Web lists-archives.com

Re: 6,000 listed Web Extensions on AMO

On 11/15/17 5:51 PM, WaltS48 wrote:
On 11/15/17 5:36 PM, Balaco wrote:
Em 15-11-2017 18:36, Ron Hunter escreveu:
On 11/15/2017 1:38 PM, WaltS48 wrote:
On 11/15/17 12:14 PM, Balaco wrote:

Em 15-11-2017 07:40, Big Al escreveu:
  > On 11/14/2017 06:32 PM, Desiree wrote:
  >> On 11/14/2017 5:42 AM, WaltS48 wrote:
  >>>> Over 70% of add-on users already have at least one installed
  >>> How many lines of code were touched?
  >>> Find out more here.
  >>> <https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/the-new-firefox-by-the-numbers/>
  >> The 30% who don't are the ones I stand with.  All great
extensions are
  >> legacy now and attempts to make web ones with the same name ends
  >> the user being excited until they look at the pathetic nothing that
  >> the web version can do and they make the decision I have made -
  >> 20 years of Netscape, Mozilla Suite and Phoenix et al, Fx 52 ESR is
  >> the end.  SeaMonkey and Thunderbird will live on for awhile,
but, in
  >> reality, Google has won.
  > Some place I saw a statement that the features in web extensions are
  > somewhat watered down as they can do much less than old add-ons
did.  If
  > this is correct then that's probably a good reason for your opinion.
  > I did play with 57 for the day yesterday to see how it worked.

If the web extensions have the pointed bad points, I believe that a
fork from Firefox 52 will be born and continue from there, without
such silly changes.

Actually Mozilla claims they are good points because they don't allow
hacks of extensions that changed the UI from being exploited.

That is why CTR, Complete Themes and other extensions that change the
UI are no longer allowed.

A pointed good point for security reasons. YMMV

Those who give up liberty for security will have neither.


Again. I did not know Firefox was a country. 🤡

FF always let you have FF the way you want it. It seems that freedom is gone.

general mailing list