Lots of developers abandoning their Firefox extensions..

[Grumpus]

@Frank Lion - How do I get past the adult lock to see the naughty video, obviously I am not an adult.

[WaltS48]

http://www.ghacks.net/2017/01/28/firefo ... ver-quits/ another Addon Dev Quits Mozilla ( some may wanna read the link if they use his other Addons )

Gee -Arch- pay attention. That was what started this thread in the first place.

But just in case you didn't read the first post.

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic ... #p14730004

I'm curious as to how many is lots among the active developers. How many active developers are there?

[PadaV4]

Well you have to take in account that many wont announce it publicly. They will just stop updating their addons.

[JodyThornton]

About mobile market, Firefox is no existent there, because how else can you say about browser with less than 1% usage share there.

I actually agree, and I think Mozilla has a very big uphill battle on their hands. But I guess they see it as, "We need to claw back what we lost to Google"
I wish them luck, I really do.

[Mouse5]

http://www.ghacks.net/2017/01/28/firefo ... ver-quits/ another Addon Dev Quits Mozilla ( some may wanna read the link if they use his other Addons )

Gee -Arch- pay attention. That was what started this thread in the first place.

But just in case you didn't read the first post.

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic ... #p14730004

I'm curious as to how many is lots among the active developers. How many active developers are there?

Lots? i really couldnt give you a Number. but i think the OP of that THREAD THAT mentioned " Lots " at least should have given a Number of what the Lots were.

Yes i knew DownThemAll was Dead as i read his long post via his website about it. dunno why Nils didnt close his " Bug reporting " link, all he's gonna get is people reporting bugs etc in hope they'll get a update when they wont. or make a Post on his website stating " There wont be anymore Patches or updates applied " , please dont use the bug reporting link as i wont be doing anything more on the project " yanno something like that

[PadaV4]

Lots? i really couldnt give you a Number. but i think the OP of that THREAD THAT mentioned " Lots " at least should have given a Number of what the Lots were.

What ******* difference does that make? Whats lots for one might not be lots for another. Unless mozilla does a survey asking addon makers how many are abandoning Mozilla's garden due to the missing addon APIs, we will never know the total impact of this ****show.

[Mouse5]

Lots? i really couldnt give you a Number. but i think the OP of that THREAD THAT mentioned " Lots " at least should have given a Number of what the Lots were.

What ******* difference does that make? Whats lots for one might not be lots for another. Unless mozilla does a survey asking addon makers how many are abandoning Mozilla's garden due to the missing addon APIs, we will never know the total impact of this ****show.

why make the claim " lots " if you cant give a number ? , why didnt you just say " developers abandoning their Firefox extensions.."

[PadaV4]

How the **** does it matter? Stop with this bulls**** nitpicking over one word.

Anyways back to the topic - apparently Greasemonkey developer has troubles rewriting his addon too. Looks like he will try at least. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... 6IyDUWnTQc

[Frank Lion]

Enough.

It doesn't matter. Firstly because the addon devs aren't abandoning their stuff immediately, which might make this faux question at least have some relevance, but secondly because people can figure it out for themselves.

The point is, it doesn't matter if it is Lot or Lot's wife - when Mozilla introduce WebExtensions and prevent the UI of Firefox being touched by extensions, then existing extensions that do so will cease. I covered that side here - http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic ... #p14722346

So, look here - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... &platform=
... take the existing number of 22,847 extensions, subtract the number of extensions that affect the UI, then subtract the number of webpage (content) affecting extensions that the authors do not want to convert to WebExtensions....and the final answer will be.....lots.

The only surprise in this recent list is DownloadThemAll, or whatever it's called, as that is a content extension that might have been expected to continue.


Incidentally guys, you really mustn't allow yourselves to be mis-directed to go off-topic on threads like this. Some questions are genuine and sincere and those are the ones you answer. Some are not and should be ignored. The way to tell is to look at who is asking and question why - http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic ... #p14722314

[Virtual_ManPL]

About mobile market, Firefox is no existent there, because how else can you say about browser with less than 1% usage share there.

I actually agree, and I think Mozilla has a very big uphill battle on their hands. But I guess they see it as, "We need to claw back what we lost to Google"
I wish them luck, I really do.

Same here, luck and massive mount of it,
but unfortunately the mobile war was lost long time ago, especially even when there wasn't any battle to fight on, just only surrender.

What's more, the direction now Mozilla going - being worse Chrome clone, is the dumbest and the stupidest idea ever.
Because for now Firefox don't offer anything like performance, security, etc., more than Chrome (like it's now, not when we loose XUL, XBL and XPCOM),
and I suspect massive amount of people will leave "the boat" and migrate to the working Gecko branches to get the extension working or switch to Chrome, as it much faster.

[Drumbrake]

Just to add some fuel to the fire, looks like Greasemonkey may be next (not unsurprisingly, considering the powers of this extension) Greasemonkey Dev posts WebExtensions Design Doc: paints grim picture .

Of course if Mozilla is laying the groundwork for an API that only allows extensions to alter Firefox' s functionality very limitedly, how is Greasemonkey going to make the cut?

That was the prime intent behind extensions signing, start to cull extensions and piss off developers as a preparation step for webextensions.

[morat]

Greasemonkey may be next (not unsurprisingly, considering the powers of this extension)

Overall, the process of writing this doc (i.e. design document for migration) has been demoralizing. It took a lot of work to just scratch the surface of our feature set. At every step, I seemed to find things that range from difficult to impossible, given the APIs that WebExtensions have access to. A significant amount of UI and features will change by the necessity of no longer having the power to do so many things.

Is there any real difference between Greasemonkey in Firefox and Tampermonkey in Chrome? There are only minor differences.

I got 25 userscripts working fine in both browsers.

Tampermonkey
http://tampermonkey.net/
http://tampermonkey.net/?browser=firefox

[Reflective]

As for the thread title - 'Lots of developers abandoning their Firefox addons..' ....well, would you do hundreds of hours of unpaid work to end up exactly where you started? A few just might, especially if they are getting ad revenue from their constant 'updates' and 'Hey! thanks for updating' first run pages. Normal people are far less likely to.

No im not surprised at all. Even more, one has to consider that many addon devs did just spend countless hours to recode their addons to be e10s compatible. Much of that work is now wasted. "Oh you just finished recoding your addon. Too bad. Now get back to work." Mozilla has zero compassion for the people who spend their free time to make the addons.

I would say there are 2 possibilities. Either the decision making people there are totally detached from reality, or are paid Google moles to sabotage the company. Like Microsoft did with Nokia.

I doubt if many devs spent time recoding their extensions in the way that you mentioned. Mozilla has already made test samples of web-ext available which can be cloned according to the following tutorial. Or at least that's the way I read it.

Similarly, the abundance of such tools would seem to contradict your opinion that Mozilla has 'zero compassion' for people.

[malliz]

I doubt if many devs spent time recoding their extensions in the way that you mentioned. Mozilla has already made test samples of web-ext available which can be cloned according to the following tutorial. Or at least that's the way I read it.

Similarly, the abundance of such tools would seem to contradict your opinion that Mozilla has 'zero compassion' for people.

As ignorant and biased a fanboy statement as I have read in a long time

[Frank Lion]

I doubt if many devs

Unless you are an extension dev then what you doubt in your drive-by post has about as much validity and relevance as you writing -

'I doubt that painting the Mona Lisa could have been that hard...according to the following tutorial - http://www.hobbycraft.co.uk/kids/kids-p ... by-numbers. Or at least that's the way I read it.'