![Google my ip](https://loka.nahovitsyn.com/104.jpg)
WATERFOX 30 FULL
In-browser editing & powerful manipulation, full text search within saved pages, direct access to the saved archives, the sidebar, the specialized capture options and quite a bit more require features (XUL-based and otherwise) that Mozilla won't implement.
WATERFOX 30 PLUS
There's zero hope of implementing something like the unfortunately named Scrapbook Plus & Scrapbook X research addons. How is that different between XUL and WebExtensions?
WATERFOX 30 INSTALL
With the new API, you still have to make sure not to install malicious add-ons. Currently, any WebExtension which asks for the proper permission can just read the content of your banking websites if it wants, and send what it finds (your social security number, your password, your bank account numbers, etc) to an attacker. I'm also kind of curious about how the security angle works. I think Mozilla absolutely made the right choice I just don't think we can focus exclusively on the benefits and pretend that the costs don't exist. Pretending that it is, is harmful there are very real drawbacks which have to be weighed up against the advantages of a cleaner API which it's easier to maintain and which might be more secure. It's not even "good for" the people who "only" had to invest hours into learning a new workflow with a new set of add-ons. I'm just saying that when Mozilla decided to break the browser for many people, it wasn't "good for" the people who ended up with a browser which doesn't let them do what they want.
WATERFOX 30 UPDATE
I'm one of the people who didn't depend on any add-ons which aren't available anymore I just had to update the add-on I wrote to work with the new API, which was easy because it's one of those add-ons which essentially just needs some javascript to be injected into all web pages. I'm not trying to argue that Firefox shouldn't have deprecated XUL or NPAPI. But the browser’s first responsibility to the user is primum non nocere: “first, do no harm.” And those old APIs, which were naïvely designed twenty years ago in a time when the Internet was far less weaponized than it is today, were exposing an awful lot of people to a great deal of harm. I lost a couple of these in the move myself. Look, I get it, it sucks to lose an extension you like and rely on. And the bad things were bad enough that it was worth losing the good ones to protect users from them. A more restrictive API means some things extensions used to be able to do aren’t possible anymore, but that’s as true of the bad things as it is of the good. The downside of “extensions can do anything!” is that it means extensions can do, well, anything, including things that are hostile to the user’s interests. If supporting that extension requires exposing the user to security risks. > If someone is most comfortable using their browser with a certain extension for which there is no good WebExtensions-based alternative, how can you say that forcing them to stop using that extension is "good for them"? Saying that change is "good" for users even if the users don't realize it and resist, prevents us from considering the very real negative effects of introducing breaking changes or removing features of our software. The move away from XUL and NPAPI is great for Mozilla, it makes it easier to maintain and develop the browser, it's probably good for extension developers (except for those who now can't port their extension to the new API because it's more limited), but it's not good for users who are forced to take time out of their day to find and alternatives or users who just have to accept that what they were previously using their browser for just isn't possible anymore with Firefox. If someone is most comfortable using their browser with a certain extension for which there is no good WebExtensions-based alternative, how can you say that forcing them to stop using that extension is "good for them"? Even if there is a suitable alternative, which requires re-learning a bunch of things the user is used to, how is that change "good for them"? Saying that "people hate change, even when it's good for them" has to be the most arrogant thing I've read today.
![Google my ip](https://loka.nahovitsyn.com/104.jpg)