I'm not trying to argue that Firefox shouldn't have deprecated XUL or NPAPI. But the browser’s first responsibility to the user is primum non nocere: “first, do no harm.” And those old APIs, which were naïvely designed twenty years ago in a time when the Internet was far less weaponized than it is today, were exposing an awful lot of people to a great deal of harm. I lost a couple of these in the move myself. Look, I get it, it sucks to lose an extension you like and rely on. And the bad things were bad enough that it was worth losing the good ones to protect users from them. A more restrictive API means some things extensions used to be able to do aren’t possible anymore, but that’s as true of the bad things as it is of the good. The downside of “extensions can do anything!” is that it means extensions can do, well, anything, including things that are hostile to the user’s interests. If supporting that extension requires exposing the user to security risks. > If someone is most comfortable using their browser with a certain extension for which there is no good WebExtensions-based alternative, how can you say that forcing them to stop using that extension is "good for them"? Saying that change is "good" for users even if the users don't realize it and resist, prevents us from considering the very real negative effects of introducing breaking changes or removing features of our software. The move away from XUL and NPAPI is great for Mozilla, it makes it easier to maintain and develop the browser, it's probably good for extension developers (except for those who now can't port their extension to the new API because it's more limited), but it's not good for users who are forced to take time out of their day to find and alternatives or users who just have to accept that what they were previously using their browser for just isn't possible anymore with Firefox. If someone is most comfortable using their browser with a certain extension for which there is no good WebExtensions-based alternative, how can you say that forcing them to stop using that extension is "good for them"? Even if there is a suitable alternative, which requires re-learning a bunch of things the user is used to, how is that change "good for them"? Saying that "people hate change, even when it's good for them" has to be the most arrogant thing I've read today. ^ Brinkmann, Martin (14 February 2020)." 'Ethical search engine' Storm to generate funds for charities". ^ "New search engine from Waterfox founder aims to take a punch at Google".^ "Waterfox 40.1.0 Release & Shut Down of Waterfox Charity Search"."4 Year Anniversary: Waterfox Charity and Storm Search". "Waterfox 55 Release (Windows, Mac, Linux and Android)". "Waterfox 50.1.0 Release (Windows, Mac & Linux)". ^ "Waterfox Classic | Waterfox Classic"."The Road to Firefox 57 – Compatibility Milestones". "The Future of Developing Firefox Add-ons". ^ "Find and install add-ons to add features to Waterfox".In July 2023, Alex Kontos announced that Waterfox had been turned into an independent project again. In December 2019, System1, an advertising company which portrays itself as privacy-focused, acquired Waterfox. Storm was developed with over £2 million of investor funding and powered by Yahoo! Search. įrom Jto November 12, 2015, Waterfox had its own search-engine called "Storm" that would raise funds for charity and Waterfox. The Mac build was introduced on with the release of version 38.0, the Linux build was introduced on Decemwith the release of version 50.0, and an Android build was first introduced on Octoin version 55.2.2. Waterfox was first released by Alex Kontos on Mafor 64-bit Windows. Waterfox logo used from May 2019 to present The developer states that " changes between versions so numerous between ESRs making merging difficult if not impossible". Waterfox Classic has multiple unpatched security advisories. Waterfox Classic is a version of the browser based on an older version of the Gecko engine that supports legacy XUL and XPCOM add-on capabilities that Firefox removed in version 57. Waterfox shares core features and technologies like the Gecko browser engine and support for Firefox Add-ons with Firefox. There are official Waterfox releases for Windows, macOS, and Linux. Waterfox is an open-source web browser that is forked from Firefox. Web browser, mobile web browser, feed reader
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |