Future development of Pentadactyl

[wshanks]

The commit logs have been fairly quiet recently (1 commit over the last 3+ months) and the developers have not responded to several mailing list posts and GitHub issues posted over the last seven months or so regarding upcoming Firefox changes that will render Pentadactyl unusable. So the question is where does Pentadactyl go from here. Here are some major roadblocks for Pentadactyl that need to be addressed:

1. Distribution / promotion

   The version of Pentadactyl hosted on AMO has been incompatible with Firefox Release for most of the last two years. The Pentadactyl website has been out of date for years as well. Now, even the nightly builds are often unreliable or out of date. An updated version of Pentadactyl needs to be the first version users find when they search AMO or the web. Issue #26 has more details about this issue.

2. Extension signing

   On January 26, 2016, Firefox Release will require that extensions be signed, rendering Pentadactyl unusable unless it is signed. To be signed, it must be uploaded to Mozilla's site by the developers. Alternatively, it could be forked and given a new add-on id and that version could be uploaded by a third party. However, Pentadactyl is very complex and will not pass the automated tests part of the extension signing process. Getting something as complex as Pentadactyl through a manual review will be difficult and require a lot of effort (developers who understand the Pentadactyl code base will have to advocate for why certain sections of the code are secure and should be allowed through Mozilla's approval process despite tripping automated test failures). Issue #79 has more on this subject.

3. Electrolysis

   Electrolysis (multi-threaded version of Firefox) will at some point become the default and then later on the shims that allow add-ons written to work with single-threaded Firefox to work in Electrolysis will be removed. More testing is needed but as is Pentadactyl will be unusable with Electrolysis and without the compatibility shims. This issue was first raised in issue #50 (edit: originally this said #84), though there is not much content there right now.

4. Deprecation of XUL and XPCOM

   Further into the future (~18-24 months), Firefox plans to transition away from XUL-based add-ons. At that point, only add-ons using the Add-ons SDK or the WebExtensions API will work with Firefox. All signs point to the Add-ons SDK also being phased out slightly further into the future. The WebExtensions API does not allow for all of the functionality of Pentadactyl (this is why there is full-featured equivalent of Pentadactyl for Google Chrome and why the closest thing, Vimium, has to use some convoluted code to get as much functionality as it can). Developers who understand Pentadactyl and the WebExtensions API well need to start advocating now for new API's that will allow Pentadactyl's features to be created with WebExtensions.

Some avenues that could be explored:

• Merging with Vimperator. Vimperator is still under active development. I don't know enough about it to know what Pentadactyl features it lacks or if the developers would be willing to add them. Also, I don't know how well the Vimperator developers are prepared to deal with all of these issues, but the more resources put behind one effort the better most likely (this seems like the most relevant issue: https://github.com/vimperator/vimperator-labs/issues/264).
• Creating a maintenance fork of Pentadactyl. We could fork Pentadactyl and try to get it signed as suggested above, but this could prove difficult for the reasons given above. Alternatively, we could use the Developer build of Firefox that does not require signing, but this build has not yet been released and it is yet to be seen how it will work in practice. This would allow Pentadactyl to continue to be used near term until issues 3 and 4 above hit.
• Rewrite Pentadactyl using WebExtensions. This would be a lot of work but provides the most stable future for Pentadactyl. As noted above, new API's would be required, so developers would have to work with Mozilla to have them implemented.
• Continue Pentadactyl with developer support. One of Pentadactyl's developers works on the Mozilla Add-ons team, so he is probably the most qualified person in the world to guide Pentadactyl through all of the issues outlined above. I can understand how all of these changes might require too much time for the developers to deal with, but I know there are several members of the Pentadactyl community who would love to help if there were any way that we could.

[PLumowina]

LoL, but why do you think so ? Its rendering all pages without any issues (I didnt find any webage that has with it any problems) Plugins I love works (some of them with older version - but still no big issues), And its much much more responsive = double win. At least for me.

Rafał "PLum" Michalski

2016-08-04 12:48 GMT+02:00 Mr Friend notifications@github.com:

Palemoon is like stepping back in time to the web of 3 years ago. I can't take a single one of these comments suggesting people use it seriously.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/5digits/dactyl/issues/99#issuecomment-237519370, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMt1UadK4Qe7eW2lbY3TiMbpvNO5fwTLks5qccN-gaJpZM4GevKj .

[rehael]

On the front of staying on track – can we discuss what is needed to push Pentadactly (or some future replacement/evolution of it) to fruition?

What is needed to have Pentadactyl work with e10s?

What WebExtensions APIs are missing? For which penta features?

Is a map of penta feature to specific (existing or not yet) API doable? (I don't even know all penta features, don't use them all.)

What parts of penta source code can we reuse for WebExtensions based plugin, and what should be written from scratch?

[PLumowina]

Good point - but is any one here, willing to migrate pentadactyl to new FF ? or have knowledge how to do it. I'm network guy...

Rafał "PLum" Michalski

2016-08-04 13:32 GMT+02:00 Ankur Sinha notifications@github.com:

+1

This thread is supposed to be to discuss the future of pentadactyl, not migration to palemoon or another browser. Can we please stay on track? :(

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/5digits/dactyl/issues/99#issuecomment-237527563, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMt1UQPpOLB5NMavZCPCHQrN7bJY0_5Aks5qcc2xgaJpZM4GevKj .

[insidewhy]

I'd be willing to if vimperator didn't provide 90% of what pentadactyl does. As things stand the pentadactyl devs have all but abandoned it, I consider it a "failed fork" even if at one stage it was much better than vimperator.

[ardrabczyk]

Only today I installed FF 48.0 and had to learn how to sign an addon by hand just to learn that it won't start anyway. I am genuinely worried about Pentadactyl, FF w/o it is unusable to me.

[dumblob]

@ohjames vimperator also does not support Electrolysis :(, but upstream looks quite lively - I'm surprised after those years of being stuck.

[insidewhy]

Damn, but the fact it is active still means your chances for a pentadactyl like experience are far greater with that project. I loved Pentadactyl but we gotta accept it's over.

[polyzen]

This thread is supposed to be to discuss the future of pentadactyl, not migration to palemoon or another browser. Can we please stay on track? :(

@sanjayankur31, It technically has a future if it continues to work elsewhere, no? :p

had to learn how to sign an addon by hand just to learn that it won't start anyway.

@ardrabczyk, https://github.com/willsALMANJ/pentadactyl-signed

On the front of staying on track – can we discuss what is needed to push Pentadactly (or some future replacement/evolution of it) to fruition?

@rehael, VimFX does a very good job at covering the basics. I seem to only have scratched the surface of it..

[dumblob]

VimFX supports Electrolysis and there is a nice list of changes made to achieve that - maybe worth looking what follows after https://github.com/akhodakivskiy/VimFx/issues/378#issuecomment-113885272 .

[holtzermann17]

On Thu, Aug 04 2016, Daniel M. Capella wrote:

@ardrabczyk, https://github.com/willsALMANJ/pentadactyl-signed. I thought you had to go through Mozilla to get it signed.. Doesn't it defeat the purpose otherwise?

If I understand correctly the no-self-signing feature will be rolled out in next version of FF. The current version is a sort of grace period in that regard.

[ardrabczyk]

On Thu, Aug 04 2016, Daniel M. Capella wrote:

@ardrabczyk, https://github.com/willsALMANJ/pentadactyl-signed. I thought you had to go through Mozilla to get it signed.. Doesn't it defeat the purpose otherwise?

I did go through the website, got a token and a security key that are only valid for 15 seconds, replaced em:id with an unique ID and used jpm to sign an xpi.

On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 09:52:34AM -0700, Joe Corneli wrote: If I understand correctly the no-self-signing feature will be rolled out in next version of FF. The current version is a sort of grace period in that regard.

I don't exactly how the whole procedure works, I just hope that Mozilla won't create additional problems in the future and self-signing will still be possible.

[wshanks]

The point of https://github.com/willsALMANJ/pentadactyl-signed is to provide a template others can use to self-sign Pentadactyl if they wish. The readme describes the changes you have to make if you want to sign it yourself (you have to change the addon id from the one I used).

Regarding the signing requirement, it begins with Firefox 48 which was released two days ago. If you want to use an up to date version of Firefox, you can no longer use an xpi provided by the Pentadactyl devs (as far as I know they have not published a signed xpi that is compatible with a recent version of Firefox -- just the version that was automatically signed on addons.mozilla.org).

Regarding Pale Moon, VimFx, Vimperator, etc., my current, highly tentative plan is to use VimFx or something similar to get basic keybindings and then try to use Firefox's built-in developer tools and write my own WebExtensions for the more advanced automation and javascript debugging features I use Pentadactyl autocommands, plugins, etc. for now. I'm hesitant to use Vimperator because it still needs a lot of work to remain compatible with upcoming Firefox releases and I'm not sure if the devs will be able to port it (though they are active at least, so I will follow their progress).

[holtzermann17]

On Thu, Aug 04 2016, Arkadiusz Drabczyk wrote:

I don't exactly how the whole procedure works, I just hope that Mozilla won't create additional problems in the future and self-signing will still be possible.

OK I think I was mistaken about no-self-signing being phased out. Apologies for that! I just had a look at the docs, which are pretty explanatory:

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing

It looks like using the Nightly and "Unbranded" FF builds would allow unsigned extensions.

[wshanks]

I merged #160 into the version of dactyl that is used by https://github.com/willsALMANJ/pentadactyl-signed and it seems to mostly work with Firefox 48. You can try it from https://github.com/willsALMANJ/pentadactyl-signed/releases/download/7286/pentadactyl-signed-7286.xpi if you want. The only issue I have noticed so far is that the defsearch setting does not work.

[dumblob]

@willsALMANJ good news, but how about switching on the per-tab processes? This is the main culprit :(

[ghost]

@willsALMANJ Possible to get an update of your signed xpi? Thanks in advance!

[wshanks]

@ilintault What do you want updated? The current version should be compatible with Firefox 48 and up to date with with the master branch of 5digits/dactyl.

[ghost]

@willsALMANJ Thanks for the reply. Seems like there are several interesting commits since your last build on Aug 7. I appreciate your efforts to help dactyl!

[wshanks]

It looks like I overlooked the recent jump tags commit in my feed reader. I will update the xpi for that commit when I have time. I think the other activity after Aug 7 was just merging in pull requests that I had previously merged in by hand (they were needed to get Pentadactyl working with Firefox 48).

[Hi-Angel]

Yay, just tested, still works on FF49.

[Hi-Angel]

Though it was working fine back in the office running binaries from the official tar.gz archive, but here upon installing from Archlinux [testing], instead of completions I see Type error message.

Will see, perhaps it's just because of testing… Idk, it's strange.

[ghost]

@willsALMANJ Thank you for the update!

[congma]

Error on tab-completion due to changes to unified complete in FF49; see #176.

[osleg]

@willsALMANJ Thank you for your hard work keeping pentadactyl working for us! Maybe you could fork penta and maintain it as main maintainer until we can use it and we (well, at least I will) will help you on this?

[wshanks]

@osieg @dkearns still pushes commits to this repo (as recently as two weeks ago), so I'd rather stick to signing this repo's version if possible. However, keeping the xpi compatible with the Release version of Firefox is more important, so I don't mind temporarily forking the dactyl repo and applying Firefox compatibility pull requests that haven't been merged into the 5digits repo yet. So open issues and pull requests in this repo, but you can open pull requests at https://github.com/willsALMANJ/pentadactyl-signed/issues if there are unmerged compatibility fixes that you think should be included in the xpi.

[cprn]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this but Manjaro.i3 just updated Firefox to 50.0 and pentadactyl still works as new (I had to bump maxVersion and reinstall both, plugin and browser, but no problem so far).

[alphapapa]

@cprn Yep, same here. Doug just merged a commit that bumps the maxVersion, so we should be good now. :)

[wshanks]

Mozilla has put out a more firm timeline for the deprecation of XUL: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/2017 Firefox 57 (November 2017) is going to remove all support for XUL, so that's when Pentadactyl will definitely stop working (unless someone is secretly porting it). Firefox 52 will be the last ESR to support XUL. Also, install.rdf probably needs <em:multiprocessCompatible>false</em:multiprocessCompatible> to avoid having multiprocess mode enabled with Pentadactyl starting in Firefox 51 (which doesn't work well).

In the signed xpi that I post, I automatically bump the maxVersion.

[Hi-Angel]

Idk about development of FF extensions much, but @gkatsev in 2015 listed some limitations of WebExtensions API — I don't know if they outdated yet.

We've to come up with a list of limitations, disallowing the addon from being ported. Then to α) post it to firefox-dev mailing list, and β) create a bug "WebExtensions limitations to be solved before droppign XUL".

Aside, I'm wondering: the FF 57 besides WebExtensions going to have "Singed bootstrapped add-ons", "OpenSearch plugins", I don't know what are they. Could they be used as a replacement for XUL?

[gliptak]

Bootstrapped ~ restartable

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/Bootstrapped_extensions

[Hi-Angel]

Okay, OpenSearch — an API for search engines, and "Bootsrtapped" seems to just be a small API to not restart a browser for loading an extension. Nothing interesting.

Then let's make up a list of limitations of WebExtensions API (if there still is). It's possibly (i'd wait a comment from more acknowledged peoples) the first thing to the list is this point, it's about theming, which is needed to hide URL, and such. So, until this API is implemented, XUL shouldn't be dropeed.

Anything else?

[alphapapa]

@Hi-Angel I hate to be the downer, but it's hopeless. Mozilla is dropping XUL, and Pentadactyl can't be Pentadactyl without it. It could be a Vim-like command interface, like Vimium for Chrome, but Pentadactyl does a lot more than that, and Mozilla is not going to implement an API in WebExtensions for everything that XUL can do. If they did, it would just be XUL.

The long-term solution is to move to Pale Moon. We should start supporting them (including financially, if possible) now, and start migrating our own profiles before Mozilla rips the rug out from under us.

Mozilla has signed their own death warrant. They are going to kill Firefox, and then they will die off, because Firefox is what keeps the money flowing. It's a shame, because it's needless, but they have made their minds up to commit organizational suicide, and they are so stubborn that no one is going to change their mind. We've been trying for years, and they just won't listen.

Not to worry, developers are fungible when the software is Free. The phoenix will rise again.

[PLumowina]

PaleMoon with latest release 27 got some plugin changes too - and pentadactyl for this browser stopped to work too :(, so I dont know what can we do right now ...

-- Rafał "PLum" Michalski

2016-11-24 20:24 GMT+01:00 alphapapa notifications@github.com:

@Hi-Angel https://github.com/Hi-Angel I hate to be the downer, but it's hopeless. Mozilla is dropping XUL, and Pentadactyl can't be Pentadactyl without it. It could be a Vim-like command interface, like Vimium for Chrome, but Pentadactyl does a lot more than that.

The long-term solution is to move to Pale Moon. We should start supporting them (including financially, if possible) now, and start migrating our own profiles before Mozilla rips the rug out from under us.

Mozilla has signed their own death warrant. They are going to kill Firefox, and then they will die off, because Firefox is what keeps the money flowing. It's a shame, because it's needless, but they have made their minds up to commit organizational suicide, and they are so stubborn that no one is going to change their mind. We've been trying for years, and they just won't listen.

Not to worry, developers are fungible when the software is Free. The phoenix will rise again.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/5digits/dactyl/issues/99#issuecomment-262834918, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMt1UcaU5SDhDlzir00vn21Tfg6csmYQks5rBeR-gaJpZM4GevKj .

[Hi-Angel]

Mozilla is dropping XUL, and Pentadactyl can't be Pentadactyl without it. It could be a Vim-like command interface, like Vimium for Chrome, but Pentadactyl does a lot more than that.

Yes, and I'm suggesting to point that out to them. Mozilla wants to kill XUL not because they don't care of a userbase, but because it's a deprecated layer of API that doesn't work well even with concurrency. We have to point them out that there's some part of API that doesn't have yet an analogue, so that they would implement it before dropping XUL, and then we could migrate the addon to that API.

[bulldozer2003]

Palemoon++ I switched and it's great. Some might say Palemoon is member berries but it's only a rejection of Firefox's move to be flashier in attempt to compete with Chrome. Older add-ons don't stop working "just because."

[prikhi]

Pale Moon's roadmap & v27 release notes both say they will continue to support XUL.

@PLumowina I'm compiling v27 now & will try poking around with pm-pentadactyl, if you're having issues running the plugin maybe open an issue on the GH repo with more information: https://github.com/Pale-Moon-Addons-Team/pentadactyl-pm

[j127]

they have made their minds up to commit organizational suicide, and they are so stubborn that no one is going to change their mind. We've been trying for years, and they just won't listen.

A problem with Mozilla is that they are not seriously interested in their core supporters. I wrote comments about that above, here and here. One example is the time I tried to create a Firefox developer meetup in the SF Bay Area to try to get more programmers interested in Firefox, and I never got any response from Mozilla, even though some of their employees joined, including people with community management titles. They didn't reply to my inquiries. (My other, related programming groups have over 3,000 members now, so it could have been a significant pro-Firefox voice in the browser-extension community.)

Mozilla needs to overhaul their community management and bring back grassroots-driven movements like spreadfirefox.com. They can't achieve that on a large scale unless the core supporters are behind them, and a large part of their core supporters are developer-types who don't like the current direction and aren't being heard by the company. Pentadactyl-like features could be a rallying point for Firefox and Mozilla, but instead there is only silence.

I get the impression that they are telling themselves things like, "forget those complainers -- they will get used to the changes eventually." Actually, they will leave Firefox and market share will continue to drop. Many of those tech-savvy Chrome users are former Firefox users.

Focusing on programmers is what makes products like these popular. Tech-savvy people are thought leaders when it comes to software choices. If the tech-savvy people are fanatical about a product, it will trickle to the mainstream. Some examples:

• Macbooks became popular around the time that Rails came out with their popular "build a blog video", and the Rails community was strongly pro-Mac. Textmate's homepage even bragged that they were proud to be "Mac-only". Mac use is now probably about 70% among my programming club with about 20% using Linux and 10% using Windows.
• Microsoft finally figured out that they need to focus on developers and "open-source", even to the point of selling Linux servers and integrating Ubuntu into Windows 10 as an add-on. Nadella's strategy revolves around reaching out to programmers, because he understands this.
• Chrome is popular because they focus on developers. Web development tutorials use Chrome, so everyone learns how to debug in Chrome. It's very rare to see any JavaScript tutorials that use Firefox's tools rather than Chrome's.
• Mozilla doesn't really listen to developer feedback. The community used to be grassroots-driven, but they changed to top-down community management.

I don't think that Pale Moon is a good solution, because it doesn't have the resources of Mozilla, and it's going to be difficult to keep up with Chrome. I'm okay with Firefox changing in order to keep up with modern technology, but Mozilla needs to pay much more attention to what their real core users are looking for. I switched to vimfx (with changed keybindings) just so I could tolerate the interface, but I dislike using the browser now, and am not a genuinely enthusiastic supporter of Firefox any more. (I still would like to be one though.)

Suggestion for Mozilla: pay attention to how Microsoft is reaching out to developers. Find the extensions that programmers are fanatical about and that aren't available on other browser, such as Pentadactyl and Tree Style Tab, and back them with funding -- use them as a rallying point to bring thought leaders in programming over to Firefox. Make Firefox about developer-friendliness, privacy, and productivity. I have a lot of ideas on how to do that, but I don't know how to contact anyone at Mozilla who seems genuinely interested in building the Firefox community.

[alphapapa]

@Hi-Angel

Yes, and I'm suggesting to point that out to them. Mozilla wants to kill XUL not because they don't care of a userbase, but because it's a deprecated layer of API that doesn't work well even with concurrency.

This is a nice idea, but again, it's hopeless. Mozilla wants to kill XUL because they do not care to maintain it anymore; and the reason they do not care to maintain it anymore is that they care more about themselves than they do about their users. It doesn't matter how many people protest the removal of XUL, just like it didn't matter how many people protested mandatory extension signing. Their developers don't want to spend time maintaining old code; it's not hip or cool or whatever. It doesn't matter that that code has brought in billions of dollars in revenue and made Firefox what it is today; they simply do not care.

We have to point them out that there's some part of API that doesn't have yet an analogue, so that they would implement it before dropping XUL, and then we could migrate the addon to that API.

I really hate to criticize your enthusiasm, but to be completely honest with you, this is naive. We have been pointing out these things to Mozilla for years now. They completely ignore us. They already know that there are many extensions that depend on XUL, but they are not going to implement equivalent APIs for niche extensions like ours. They're not even doing their own homework: they won't implement APIs that existing extensions use unless the extension developers beg them to, and even then there's no guarantee. It's all based upon the whims of Mozilla.

The bottom line is that they only care about one thing: money. And they think that the best way to keep the money coming is to chase two demographics: former Firefox users who now use Chrome, and people who have never used a computer before. And they think that the best way to chase those demographics is to turn Firefox into Chrome, inside and out. They are hell-bent on doing so, and they will ride that train all the way down, right through the "BRIDGE OUT" sign.

For you and me, they have one message: "This is not the browser you're looking for. Now quit bothering us and go play with your window manager."

The path forward for us is to part ways with Mozilla. They do not want us anymore. We've already wasted enough energy trying to convince them to stay. They have found a new lover and it's not us. We need to let them go and move on.

@j127

A problem with Mozilla is that they are not seriously interested in their core supporters.

Bingo. The days of grassroots Firefox are long over. It's all top-down now. The people in charge are going to strangle the goose while squeezing out every last drop of blood from it, and then when Mozilla goes bankrupt, they'll sell the assets and float to another corporate job on their golden parachutes. It wasn't mismanagement, it was all the market's fault, and Google's, and Yahoo's...maybe Marissa Meyer's. If only Firefox OS had panned out, then they could have diversified and pivoted to a mobile strategy, and Firefox could have become their loss-leader...blah blah blah.

I get the impression that they are telling themselves things like, "forget those complainers -- they will get used to the changes eventually."

They have been saying this for years, and not only to themselves--this is how they handle bug reports too. Bug after bug where loyal users and evangelists beg them to keep features intact, and the comments get hidden, marked as "advocacy," and then the bug reports are locked so that only Mozillians can respond, and mere users are told to take it to the mailing lists, where they can talk at each other and Mozilla can conveniently ignore them.

I don't think that Pale Moon is a good solution, because it doesn't have the resources of Mozilla, and it's going to be difficult to keep up with Chrome.

You're right that it doesn't have Mozilla's resources, but I don't think that necessarily means that it's not a good solution for us. The biggest concern is security fixes, which simply take manpower to keep up with. But if we support them, we can improve their resources and perhaps mitigate that.

I'm not sure what you mean by keeping up with Chrome. If you mean JavaScript performance, that is indeed another manpower issue. However, a long-term solution for Pale Moon might be to move off their Gecko fork and base it on Blink or Servo, which might allow it to ride on their JavaScript engines. Of course, it's easy for me to say this; porting the XUL-based platform to another renderer is certainly a huge task. On the other hand, maybe its JavaScript performance is good enough; I use web browsers to browse the web, not play WebGL games with my phone as a lightsaber. ;)

...I don't know how to contact anyone at Mozilla who seems genuinely interested in building the Firefox community.

I think there isn't anyone left that is; or, at least, not at any level where they have any say in the direction Mozilla goes. I think we need to face the hard truth: Mozilla's going down in flames. The good news is that, just as before, the phoenix can rise again from their ashes. Better for us to get a head start than wait for impact.

[Hi-Angel]

Anyways, I reported.

[alphapapa]

@Hi-Angel Well, thanks for taking the initiative. I hope you and Mozilla prove me wrong. :)

[j127]

The path forward for us is to part ways with Mozilla.

I don't think that people should abandon Firefox. The stakes are the future of the Web and privacy. There is no real alternative to Firefox for what it does. It's the only browser that allows add-ons in the mobile version. Chrome makes money from data, and I haven't found a way to block as many tracking methods in Chrome as in Firefox.

Pale Moon is a highly risky bet, and they probably don't have the resources to keep up with Chrome alone.

They have been saying this for years, and not only to themselves--this is how they handle bug reports too. Bug after bug where loyal users and evangelists beg them to keep features intact, and the comments get hidden, marked as "advocacy," and then the bug reports are locked so that only Mozillians can respond, and mere users are told to take it to the mailing lists, where they can talk at each other and Mozilla can conveniently ignore them.

Yes, I have been ignored in the bug reports too. There was one blog post about the changing API that had a lot of negative comments on it, and Mozilla deleted it (before restoring it later).

I'm sure that the situation there with keeping Mozilla afloat is much more complex than the end users realize, but they still need more community input if they are going to survive. They won't get the exponential growth that they need if there isn't a grassroots movement.

The biggest concern is security fixes, which simply take manpower to keep up with.

The Web is changing too quickly. The browsers of today will not be up to the task of running future Web pages at high speed.

I use web browsers to browse the web, not play WebGL games with my phone as a lightsaber. ;)

The issue isn't about just a few developers who want a solution for themselves. It's about the future of the Web, electronic privacy, etc.

I don't think that people should give up that easily. There is still time to fix things.

If anyone from Mozilla reads this, send me a message. I would be happy to help organize monthly Firefox developer meetups in SF if they would provide the space. We have 3,000 members, and Mozilla could freely recruit from the group as well. JavaScript, Python are well represented, and there are a few enthusiastic Rust users as well. If there is something so exciting about the future of Mozilla, invite programmers there and convince them. Listen to what the programmer have to say about what they want in a browser, and maybe some compromises could be made by both sides.

I was a huge supporter of Mozilla since Mozilla Application Suite, and it would be great to see some of that old "Spread Firefox" enthusiasm happen again.

[Hi-Angel]

Chrome makes money from data, and I haven't found a way to block as many tracking methods in Chrome as in Firefox.

There's a Chromium.

[j127]

There's a Chromium.

It still doesn't block many things. I install the privacy extensions I want, and then when I go to check what info is still in the browser, website data is still being stored.

All of this should be auto-deleted by extensions, but it doesn't happen:

On Firefox, there are much better extensions for things like:

• blocking referrers
• clearing LSOs with a timer
• managing cookie and localStorage deletion when tabs are closed
• etc.

Google is seriously dependent on data collection. It is in their best interest to make sure that not all tracking can be blocked. Mozilla doesn't have as many of those pressures during feature design.

Huge problem: Chromium doesn't allow browser extensions (for privacy) on mobile devices, while Firefox does.

One other reason why I dislike Chrome browsers is that the interface uses dark patterns to get people to visit Google Search and click on ads before sending them to the desired destination. It's a waste of time.

For example, visit this link in both Chromium and Firefox. Close the tab. Then start to type "marriott" and watch the auto-completion. Firefox knows exactly where you want to go, and suggests the destination URL. Chromium will usually pretend not to know about the URL and will send you to a page full of Google Ads (search page) instead.

[vyp]

(Just for reference there is also ungoogled chromium and inox.)

[Hi-Angel]

All of this should be auto-deleted by extensions, but it doesn't happen:

I just made an experiment: I opened an "incognito window", opened cnn.com, allowed them to store cookies, browsed the site a little bit, closed Chromium, opened cookies page — and no, nothing matching the word cnn.

What that means is that the problem with cookies leftovers is a bug in extensions, which have to be reported to them. It have nothing to do with the browser or its company.

For example, visit this link in both Chromium and Firefox. Close the tab. Then start to type "marriott" and watch the auto-completion.

(beforewords I should say that this kind of completion is one of the main reasons that I like pentadactyl — default completion in Firefox'n'Chromium sucks)

Yes, I made this experiment, and one of completions Chromium advised was the marriott site. In some sense, I even made the experiment twice: for I was doing the prev. one, I didn't know how to peek at cookies, and found a random topic on superuser.com about it before opening a private mode. Then, to exclude everything, I completely closed Chromium, opened it again, started typing "superuser", and Chromium advised me the page I left a minute ago.

I was a huge supporter of Mozilla since Mozilla Application Suite, and it would be great to see some of that old "Spread Firefox" enthusiasm happen again.

Let me be crystal clear — I am enthusiastic about Firefox, you can see it because I reported bugs, and before that I even stepped into #developers channel on Mozilla IRC, and posted a link to one of your prev. comments; I also asked in #firefox and #webextensions channels some relevant questions, mostly to no avail.

I am enthusiastic enough that I even use Firefox for everyday browsing, even though Firefox noticebly slower, and didn't even have video acceleration (seriously, which year we're at??), so to watch videos I still opening chromium-vaapi^AUR.

But pentadactyl is the most important reason that I'm still here. There're other ones too, like that Mozilla is the developer of Rust, etc — but this one is The Boss. And if at some point they drop XUL despite the absence of some API for pentadactyl to work properly — ofc, given that they knew about it, like the bug I reported, they aren't telepathists after all! — that very moment I gonna join the non-existing motion Stop the Firefox, I am dead serious.

Because if they want to mess with me, I gonna mess with them. After all, I have to be enthusiast at something, right? :Ь

[j127]

I just made an experiment: I opened an "incognito window", opened cnn.com, allowed them to store cookies, browsed the site a little bit, closed Chromium, opened cookies page — and no, nothing matching the word cnn.

Incognito windows are different. I don't want incognito mode, because I want the history, along with select cookies, to be saved between sessions.

I made this experiment, and one of completions Chromium advised was the marriott site.

I'm not sure exactly how the completion logic works. Another example from my own computer: I have 11 URLs with the word "webmaster" in my history, and this is how it auto-completes when I try to go back to webmasterworld.com:

It's clearly a dark pattern by Google. They are not unaware about how much money they are making from that.

even though Firefox noticebly slower, and didn't even have video acceleration (seriously, which year we're at??), so to watch videos I still opening chromium-vaapiAUR.

Chrome's speed has pulled ahead of Firefox lately. I hope that Firefox can catch up again.

[Hi-Angel]

Incognito windows different. I don't want incognito mode, because I want the history, along with select cookies, to be saved between sessions.

Of course not, that's not what I mean. I made the comparison to show that the problem with cookies have nothing to do with the browser, but rather with the privacy extensions you use, which ought to remove them, but doesn't.

I'm not sure exactly how the completion logic works. I have 11 URLs with the word "webmaster" in my history, and this is how it auto-completes when I try to go back to webmasterworld.com:

Hmm, I have to admit, this is odd. This is what it looks to me:

I tried to search for addons for better completion, but surprisingly can't find them. I really don't know, somebody have to make one, say, like "fuzzy url completion".

Chrome's speed has pulled ahead of Firefox lately. I hope that Firefox can catch up again.

Unfortunately it was always like this, I'd say that it's Firefox speed pulled forward a bit in the FF50 version. As a user of Firefox and pentadactyl for ≈2 years, I can say for example, that scroll with mouse was always laggy — but as I didn't use mouse in preference of pentadactyl's keys, I usually didn't notice it.

E.g. right now for I scroll the current github page with mouse wheel, even though lags very small now, but Chromium on the same page manages to… I don't know, it seems to update the page twice more often for scrolling, I think. And it varies from site to site — e.g. I just opened some Facebook page with many posts, and I definitely see lags for scrolling the content in Firefox, but I don't see them on the same page in Chromium.

[j127]

Unfortunately it was always like this, I'd say that it's Firefox speed pulled forward a bit in the FF50 version. As a user of Firefox and pentadactyl for ≈2 years

It wasn't until recently that Firefox started appearing noticeably slower to me. Actually, I just tested a new Firefox profile, and it seems to be working about as fast as Chrome. It must be my extensions that are causing the slowdown. I wonder if a lot of it is related to the OS and the installed extensions.

Here are page load speeds for a couple thousand visitors on a live website -- Chrome appears to be loading pages slightly faster than Firefox. But if speed were the only measurement of quality, then we should all be using IE over FF and Chrome. :)

[wshanks]

Since VimFx was mentioned, I feel I should point out that it is also a XUL addon and will also stop working in Firefox 57 unless it is ported to a WebExtension (it has active developers so maybe it will happen but it will still take a lot of work). You might want to watch projects like Vimium and cVim and see if any of them gets ported to a WebExtension once the necessary API's are implemented. I tried Vimium recently but I couldn't get it to work in Firefox.

[bulldozer2003]

:money_mouth_face: I put this up as a bounty on bountysource for anyone who ports pentadactyl to the new add-on format. Please contribute if you can: https://www.bountysource.com/trackers/4405414-5digits-dactyl

I also put a bounty on getting pentadactyl to work in palemoon 27: https://www.bountysource.com/trackers/19509551-pale-moon-addons-team-pentadactyl-pm