Firefox is going Chrome

https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/08/21/the-future-of-developing-firefox-add-ons/

FUCK EVERYTHING.

Since about 3.6, they started trying to mimic chrome as close as they could. Considering that this practice did not work out as expected (Chrome is the most popular browser) why doesn't Mozilla simply stop fucking around?

>>1
I'm really torn over this. From what I little I have seen of e10s development thus far it does look like the old XUL/XPCOM APIs are a serious burden to improvement in the browser's core feature set. However, a Mozilla browser that can't support the kinds of rich extensions those APIs provided is redundant and I expect most remaining users would switch to Chrome if their extensions are EOLed.

I know Mozilla is publically claiming that their approach to new APIs will be as developer centric as possible, but given the poor reception Jetpack has received I don't think I believe it. If the Mozilla of old (pre Firefox 4) had made a move like this I would give them the benefit of the doubt, but not today.

I miss when Firefox let you customize it completely. Now they keep stripping it off of any customizability.

Hey kid, how old are you? 12? 13? Here's some advice: stop shitposting and forget about this textboard. And any other internet forums. It will do you a lot of good in the long run

We are implementing a new extension API, called WebExtensions—largely compatible with the model used by Chrome and Opera—to make it easier to develop extensions across multiple browsers.

OK, what's the big deal?

A safer, faster, multi-process version of Firefox is coming soon with Electrolysis; we need developers to ensure their Firefox add-ons will be compatible with it.

This is a good thing.

To ensure third-party extensions provide customization without sacrificing security, performance or exposing users to malware, we will require all extensions to be validated and signed by Mozilla starting in Firefox 41, which will be released on September 22nd 2015.

You can disable this in about:config. Go ahead and try it in Nightly if you don't believe me (Set xpinstall.signatures.required to false)

We have decided on an approximate timeline for the deprecation of XPCOM- and XUL-based add-ons.

I have no idea what the fuck this even means.

I don't understand the goal of multiprocess. It's for faggots who can't deal with multithreading, and fags up the process list, with no easy way to tell how much memory the browser in total is taking up.

Firefox still has never gotten its head out of its ass in terms of showing which tab or process is sucking CPU or memory, so they're just going to bail and defer to the OS, because they're failures who can't write a decent integrated system.

Mozilla is a pile of cock sucking Google-fawning retards who are more interested in playing "Me Too!" with browser bling than they are actually solving the problems of web browsers. Fuck them.

>>6

You can disable this in about:config. Go ahead and try it in Nightly if you don't believe me (Set xpinstall.signatures.required to false)

Read the article

The Beta and Release versions of Firefox based on 42 and above (Beta 42 will be released at the same time as Firefox 41) will remove the preference that allows unsigned extensions to be installed, and will disable and/or prevent the installation of unsigned extensions.

And don't tell me to use Aurora or Nightly, I like using esr so I have both stability, speed (nowadays firefox is slower in every new version due to their new fancy graphics) and I avoid the new Mozilla features as long as possible. Plus in the past I had been exposed to critical bugs with Nightly and Aurora that made it unusable.

This is a good thing.

They forgot to say that it will be extremely limited. Take a look at how limited the chromium extensions are.

I have no idea what the fuck this even means.

That the old and flexible API will not be available anymore and any addons using it will stop working.

and will disable and/or prevent the installation of unsigned extensions.

I can also disable your unsigned extensions check by changing a single byte on the disk, but I shouldn't have to do that.

>>9
Not for long. That only works on systems that don't enforce cryptographic signature checks for executable code.

>>8

That the old and flexible API will not be available anymore and any addons using it will stop working.

Add-ons that haven’t been upgraded to work with Electrolysis will run in a special compatibility environment that resembles single-process Firefox as much as possible. If an add-on touches content, the access will happen via cross-process object wrappers (CPOWs). However, CPOWs are much slower than the equivalent DOM operations in single-process Firefox, and can affect the user experience negatively. Also, some accesses aren’t supported by the compatibility layer and will throw exceptions.

Sounds like a cumbersome measure but at least Mozilla isn't outright fucking you all over.

>>7
I only care about Gecko/Spidermonkey and its completeness at implementing the standards. Firefox's UI means very little to me.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/24/9202067/mozilla-ceo-chris-beard-reddit-hate-speech

>>13
Good for them. They've come a long way since Eich.

>>7
It'd be kind of cool if extensions got their own processes though. You could see if a shit extension is behaving badly and kill it. It's certainly smarter than Chrome's one-process-per-tab bullshit.