Hi Nils,
I've been a long time user of DownThemAll (at least 2005, maybe earlier....) and was concerned when I read the post on the website about WebExtensions and how DownThemAll might cease to exist - The likely end of DownThemAll? [0] > I'll evaluate the list of forks that do exist or will exist once mozilla > pulls the WebExtension switch for real, and see if any of them will be > an alternative to the then deliberately-made-retarded mozilla browser. May I suggest Palemoon? I've been a happy user for almost 3 years now on Windows and on Android since Jul 2014 [1] IIRC I first came across Palemoon as I was looking for a 64bit Windows build of a Firefox fork and then when Australis broke some of the extensions I was using when it came out in Firefox Beta 29 (March 2014) I think that's when I switched over. I am a big proponent of Palemoon as a replacement to Firefox and promote[2] it[3] every[4] chance[5] I get[6]. Any of my friends or colleagues that still use Firefox, I recommend them to shift over to Palemoon. I choose my browser based on stability, functionality and usability not brand affinity. ;) Your post which I am replying to has been posted to Hacker News [7] and to Pale Moon forum [8] Thanks. [0] http://www.downthemall.net/the-likely-end-of-downthemall/ [1] https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=4964&p=32536#p32536 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11042428 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10610415 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10531710 [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10102521 [6] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10099556 [7] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13178579 [8] https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=101192 On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:09 PM, Nils Maier <maier...@web.de> wrote: > Hi mig[-1], and everybody who also asked and I BCCed, and whomever it > may or should concern too, > > First: the "fucks" are directed exclusively at mozilla - the > organization, not you. > > If I CC'ed you and you're now thinking: Who are you even? Valid > question: I develop one of the most popular Firefox add-ons (open source > without profit motivation), and am a decade long mozilla enthusiast, > advocate and volunteer contributor. > > > > I'm just back from a Mozilla event where i was sorry to hear you were > > giving up on DownThemAll. I don't know the whole story, but in my > > opinion, this would be a shame to leave a 1.25M users audience. > > The whole story is basically that mozilla folks are fucking up the > add-on space. > > The whole story is that DownThemAll! would need a ton of niche APIs that > mozilla has neither the resources nor the will to spec, implement and > maintain[0]. > > The whole story is that WebExtensions APIs explicitly are supposed to be > high level APIs, while tons of add-ons actually want, nay need low level > APIs to implement their functionality. > The rational here seems to be "Fuck yall, we consider you too stupid > and/or evil to give you low level access, also we're lazy and not good > with money so we couldn't possibly support low level anyway" > The high level API shit is what's killing the platform, not XUL or > (partial) XPCOM deprecation. > > The whole story is that I just finally grew tired of the steaming pile > of utter rotten horse manure that is the mozilla decision making process. > > I'll evaluate the list of forks that do exist or will exist once mozilla > pulls the WebExtension switch for real, and see if any of them will be > an alternative to the then deliberately-made-retarded mozilla browser. > > I gave mozilla a list of what interfaces DTA source code contains > currently (mozI*, nsI*) either way and other feedback, since they asked. > > It is my opinion that it's not me who's leaving a 1.25M Active Daily > Users DownThemAll! audience, but mozilla is abandoning them (and me) and > not just them but also the developers and users of tons of other add-ons > with small and large audiences[1]. > > I'll keep maintaining (most of) my add-ons for the time being, albeit > with far less enthusiasm, in case mozilla wakes up or some viable fork > comes along, tho. > > > > As far as i can tell, DownThemAll will be able to run on WebExtensions > > once the missing APIs (mainly file writing) will be integrated, and i > > got the confirmation this will happen in due time. > > I have no hopes that they will implement proper APIs, not even for file > writing[0 again]. Other than file writing, there are no proper APIs to > do requests, there are no proper APIs for other stuff such as executing > files, other kinds of OS integration, UI integration and so on and etc > and pp. > > And that's just DownThemAll!, looking at my other add-ons (public or for > personal use) and also those I use of other devs, most of them will be > dead in the water, or could only be ported with serious, serious > limitations. Some add-ons I use already were abandoned, rightfully so > because WebExtensions offer no way forward for those addons, and for now > I fix them locally for me if something breaks (I cannot take over > maintainership and publish them as I lack the time and motivation to do so) > I have no use for crappy webrequest/toolbar button APIs alone. At least > the Adblockers will survive I guess... hurray! > > > Dismantling the add-on system just because mozilla doesn't like the > maintenance burden all of a sudden? > > "B-but we want away from XUL and a lot of XPCOM". > So what? Neither is this going to happen anytime soon realistically, nor > is that any reason not to give add-on developers access to whatever > replaces it. > > "B-but add-ons will break less if ever if they are WebExtensions". > Sure, and tons of add-ons should and will go the WebExtensions route. > Doesn't mean you have to fuck over the add-ons not fitting in the > WebExtensions space. There are tons of dedicated add-on developers who > have been dealing with breaking changes in Firefox since it first got > add-ons, for better or for worse. Most of the time, we managed in a > timely fashion. > > Even those add-ons which can be reasonably ported need to be ported in > the first place. Somebody will have to do the actual work, which is on > entirely different scale than a "few" "let's move this shit into a > framescript so it works with e10s" fixes. > > Frankly, it's add-ons which contributed a lot to Firefox' success, and > it's add-on which eased Firefox bleeding users to Chrome, and once the > add-ons that go beyond WebExtensions stuff are gone, the bleeding will > only increase again. > > > > To tell the truth, i have been myself very frustrated just a few weeks > > ago, and considered giving up VDH on Firefox. Now i can see a clear > > future (even if there is a lot of development work to be done). > > Quite honestly, I'm over the frustrated stage and arrived at the furious > anger stage. And I grow only more hopeless about mozilla as time > progresses. > > WebExtensions are far off from feature parity, let alone bug parity for > even the Chrome extension APIs, yet announce EOL for new add-ons in 53 > and EOL for all add-ons in 57 [0 again]? > What the fuck are they thinking? > Whoever was involved in that decision with actual say: Please do us all > a favor and just step down from any leadership position you might have. > Or better yet, apply for a leadership position in the Google Chrome > team; Firefox can use some help from you eventually ending up > inadvertently sabotaging Chrome sooner than later. > > What's even more discouraging is that mozilla will be using their > "signing required" Walled Garden they installed because "reasons, not of > them actually sane or good" that they swore they will not use to fuck > with add-ons[2] - just to do exactly that, and fuck with add-ons, > stopping to sign new non-WE add-ons with the Firefox 53 release. > THANK YOU VERY MUCH! I TOTALLY TRUST EVERYTHING YOU SAY NOW MORE THAN EVER! > > Does the Walled Garden help make Firefox more secure? Nope. > Is it abused to force unrelated policy changes instead? Yep! > > > > mozilla has been a huge clusterfuck for years now, not just in the > add-on space; lacking proper (tech) leadership, lacking vision, focusing > on the wrong things at large more often than not, fucking with their > core users for no apparent reason other than "but we have to do > *something* to stay relevant". And even stupid stunts like force > bundling crapware (pocket) isn't too goddamn stupid to do these days. > "1 million mozillians!", yeah, you will certainly achieve this by > alienating everybody on many fronts at once. > > I've been part of the mozilla universe for almost one and a half decades > (or almost 15 years in "metric") now. I'm doing DownThemAll! and other > extensions since about a decade now. I've seen tons of fuckups in that > time, and produced a few myself; but that was OK because none of those > were deliberate and we always worked together on fixing things. > Not ever before did I think mozilla is hopelessly fucked at a > fundamental level. But the last one or maybe two years changed that. > > I have to admit that I failed to see this for a quite some time, > deluding myself into thinking "it's not that bad", "they'll will do it", > "temporary setback", "they will recover", "I can learn to live with > that"... Tried to rationalize all this away... > But that's ended. > > I'm fed up as an add-on developer, I'm fed up as a mozilla advocate, I'm > fed up as somebody who used to help the other add-on devs, I'm fed up as > somebody who contributed an enormous amount of volunteer time directly > in many different ways, I'm fed up as a Firefox user. > > In conclusion, let me end with two quotes from[3] (second one quoting > myself) > > "It’s fascinating how Mozilla manages to always find the exactly right > words — to make their most avid browser enthusiasts feel absolutely > miserable!" > > "I honestly hate you [mozilla] right now." > "Bye" > > Nils > > PS: If anybody feels the inexplicable urge to reply and wants me to know > about it or even respond, make sure to CC me. > > > [-1] who is on BCC because publicly posting his email address might be > rude. > [0] I'm explicitly not dumping on the team that actually implements the > WebExtensions support and APIs, they seem to be doing a fine job with > the resources they got from mozilla. And I am not opposed to > WebExtensions, quite the opposite. But I am opposed to WebExtensions-only! > [1] Well, unless you're NoScript and get special treatment. Well again, > DTA is probably large enough to beg and get special treatment, but I > don't actually want better treatment than others. > [2] And that's still a large legal gray area; e.g. can mozilla legally > sign add-ons of devs from countries with US sanctions/embargoes > [3] > https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2016/11/23/add-ons-in- > 2017/comment-page-1/#comment-223086 > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
