News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Firefox 57.0 Released by Silhouette on Tuesday November 14, 2017 @10:17AM (#15695697)
My browser and extensions did useful things yesterday that they do not do today. Who changed something in the meantime?

Obviously I paid nothing for Firefox and Mozilla owes me the same nothing in return, but if it wants to keep users and remain significant, breaking arguably its main advantage might not be the best plan.

Re:Firefox 57.0 Released by Yoric on Tuesday November 14, 2017 @12:22PM (#15697083)
If you're interested, I explained above https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15696184 why the switch was necessary.

As a Firefox user (and dev) I believe that breaking some extensions today in a clean manner that will let us maintain compatibility in the future is way prefereable than randomly breaking extensions with every single version of Firefox, as this has been happening forever. Plus this break has set us free to actually improve Firefox and make it competitive again, something I believe is in everybody's interest. I realize that it's painful for the users who lost some add-ons upon which they relied, but I believe that given the alternative, this was the best choice possible.

Re:Firefox 57.0 Released by Silhouette on Tuesday November 14, 2017 @12:31PM (#15697182)
I was a software guy long before I was a web guy, so I completely understand the desire to clean up internals.

Unfortunately, as a user, the bottom line is still that if I update I will receive very little benefit and lose a lot of very useful functionality. It's not just the odd extension for me, it's things I use every day that are the most important reason I've stuck with Firefox.

I accept that I'm probably in a minority and that Firefox is going to go with what makes Mozilla money and pays the bills, which in turn probably means what attracts larger user demographics at the expense of the rest of us.

Mozilla in turn will have to accept, as I'm sure it does, that it's going to turn off power users and that it's going to prompt legitimate questions over why anyone would go with Firefox, even with these developments. The obvious alternative for most people, Chrome, already had the performance and architectural advantages, but previously lost out on flexibility and privacy concerns, and unfortunately Mozilla just surrendered a significant part of those advantages.

Re:Firefox 57.0 Released by Yoric on Tuesday November 14, 2017 @12:55PM (#15697430)
I can understand your point of view. I believe that better security, performance and privacy is worth the partial (and hopefully mostly momentary) loss of customization, but YMMV.
Re:Firefox 57.0 Released by Silhouette on Tuesday November 14, 2017 @01:08PM (#15697545)
I hope time will prove you right.

FWIW, Firefox 57 is currently looking like a net loss in terms of security and privacy. A significant number of the extensions people have previously used for blocking or restricting potentially intrusive or dangerous behaviours seem to have been lost, in some cases without equivalent WebExtension alternatives being available.

If you're arguing that 57 is now more secure and better for privacy, perhaps you know something that people like me don't, and if so, maybe it's worth highlighting whatever built-in functionality can now replace those protections more in the documentation/marketing?

Re:Firefox 57.0 Released by Yoric on Tuesday November 14, 2017 @01:46PM (#15697928)
> FWIW, Firefox 57 is currently looking like a net loss in terms of security and privacy. A significant number of the extensions people have previously used for blocking or restricting potentially intrusive or dangerous behaviours seem to have been lost, in some cases without equivalent WebExtension alternatives being available.

First, I'd like to put things in context. When you write "Firefox 57 is currently looking like a net loss in terms of security and privacy", I suppose that this might (arguably) be true for you and a few other power users, but for the ~100% of users who do not use these power add-ons, their life will only be improved by the change.

Plus, I actually think that all the add-ons in the domain either have been ported or have an equivalent that has been ported. Certainly all the ones I use have been. Am I missing something that people actually use for their protection?

> If you're arguing that 57 is now more secure and better for privacy, perhaps you know something that people like me don't, and if so, maybe it's worth highlighting whatever built-in functionality can now replace those protections more in the documentation/marketing?

There is only so much message that marketing can propagate in a single campaign. I expect that we'll have another marketing campaign in a few months detailing what we've been doing for security and privacy. Especially since we'll have exciting stuff to showcase :)

Let me give you a few keywords of stuff we've been doing to improve security: a gazillion fixes, better static analysis, replacing some critical components with Rust, introducing the first formally proved implementation of cryptography components in a browser, sandbox improvements, etc.

On privacy, I'll admit haven't really paid attention, but the new add-ons you install don't have access to your private data without your consent, I remember that we've been working working with Tor Browser to reduce fingerprinting, etc.

Re:Firefox 57.0 Released by Silhouette on Tuesday November 14, 2017 @04:27PM (#15699291)
I find it interesting that your instinctive view of privacy seems to be about restricting add-ons. That's certainly a useful thing to do, as we can see from some of the recent sell-outs that have meant once-trusted extensions silently became privacy loopholes. Even so, personally I'm more worried about the privacy implications of tracking and other covert behaviours by web sites/apps, and that's where the extensions you could run with Firefox really came into their own.

Someone has helpfully made a spreadsheet showing many old extensions and possible 57-compatible replacements, with notes on where things are a full replacement, there is limited functionality, there are known privacy issues, etc. I can't immediately find it again, so apologies for the lack of link, but have been references posted in some of the major online forums today, so perhaps you'll come across it. One of the things that was striking was that a lot of the extensions relating to blocking content or selectively toggling behaviours like running JS seem to have broken and not to have full replacements. I know that NoScript was a big one (though I've seen reports this evening that a 57-friendly version has just been released in that particular case). Quite a few ad-blockers and similar tools also seemed to have been affected, along with extensions like Greasemonkey that allow running customised JS and some analogous stylesheet customisers, and a few aimed at controlling the use of cookies and other data storage mechanisms.

For completeness, let me also say that the internal security improvements are all welcome, as is the continued separation of search from address bar and general lack of trying to spy on everything happening in the browser that seems to be ever-increasing in certain other quarters.

Re:Firefox 57.0 Released by Yoric on Wednesday November 15, 2017 @06:05AM (#15702930)
> Even so, personally I'm more worried about the privacy implications of tracking and other covert behaviours by web sites/apps, and that's where the extensions you could run with Firefox really came into their own.

This definitely makes sense. I know that we have new APIs that make some of it much easier to implement, but I imagine that they still have some limitations (I haven't checked). My hope is that APIs will be progressively extended to remove these limitations.

Regardless, I believe that we're better off with a sane API that add-on developers can trust, that we're going to maintain and extend, rather than with all-powerful stuff that breaks randomly :)

Re:Firefox 57.0 Released by hendersoon on Tuesday November 14, 2017 @07:55PM (#15700688)
100%? Your arrogance is frankly infuriating.

Firegestures had 270k users, according to AMO. A quarter of a MILLION people.

You broke mouse gestures entirely on MacOS and Linux, and didn't allow them to work well on Windows (DOM needs to load before gestures can be used because you force script injection, don't work on internal pages, don't work on top of browser chrome, etc).

Re:Firefox 57.0 Released by mook on Wednesday November 15, 2017 @02:16AM (#15702018)
Playing the devil's advocate: the top two most popular extensions (as listed on [1]) are Adblock Plus at ~14 million, and uBlock Origin at ~4.2 million users. That means Firegestures has about 2% of the top extension, and about 1.5% if you combine the two (assuming not many people use both ad blockers at the same time, especially since they use the same lists). That's just the people with those extensions. And it appears that that's active daily users (as opposed to people have downloaded it at some point in a Firefox that is no longer being used).

I do agree that Mozilla has handled the transition terribly; they should have made the API available first before removing everything. That way they would at least have the excuse of it being the add-on authors not cooperating. The way they've done it, before actually making the things possible, just makes it look like they're arrogant.

[1]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?sort=users&...

Re:Firefox 57.0 Released by Yoric on Wednesday November 15, 2017 @02:26AM (#15702056)
Please read the thread before you chime in. We were talking about security add-ons. Mouse gestures are not security.
Re:Firefox 57.0 Released by kelnos on Tuesday November 14, 2017 @06:36PM (#15700303)
> ... but if it wants to keep users and remain significant, breaking arguably its main advantage might not be the best plan.

I fully expect that this move will certainly lose Mozilla a few Firefox users, but on balance it'll be a net win: they were already losing users to performance problems and lack of modern security features. The users the lose due to lost extensions will be tiny compared to the users they won't lose in the future now that Firefox actually feels like a modern browser performance- and security-wise.

I expect Mozilla knows a ton more about their users than we do and any guesses about user retention due to this move are pure speculation (including what I wrote above). I trust them to do the right thing here, a trust they've earned over the past (nearly) two decades that I do not place in, say, Google & Chrome.

Re:Firefox 57.0 Released by Santosh83 on Tuesday November 14, 2017 @10:58PM (#15701347)
> I fully expect that this move will certainly lose Mozilla a few Firefox users, but on balance it'll be a net win

I certainly hope so, for the sake of an open web. Hope they can take on the universal pushing and bundling that Google does with Chrome. Anecdotally I can say that none of my acquaintances are even aware of Firefox because Chrome can with their OS and they never saw a need to look beyond it. I hope Mozilla has a clear strategy to advocate and market Firefox, since technical merit alone is not going to out-compete Chrome's entrenched position.

Re:Firefox 57.0 Released by Paianni on Tuesday November 14, 2017 @10:35AM (#15695879)
Use 52ESR.
Re:Firefox 57.0 Released by Tomte on Tuesday November 14, 2017 @10:38AM (#15695907)
That's not true. Your browser does exactly the same things that it did yesterday.

If you chose to update to the new version where you knew exactly what extensions would be running and which wouldn't... well, your fault.

Re:Firefox 57.0 Released by Silhouette on Tuesday November 14, 2017 @10:55AM (#15696086)
I didn't choose to update yet, for exactly that reason.

The problem remains that now I have to choose between:

56 (without security updates)

57 (without many useful extensions)

52ESR (without functionality and performance updates, and only until mid-2018 anyway)

Clearly none of these is as good as what I have had until this point.

Re:Firefox 57.0 Released by swinglock on Tuesday November 14, 2017 @07:53PM (#15700666)
You could try Pale Moon.
Re:Firefox 57.0 Released by throwaway2048 on Tuesday November 14, 2017 @03:20PM (#15698740)
firefox autoupdates without prompting
Re:Firefox 57.0 Released by venatiodecorus on Tuesday November 14, 2017 @03:54PM (#15699001)
i suppose that depends on your OS/update mechanism. mine doesn't.

EDIT: although i have it set to auto-update in the settings, maybe i just don't realize this because i never close/restart it heh :D