Jump to content

Please God, Don't Let Mozilla Ruin Firefox


Batu69

Recommended Posts

Firefox and Mozilla are going through a mid-life crisis

A week ago, Mozilla shed some light on its future, laying out a plan on how the browser is going to dramatically change in the upcoming months. While most of us understood "Chrome extensions are coming to Firefox," it is not as simple as we all thought.

First of all, Mozilla seems dead serious on implementing these changes. If you haven't been paying attention to what's going on in the Firefox Nightly and Developer Edition channels, the changes are already upon us. No if or buts.

Second of all, unlike previously thought, Mozilla is not accepting its role as second fiddle to Chrome. The Mozilla dev team has a pretty solid plan on how they can change the browser "always crashing" image, and even if we don't like it, this includes a severe and very profound change to Firefox's core code.

To be true to my own instincts, I do believe this needs to happen. Firefox needs a new codebase. The browser has accumulated so much legacy code, that everything needs to be reimagined with today's Internet in mind, a Internet where speed and reliability matter as most as user customization features.

Firefox has always been good at customizations, but as a recent study shows, most of today's users don't really care about customizations. What they care is privacy and speed, and that's why browsers like Vivaldi and Edge, even if they're just a joke when compared to Firefox's features, they tend to be more well-thought of, because they move and feel faster.

Servo, because C++ is not up to the task anymore

To make Firefox work faster requires a new engine. The Mozilla team, eventually, reached the same conclusion the IE team had when they created the EdgeHTML engine for Edge.

Mozilla's own answer to this quandary is Servo, currently just a research project, that aims to provide a new browser engine for Firefox, one that's written in Rust, instead of C++.

"Our goal is to create an architecture that takes advantage of parallelism at many levels while eliminating common sources of bugs and security vulnerabilities associated with incorrect memory management and data races."

Because Rust is better suited to handle parallel code execution when compared to C++ and is also developed in-house at Mozilla, this makes it the best tool for re-writing Firefox's heart.

On the downside of things, Rust has its problems as well. These are the language's immaturity, being a relatively new programming language, a pretty novel type system, and lower performance metrics when compared to C++.

Fortunately, Rust is being developed at a similarly fast pace as Dart and Go, two of Google's own programming languages, both considered mature enough to replace Java in Android, if the Oracle Java-related patent lawsuit ever goes so ugly to arrive as such drastic measures.

Firefox Developer Edition already comes with multi-process (e10s) support turned on by default

Electrolysis, or multi-process support

But Servo is not the only big change that's coming in future versions. Arriving in Firefox 42 is Electrolysis, or e10s.

This project basically adds multi-process support to Firefox, just like Chrome did from its beginning. While previous versions of Firefox put all the code into one big operating system process and ran everything together, Electrolysis splits the browser's core functions from the Web content into two different processes.

This, while highly performance and security-centric, also limits some of the things add-ons are capable of doing, because some of the functions available in the browser code, won't be able to reach the Web content that's being processed.

From their press release, Mozilla doesn't seem to care that this will break some add-ons, as this is seen as a necessary evil in order to achieve a higher performance level.

Electrolysis is scheduled for launch with Firefox 43, which is expected around December this year.

A new Add-Ons API

And since we're talking about breaking add-on compatibility, the hot topic around any major change to Firefox's code, we should not forget to mention the WebExtensions API, which many people seem to look at like it was the devil.

Add-on developers have expressed their hate, and actual rage, at Mozilla for even proposing something like this. We don't think in such extreme terms as them, mainly because they are developers, and developers regularly hate "change" as a general notion.

A "change" for any developer requires a serious amount of work on his part. That can explain the vitriol in some of the comments you'll see on Hacker News for example.

From a user's point of view, having an extensions system that's compatible with the one used by Chrome, Opera, Vivaldi, and possibly Edge, is a fantastic idea.

Add-on developers may be annoyed at Firefox for deprecating the old XUL and XPCOM Add-Ons API, but me, as a general user, I could care less.

What it matters for me and the millions of other Firefox users is "choice." As long as Mozilla doesn't scalp its own Add-Ons repository and from a few tens of thousands of options I get a few hundred tomorrow morning, then everything is OK on my part.

Developers aren't really mad about the WebExtensions API if you think about it for a second. What they're mad about is the deprecation of the XUL and XPCOM APIs.

Firefox's extensions are notorious for granting developers a whole lot more access to core browser features when compared to Chrome. Developers are mad just like a baby is mad after you take candy away from him. They're mad because they've spent years learning XUL and now they see the technology (which only Mozilla uses) thrown to the trash bin.

A new add-ons API which they'll have to spend hours, days, or weeks exploring, so they'll be technically capable of porting their existing extensions.

Sure there are some add-on developers that create both Chrome and Firefox extensions, but most of them are simple tools. The complex extensions usually require a team of developers, or use an add-ons framework like Kango.

Mandatory extension signing

Last but not least, the third decision in Mozilla's trifecta of Add-Ons major changes is mandatory add-ons signing, set to go live with Firefox 41 as an optional setting, and as a permanent feature starting with Firefox 42.

What this means in layman terms is that Mozilla now needs to check and pre-approve every add-on you install inside your browser. If an add-on is not checked and "signed," starting with Firefox 42, the browser will refuse to install it, no matter what you do.

The decision is deeply rooted in Mozilla's new security policy, one that aims to protect users from scams and shady add-on developers.

While the browser was once known as a bastion of freedom when compared to Microsoft's limited Internet Explorer, due to the rise of malware, ransomware, scams, adware, and other security and privacy threats, the company has slowly changed its policy on this issue.

The entire process is not as apocalyptic as you think and is entirely automated. Most extensions on the Firefox Add-Ons portal have been already signed, and those that haven't were the ones abandoned which we generally tend to stay away from because they might break with any new Firefox release.

You'll be able to install only signed add-ons starting with Firefox 42

Unfortunately, mandatory add-on signing also nullifies any advantages the WebExtensions API would have brought. While Vivaldi users can go on the Chrome Store and grab a Chrome extension they like, Firefox will not allow this.

Chrome extension developers who would want to see their code run as a Firefox add-on will need to register on Mozilla's Add-On portal and submit their code for signing.

While this isn't terribly complicated, most Chrome developers won't care enough to do so. Which basically means that Chrome extensions aren't really coming to Firefox as everyone thought, at least not if their developers don't want them to.

"Even Firefox is allowed to go through a mid-life crisis"

Contrary to popular belief, add-ons signing is not the decision that will kill the Firefox add-ons repository, and neither are the WebExtensions API, or Electrolysis.

What will kill the Firefox add-on landscape is developers. If during this process of transition to its new self, Mozilla continues to give the impression it would like to plow through with its plan regardless of what add-on developer think, then most of them will abandon it for greener pastures.

To their credit, the Mozilla Foundation is not made up of stupid people. As gHacks has pointed out in one of their articles, at the same time Mozilla was announcing its new direction regarding add-ons, its dev team was also busy contacting add-on developers and providing assistance and support for its new WebExtensions API.

By making sure its developers stay happy, Mozilla is also making sure it carves more space to work on its facelift. By reworking Firefox's innards, Mozilla is also making sure it has a modern browser instead of a collection of tangled guts full of legacy code and a too permissive API.

In the end, if Mozilla wants to have a fighting chance against these newer, younger browsers, it needs to keep its add-on developers happy. If the add-on developers are happy, they'll port their existing add-ons and create new ones. This will make the users happy, and when the users are happy, then generally one thing happens: we see browser usage statistics shift.

In the meantime, let's sit back and watch Firefox go through its mid-life crisis, hope for the best, and then prepare for our own.

Source

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 7
  • Views 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

what dont make no sense is Firefox has been around since way before Chrome .Now there playing the game if we cant beat them Join them .When Opera done this you see were it got them there in other browsers in the marketshare that's were Firefox is headed . Looks like they would learn from other browser mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I cant say enough good things about firefox.Love it.I hope things dont change just for the sake of change.But in the tech world,it seems if you stand still too long your obsolete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


just updated my firefox from from 38 to 40.0.3 problems appearing with some addons like ghostery not working properly

Link to comment
Share on other sites


what dont make no sense

So ii does make sense? ;)

If you can make any sense out of what Firefox is doing you would have to be a Google fanbois and already use Chrome and simply dont care . :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Firefox's updates over the years have definitely changed the way I use it.. in fact I can never actually have time between versions to get setup.. because the changes are not addressed in one version... about the time you think it is lined out they change it again.. I can imagine what this is like for extension developers.. plus if you notice theming and extensions that were powerful are fewer and far between.. You are left in many cases with substandard ( not so robust extensions ).. almost like ( I am not to offend ) Opera and Chrome extensions.. IE and Edge extensions of course are very limited.. in fact I still don't have an adblocker for Edge ( and how I need it )...

I think they should decide on a structure and commit to building it.. as a base.. Commit to building x64 versions... get something solid .. release it then move forward with updates as necessary.. but they need to address any issues for something solid in the process.. Notify developers of the upcoming changes to code and allow extension devs time to update. Then hit a final release in the cycle.. regroup and analyze then see where they will be headed next... It just starts to seem very unfinished all of the time..

I know it sounds odd but I was strictly a firefox user before this new dev cycle came about,, releases twice in one week... enough versions to bury chrome updates.. running a close second only to Microsoft OS... Now I mainly use IE and Edge..

I miss Firefox being my swiss army knife of the web..

I think it must be a driving point to be competitive in this world to survive... but really in offering a product which differs and having something that may appeal to a different type of user should be a good thing. It should allow them to go in directions others have not while being able to focus and improve upon what they have done thus far. That point should set them apart from the others and allow them to leap forward.. as well as being Open Source.. ( I think unless that has changed ).. There should be interest in devs to work on this project.

JMO.. ;P

Link to comment
Share on other sites


what dont make no sense

So ii does make sense? ;)

If you can make any sense out of what Firefox is doing you would have to be a Google fanbois and already use Chrome and simply dont care . :P

I was trying to say that "don't make no" is a double negative, thus meaning that it WOULD make sense. LoL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...