loading pages 70% slower.

No legacy extension i ever had has slowed firefox as much as this web-extension, why people think that web-extensions magically makes all addons faster? what's more the legacy version of this addon doesn't have this problem.

ps: It's not that slow anymore but the fix was made adding fucking timers everywhere so it didn't shit itself cause the web-extension APIs used for this is utter crap.

muuh async, such fast wow.

>>62026198
Alright, I'll add that one to my list.

Misbehaving addons in general.

There is no way to force someone to program good, after all.

>>62026224
The problem is not on the addon, it's the api breaking the lazy tabs on boot and slowing page loading for some reason.

With legacy extensions you can fix that, when the new ones you need to wait till the mozilla staff gets their head out of their ass.

There are p2 bugs for web-ext apis older than one year still not assigned.

Stop using furfag fox. Its the Sears of browsers. Its a matter of time before gone from our collective memories.

>>62021390
>tfw I'll keep using firefox because it looks the best and I'm too lazy to rice anything else
Find me something that still has all my addons and looks good /g/

>>62025892
>b-but they don't want to keep the old api

File: 1490981453762.png (174KB, 265x258px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 265x258px

>>62021390
>updating your software
>ever

The only thing I'm sad about is the death of vimfx.

>>62025652
>Only on the side, with a non removable title just one per addon, can't customize size.
There's a bug open for special-casing addons that should be always active.

>Commands being declarative instead of programmatically added, shortcut api not ready.
The current proposal lets you capture all keyboard input
https://github.com/vimperator/vimperator-labs/issues/705#issuecomment-316986740
https://github.com/cmcaine/keyboard-api

>not ready
Legacy extensions still work. Only niche addons won't be ready for 57.

>>62027887
Full functionality of VimFx will be available with the above.

>>62027968
>Only niche addons won't be ready for 57.
aka the reason that people use firefox in the first place, no ones using it for general utilities other browsers do those better/more efficiently if your still with firefox it's either out of habit or because it offers you something niche others don't

don't really have a choice so im sticking with it, hope it all works out in the end.
don't want to use forks, don't want to use rethemed chrom*, and i guess chromium would be a last resort.

>>62025980
The only things I have installed are ublock origin, noscript, and video download helper. Running firefox 55 on linux.

File: 1480668559315.png (209KB, 375x391px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 375x391px

>>62028050
>no greasemonkey

there is dana only xul

>>62028065
Dumb makiposter.

File: 1501838314112.png (184KB, 413x400px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 413x400px

>>62028072
I would never post maki, fluffy eupho is much better

>>62028013
>the reason that people use firefox in the first place

>vimperator: 16k users
>vimfx: 20k users
>beyond australis: 20k users
>puzzle bars: 2k users

Yeah, sure looks like the death of Firefox.

>>62028102
It sure won't help it, it's marketshare drops each day alienating anyone is a slippery slope at this point

>>62021390
Firefox's userbase wanted stability and security, which is why they so easily moved to Chorme. The 0.1% using meme addons aren't and were never relevant.

>>62021659
>privacy
>will literally monitor your web usage and check if it's ok with George Soros' whims...
DOES NOT COMPUTE.

>>62028161
>>>/pol/

I don't see any point in arguing. If they're naive enough to ship a new browser version that lacks necessary APIs rather than extend the deadline that's their problem. There either will be add-ons that allow Firefox to support my workflow or there won't.
In the latter case I'm not going to waste my time. The moment things break and there's no viable replacement I'll switch to another browser that's willing to work with me rather than against me.
I also wouldn't recommend Firefox to anyone or help them set it up unless I use it myself, so good luck with that marketshare.

>>62028065
I dont really have a use for it.

File: file.png (9KB, 549x195px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 549x195px

>>62028125
With the number of installations receiving updates peaking at 80 million per day, several thousand addon users doesn't mean much.

>>62028227
>another browser that's willing to work with me rather than against me
Unless you are willing to switch to one of the abandoned Firefox forks, Firefox will still be the browser with the most powerful extension api.

File: 1152010136935.png (47KB, 986x860px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 986x860px

>>62028277
>addon users don't matter
>o-our extension api will s-still be p-p-po-powerful tho!

>>62028277
>80 million
80 million people don't even use firefox

>>62028443
Tell that to the telemetry data.

>>62028438
>issue: firefox is slow so people aren't using it
>solution: make firefox less slow
>issue: we can't make firefox less slow because the current addon makes it too hard to make changes without breaking everything
>solution: make a new addon api, copy what chrome has to maintain compatibility and extend it to support the needs of existing firefox addons

>>62028467
No wonder firefox is so shit it's devs spend their time shilling on /g/

XUL addons rely on 15 year old technology, they had to go at some point. Sad to see some extensions die but it's necessary to go forwards. Extensions broke all the time and needed fixing even in the earliest fx versions like going from 1.5 to 2 to 3 to 4 ...

>>62028532
I'm fine with deprecating XUL based add-ons. What upsets me is that they haven't pushed it forward a few months to allow WebExtension APIs to become a bit more fleshed out.
They're effectively going to ship a browser that's slightly broken for a few versions and hope add-on authors and users don't get too upset.
What the fuck kind of thinking is that?

>>62021390
the uprising already happened, look at their market share

File: zc24ei9j3vgz.png (68KB, 683x339px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 683x339px

>mozilla
>2017

wow

>>62028686
>>62028277
?

>>62021903
Downthemall and classic theme restorer to name two

>>62021911
>we gotta take away your options because it's faster and more secure
give me a switch to turn it off if i want to have more speed and security you authoritarian fucks

>>62025919
but it's ...
Modern Design (((tm)))

File: cute_crab.gif (2MB, 400x291px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x291px

I had no idea there were so many people that did not use Classic Theme Restorer. How do you manage?

>>62022419
That is so gimped compared to real DTA that you couldn't make yourself more obvious as a shill.

>>62028927
I don't know what you're using it for but >>62022487 and >>62022419 replace a large part of what dta does.

>>62028841
>classic theme restorer
>inb4 tabs on bottom

>>62028948
i am not a savage desu my tabs are of course on the left side

>>62022553
>no one will be able to develop similar extensions
This bothers me more than anything else about nuzilla. Playing favorites with their most popular extensions that would be absolutely impossible without their special permission just to shut their users up is antithetical to their ideal of an open ecosystem and open web. They are becoming the very evil they were trying to fight. Glad DTA dev didn't give in.

>>62028939
While they are probably fine for what they do they are still completely inferior (as far as I can tell) to true DTA. One of my favorite DTA features is the ability to set multiple mirrors for multipart downloads.

>>62028849
This would be too intelligent for them desu.

File: 2.jpg (46KB, 1920x46px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 1920x46px

>>62028948
Can have mine. Try to replicate on 57 and if you do, let me know how.

>>62029022
userChrome.css
All you're doing is arranging the toolbars horizontally instead of vertically.

>>62028277
>abandoned Firefox forks
Which are...?

>>62029153
Waterfox, Palemoon or any other meme you see recommended on /g/

>>62029167
And how are they abandoned? Because I've updated both just this month, and development isn't slowing down. Or are you implying that they'll somehow die just because memezilla has changed something? Seamonkey is the only one that I know of that will die with ESR.

>>62029303
Seamonkey isn't dying afaik, they will follow upstream firefox and drop xul addons in future

>>62029096
Is that so? Then show me how simple it is. Recreate it, as I do not know how.

>>62029522
Perhaps they got their shit together finally.

>>62021679
>a lot better
so worse
>better than chrome
so worse than before we had actual addons

>>62029587
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better

>>62022419
>STOP CRITICIZING US GOY
>6 MILLION PEOPLE ARE LITERALLY NOBODY

>>62029525
I am not a web developer, I don't know CSS.
Just adding "display: flex" to the toolbar container puts them all in a single line but they don't stretch to fill the space properly.
Basically, it's possible but CSS is too dark much magic for me.

File: 6.jpg (36KB, 1331x41px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 1331x41px

>>62029712
>too dark much magic for me
Yeah, same, so why talk about it like it is easy for either of us?
>don't stretch to fill the space properly
Bit of a problem, that.

I am going to go ahead and believe the guy that actually made this when he says,
>There is no "please port it" or "please add support for it" this time, because the entire add-on eco system changes and the technology behind this kind of add-on gets dropped without replacement.

>>62029869
I don't know what kind of other bullshit features CTR has but moving the UI around will always be possible.

>>62021390
switch to ESR for the next year

>>62021390
>>mozilla is going to kill XUL on firefox
addons specifically

>>their userbase hates this
speak for yourself, I like the idea I just wish it was done earlier so there was more time dedicated to helping addon devs get their stuff ported over

>>62021390
I don't really hate this since everything I use has a webextension version

>>62028968
I like the proposed APIs that get a wontfix resolution then a major addons need that same api so they reopen the bug and start discussing if they really want to give addons permission to do that, then someone says that it can be done on chrome (insta approved)