6,000 listed Web Extensions on AMO

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
26 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

6,000 listed Web Extensions on AMO

WaltS48-6
> 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/>
--
Go Bills, Steelers, Pitt, Pens and Sabres!
Coexist <https://www.coexist.org/>
National Popular Vote <http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/>
Ubuntu 16.04LTS - Unity Desktop
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 6,000 listed Web Extensions on AMO

Desiree-11
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 with
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 - after 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.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 6,000 listed Web Extensions on AMO

Big Al-3
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 with
> 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 - after 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.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 6,000 listed Web Extensions on AMO

Balaco

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 with
 >> 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 - after
 >> 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.


_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 6,000 listed Web Extensions on AMO

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by Big Al-3
On 11/15/2017 3:40 AM, Big Al wrote:

> 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 with
>> 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 - after
>> 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.
>
Essentially, the web extensions are limited to the same actions as
extensions have been limited to in Chrome for years.  That is, they
can't change program logic, or the interface.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 6,000 listed Web Extensions on AMO

WaltS48-6
In reply to this post by Balaco
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 with
>  >> 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 - after
>  >> 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

--
Less than three months until Valentine's Day
Coexist <https://www.coexist.org/>
National Popular Vote <http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/>
Ubuntu 16.04LTS - Unity Desktop
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 6,000 listed Web Extensions on AMO

Balaco
Em 15-11-2017 17:38, WaltS48 escreveu:
 > 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
with
 >>  >> 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 -
after
 >>  >> 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
 >

Firefox interface has problems and things that *should be* configurable,
but are not. Extensions are things that could help in doing that.

If an extension could be used for doing bad things, they should just
*warn* the user when she installs them, or do not allow specific
extensions to be installed unless the warned user still wants to try
them. Removing the possibility of doing them is a very bad choice, I think.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 6,000 listed Web Extensions on AMO

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by WaltS48-6
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 with
>>  >> 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 - after
>>  >> 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.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 6,000 listed Web Extensions on AMO

WaltS48-6
On 11/15/17 3:36 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:

> 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
>>> with
>>>  >> 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 -
>>> after
>>>  >> 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.
>

I did not know Firefox was a country. Thank you for enlightening me.

🤡

--
Less than three months until Valentine's Day
Coexist <https://www.coexist.org/>
National Popular Vote <http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/>
Ubuntu 16.04LTS - Unity Desktop
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 6,000 listed Web Extensions on AMO

Balaco
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
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
>>> with
>>>  >> 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 -
>>> after
>>>  >> 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.
>

+1

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 6,000 listed Web Extensions on AMO

WaltS48-6
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
>>>> with
>>>>  >> 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 -
>>>> after
>>>>  >> 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.
>>
>
> +1
>

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

--
Less than three months until Valentine's Day
Coexist <https://www.coexist.org/>
National Popular Vote <http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/>
Ubuntu 16.04LTS - Unity Desktop
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 6,000 listed Web Extensions on AMO

caver1-5
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
>>>>> with
>>>>>   >> 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 -
>>>>> after
>>>>>   >> 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.
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>
> 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.

--
Caver1
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 6,000 listed Web Extensions on AMO

WaltS48-6
On 11/15/17 7:06 PM, Caver1 wrote:

> 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
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>   >> 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 -
>>>>>> after
>>>>>>   >> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>

Awww. 😭

--
Less than three months until Valentine's Day
Coexist <https://www.coexist.org/>
National Popular Vote <http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/>
Ubuntu 16.04LTS - Unity Desktop
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 6,000 listed Web Extensions on AMO

caver1-5
On 11/15/17 7:27 PM, WaltS48 wrote:

> On 11/15/17 7:06 PM, Caver1 wrote:
>> 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
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>    >> 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 -
>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>    >> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> Awww. 😭
>

That is more important to some than you realize.  :[

--
Caver1
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 6,000 listed Web Extensions on AMO

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by WaltS48-6
On 11/15/2017 2:41 PM, WaltS48 wrote:

> On 11/15/17 3:36 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>> 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
>>>> with
>>>>  >> 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 -
>>>> after
>>>>  >> 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.
>>
>
> I did not know Firefox was a country. Thank you for enlightening me.
>
> 🤡
>
It applies to anyone who prefers to delude themselves to think that
ANYTHING in life is 'safe'.  It isn't, and the harder we try to make it
that way, the less choice we end up with.  Google 'police states'.
Applies to trying to make browsers safe as well.  Making them safer
means limiting choices, and options, and the ability to work outside the
normal constraints.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 6,000 listed Web Extensions on AMO

Jeff Layman
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
On 15/11/17 19:06, Ron Hunter wrote:

> On 11/15/2017 3:40 AM, Big Al wrote:
>> 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 with
>>> 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 - after
>>> 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.
>>
> Essentially, the web extensions are limited to the same actions as
> extensions have been limited to in Chrome for years.  That is, they
> can't change program logic, or the interface.

+1

I've just dumped FF57.0 after an attempt to try it as I can't stand tabs
on top, and CTR no longer works. It's Waterfox or Pale Moon for me in
future.

I note that one of the puffs for FF57 is that it is faster. Why is that
so important? I can stream a 4k movie to my smart tv (amusingly running
the now-defunct Firefox OS) with a 10MB broadband download over wire -
no fibre here. There is no buffering. Why would I need "faster"?

--

Jeff
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 6,000 listed Web Extensions on AMO

NFN Smith
Jeff Layman wrote:
>
> I note that one of the puffs for FF57 is that it is faster. Why is that
> so important? I can stream a 4k movie to my smart tv (amusingly running
> the now-defunct Firefox OS) with a 10MB broadband download over wire -
> no fibre here. There is no buffering. Why would I need "faster"?


There's fast, and there's fast. Depends on what you're doing, and what
your personal tolerances are.  With Firefox, speed could be how long it
takes to load the application (i.e., how long it takes before you can
start interacting with it), or how quickly screens display or pages render.

Using your hardware as an analogy:

Underneath, there's a variety of potential bottlenecks -- CPU, RAM, I/O
and bus speeds, the network interface, your upstream network
connectivity (including hub/router, modem, ISP), and more.  If you're
having performance issues in one area, adding capacity in another area
won't magically make things go faster.

For the most part, unless you're doing CPU-intensive tasks, the speed of
your computer's CPU is mostly irrelevant -- all that you get with a
higher clock speed is more idle CPU cycles.  If your memory use is
typically 2.5 GB, upgrading from 4 GB of RAM to 8 GB won't increase
performance either.

Thus, for Firefox if you're getting adequate performance with your
streaming, that doesn't mean that there aren't performance improvements
or that they don't make a difference for some (or even many) users, even
if those improvements don't make any noticeable difference for what
you're doing.

For me personally, I don't do any streaming, but I tend to have a lot of
tabs open simultaneously, and the speed that tabs open (and pages load)
is something that I've noticed is significantly improved.


Smith
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 6,000 listed Web Extensions on AMO

The Real Bev
On 11/16/2017 02:04 PM, NFN Smith wrote:

> Jeff Layman wrote:
>>
>> I note that one of the puffs for FF57 is that it is faster. Why is that
>> so important? I can stream a 4k movie to my smart tv (amusingly running
>> the now-defunct Firefox OS) with a 10MB broadband download over wire -
>> no fibre here. There is no buffering. Why would I need "faster"?
>
>
> There's fast, and there's fast. Depends on what you're doing, and what
> your personal tolerances are.  With Firefox, speed could be how long it
> takes to load the application (i.e., how long it takes before you can
> start interacting with it), or how quickly screens display or pages render.
>
> Using your hardware as an analogy:
>
> Underneath, there's a variety of potential bottlenecks -- CPU, RAM, I/O
> and bus speeds, the network interface, your upstream network
> connectivity (including hub/router, modem, ISP), and more.  If you're
> having performance issues in one area, adding capacity in another area
> won't magically make things go faster.
>
> For the most part, unless you're doing CPU-intensive tasks, the speed of
> your computer's CPU is mostly irrelevant -- all that you get with a
> higher clock speed is more idle CPU cycles.  If your memory use is
> typically 2.5 GB, upgrading from 4 GB of RAM to 8 GB won't increase
> performance either.
>
> Thus, for Firefox if you're getting adequate performance with your
> streaming, that doesn't mean that there aren't performance improvements
> or that they don't make a difference for some (or even many) users, even
> if those improvements don't make any noticeable difference for what
> you're doing.
>
> For me personally, I don't do any streaming, but I tend to have a lot of
> tabs open simultaneously, and the speed that tabs open (and pages load)
> is something that I've noticed is significantly improved.

NOTHING speeds up facebook.  I wonder if they do that deliberately to
give you more time to look at the ads -- which, thanks to adblockplus, I
never see so have no idea about whether or not what I say even happens.


--
Cheers, Bev
    "By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other
     dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry.'"       -Gary Larson
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 6,000 listed Web Extensions on AMO

Endegee
On 16/11/2017 17:55, The Real Bev wrote:

> On 11/16/2017 02:04 PM, NFN Smith wrote:
>> Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>
>>> I note that one of the puffs for FF57 is that it is faster. Why is that
>>> so important? I can stream a 4k movie to my smart tv (amusingly running
>>> the now-defunct Firefox OS) with a 10MB broadband download over wire -
>>> no fibre here. There is no buffering. Why would I need "faster"?
>>
>>
>> There's fast, and there's fast. Depends on what you're doing, and what
>> your personal tolerances are.  With Firefox, speed could be how long it
>> takes to load the application (i.e., how long it takes before you can
>> start interacting with it), or how quickly screens display or pages
>> render.
>>
>> Using your hardware as an analogy:
>>
>> Underneath, there's a variety of potential bottlenecks -- CPU, RAM, I/O
>> and bus speeds, the network interface, your upstream network
>> connectivity (including hub/router, modem, ISP), and more.  If you're
>> having performance issues in one area, adding capacity in another area
>> won't magically make things go faster.
>>
>> For the most part, unless you're doing CPU-intensive tasks, the speed of
>> your computer's CPU is mostly irrelevant -- all that you get with a
>> higher clock speed is more idle CPU cycles.  If your memory use is
>> typically 2.5 GB, upgrading from 4 GB of RAM to 8 GB won't increase
>> performance either.
>>
>> Thus, for Firefox if you're getting adequate performance with your
>> streaming, that doesn't mean that there aren't performance improvements
>> or that they don't make a difference for some (or even many) users, even
>> if those improvements don't make any noticeable difference for what
>> you're doing.
>>
>> For me personally, I don't do any streaming, but I tend to have a lot of
>> tabs open simultaneously, and the speed that tabs open (and pages load)
>> is something that I've noticed is significantly improved.
>
> NOTHING speeds up facebook.  I wonder if they do that deliberately to
> give you more time to look at the ads -- which, thanks to adblockplus, I
> never see so have no idea about whether or not what I say even happens.
>
>

Best extension for Farcebook:

http://www.fbpurity.com/

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Do not repeat (was "Re: 6,000 listed Web Extensions on AMO")

Balaco
In reply to this post by WaltS48-6
Em 15-11-2017 20:51, WaltS48 escreveu:
>
> Again. I did not know Firefox was a country. 🤡
>

You do not need to repeat arguments that do not make sense - maybe for
you, but you may keep that instead of repeating it several times.

I agree and increase the voice of whom said what I answered with a "+1".

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
12