So which part of replacing the Firefox brand with Iceweasel is coherent branding?
(All packages get this treatment, no upstream software release vendor gets special privileges.)
For many average users, the term "Firefox" reminds them of the slow browser they used to use before switching to Chrome.
For more advanced users, the term "Firefox" reminds them of the browser that includes ads (even if these are being removed), has unnecessary functionality built in (Pocket, Hello), and has undergone questionable UI changes (Australis).
For web developers, the term "Firefox" reminds them of the extra effort they still need to expend to test their creations in a browser that fewer and fewer people are using.
For others, the term "Firefox" will now remind them of this failed mobile OS project.
"Firefox" as a brand had a great reputation 5 years ago. But that reputation has eroded away since then.
Most "normal" users who used Firefox before Chrome came around are savvy enough to understand that software improves and evolves. There's no doubt that Chrome gave Firefox a much-needed shot in the arm.
Many developers/advanced users, including myself, see Firefox as a bastion of freedom in what is otherwise a land grab by major OS vendors, an attempt to further increase their lock-in. Users remember Firefox as the browser that was so flexible, Firebug was possible, which sent every browser vendor into a tizzy to try to clone the featureset natively. Users remember Firefox as the browser that gives them control over their experience, unlike Chrome which babysits and won't let you interfere with Google's need to harvest data.
The first 2 years that Chrome was out, it trounced Firefox all around. I switched back to Fx around that time. These days, Firefox's JavaScript performance is comparable if not better than Chrome's [0] and its extension ecosystem and extreme configurability make it a much better option than Chrome for me. The only reason I use Chrome now is to take advantage of the proprietary extensions that allow me to use Netflix or Flash on Linux.
Mozilla has always and will always be a tinkerer's vendor. These people are not going to be offended when reasonable experiments are conducted, nor when reasonable experiments fail, as Firefox OS did.
The biggest grudge I hold against Mozilla is really more about the community than the company itself, and that's the Brendan Eich debacle.
Power users, or users? Among the crowd here, sure. But in the rest of the world?
unlike Chrome which babysits and won't let you interfere with Google's need to harvest data.
Firefox has been getting more and more nannyish and chromelike with every release.
* There's the "let's throw out semantic versioning since Chrome already did it"
* There's the UI rework which sacrificed information density and usability for what I evaluate as a weak attempt to look more like Chrome.
* There's the "thou shalt not install plugins from places other than we say is okay" rule that was recently implemented - which Chrome did first.
* There's the upcoming "all your plugins are going to break, many permanently" when XUL gets thrown out and the new hotness won't have feature parity at release (in other words, Firefox plugins will be as limited as Chrome plugins)
Firefox never followed semantic versioning. Versions 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, 3.6, and 4.0 all had equally major changes to them. It's worse if you look at the internal version numbers: 1.8, 1.9, 1.9.1, 1.9.2, 4.0. The change to the rapid-release model was driven more by the pain of the protracted Firefox 4 release than by trying to ape Chrome.
> There's the UI rework which sacrificed information density and usability for what I evaluate as a weak attempt to look more like Chrome.
Actually, Firefox started developing the design before Chrome did. They just took far, far, far longer.
You may be mixing Australis up with the theme work done for Firefox 4.0 (which moved tabs to the top by default and added the orange Firefox menu button). The early work on that would've been contemporaneous with the earliest public versions of Chrome (2/3/4)-- the design that would become Firefox 4 started being shown off in public around the fall of 2009.
As a long time firefox user this is the one that hurts the most. I honestly hope someone forks firefox to preserve this functionality. I know it is a losing proposition in the long run, but right now my only option is to not upgrade firefox (which isn't an option for very long). I post this here to vent and with the hopes that there already exists a project to preserve XUL functionality and I am simply unaware.
P.S. I use tab groups, a native feature, and have been dreading this ominous warning that appears whenever I open them: "Heads up! Tab Groups will be removed from Firefox soon." I can't even disable the warning.
I've been a happy user of it more many years.
Once you use it, you'll wish you'd found it sooner ;)
Can you name three good plugins? Removing an insecure legacy tech is not a big problem when the extension API is right there.
Three good plugins? Have nine. Here's my plugin load right now:
* uBlock
* Privacy Badger
* HTTPS Everywhere
* Calomel SSL Validation
* FoxReplace
* Vimperator (which used to be Pentadactyl before Mozilla decided that I can't use it anymore[1])
* Noscript
* DevEdition theme enabler
* 1Password
if I wanted to use Chrome and have its limitations, I'd fucking use Chrome.
And I have zero faith that they will fix those limitations by launch time either. seeing as how their attitude towards adding features nobody wants (Pocket, Hello, Australis) or removing features people actually want (installing whatever plugins I damn well please without a nann^H^H^H^H approval process, accessing sites with broken certs) up until now has been to ignore all feedback and just do it anyways.
[1]: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZVvYtKUsAAtMl7.png:large
[2]: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/08/21/the-future-of-dev...
XUL may well be insecure legacy tech that performs a useful task for you, and that's why care is being taken to make sure the important extensions continue to work in the new Web Extensions world.
This is just not true. Not all functionality enabled by XUL can be executed with Web Extensions. Perhaps this will be so in the future.
> ...and that's why care is being taken to make sure the important extensions continue to work...
Who decides what extensions are "important" and therefore worthy of working in this new "web extensions world"? I guess my point is that if there were true parity between web extensions and XUL there would be no need for concern. However, that is not the case and we know many extensions cannot be recreated. Therein lies the problem. Many users will be negatively affected by this change and I am still trying to understand the benefit. For example, why are Web Extensions mutually exclusive to XUL extensions? I get that supporting both is inelegant, but it at least reflects the current reality of Firefox usage.
We should be careful to separate XUL-the-layout-system from XPCOM (really, Firefox's XPCOM components). The layout features of HTML and standard CSS have entirely superseded the layout features of XUL in the ways that matter. (There are some exceptions—the tree view control is often cited—but there are lots of HTML substitutes for these things, and XUL has so many problems that on balance the downsides outweigh the upsides at this point.)
What you're actually referring to is the XPCOM components provided by Firefox. It is true that Web Extensions, as of this moment, do not replicate all of that functionality. However, as I said before, that isn't a valid argument that XUL should be kept around forever any more than the fact that 16-bit DOS apps have direct control over the hardware is a valid argument that DOS support should be kept around forever.
> For example, why are Web Extensions mutually exclusive to XUL extensions?
Well, they aren't. But the reason for Web Extensions is to deprecate XUL extensions, and the reason for deprecating XUL extensions is that XUL is legacy, insecure tech.
> that isn't a valid argument that XUL should be kept around forever any more than the fact that 16-bit DOS apps have direct control over the hardware is a valid argument that DOS support should be kept around forever
I don't think I argued that it should be kept around forever. The point I was refuting was that Web Extensions are ready to replace existing firefox extensions. At some point it will be true that Web Extensions are as capable as existing firefox extensions. At that point deprecating existing extensions make sense (or slightly sooner). Lots of people rely on existing extensions. Taking those extensions away without a real alternative solution is just rude to end users. This move may be past due from a security standpoint, but it is extremely premature from a user experience perspective.
As far as I'm concerned, every single Firefox extension I currently use is important, regardless of what Mozilla thinks of their importance.
I also have several extensions that I wrote myself for my own personal use. I'm not looking forward to having to modify them, assuming they'll even work with the new model.
This is a good example of the Firefox brand being tarnished.
The name "Firefox" used to make me think of empowerment, and being able to get so much more out of the web browser and the web experience.
Now when I think of "Firefox" it makes me think of uncertainty, of broken extensions, of my time being wasted updating my own extensions, and of enduring all of this for little to no benefit to me.
Even if you don't want those architectural improvements, a lot of people do, and I find it hard to blame Firefox for doing what's best for the needs of the majority of its users.
And I really don't care if Firefox is or isn't using XUL. As a user, that's quite irrelevant to me.
However, as a user of Firefox, I am weary about being put in a position where the extensions I depend on no longer work, and either I don't have any recourse (if what the extensions do is no longer permitted or possible) or the recourse involves a large expenditure of effort on my part (rewriting my own private extensions).
The friction of using Firefox has been steadily increasing over time for me.
At this point, it's only the Firefox-specific extensions I use that keep me from switching to an alternative browser.
I know I'm not alone.
Many in the Firefox community already went through the broken extension experience back around Firefox 5 and we are not eager to go through that again.
If Firefox users do experience problems with these upcoming extension changes, then I fear it will be the last straw for many of us.
And if there's one thing that Firefox and Mozilla really can't afford right now it's to lose more users. There are very few of us, relatively speaking, as it is.
The XUL removal is annoying but in theory the new system should be able to support almost everything the old system did. It's not going to be like chrome where you can't even change the tabs.
The extension signing is about the only thing nanny-ish, and they're trying not to restrict people. For the most part it's an automatic scan, they won't block you based on what your extension does, and you can personally use a build that doesn't care about signing. It's not perfect, sometimes there are delays, but they're trying. They don't want to be a massive malware vector.
I can not understand refusing to let people install their own plugins unless they use some other random build.
What's the actual problem being solved here? If you've already got malware on your machine with the ability to install plugins in the browser, don't you have bigger problems than an unwanted toolbar popping up?
Furthermore, how do you think people are going to react to plugins they use being suddenly switched off, with no recourse, other than downloading, installing, and configuring a new browser? (Which, by the way, misses that critical bit of security, leading back to the "why?" question)
I can tell you how I felt when Pentadactyl stopped working. It's enraging. https://twitter.com/TKWare/status/690580588416339968
When or if Mozilla can start merging the Servo engine or Electrolysis multi-process support into Firefox might be a good time. (I like the name Servo for the whole browser. :-) Like IE, Firefox has had a hard time shaking its old reputation (e.g., memory leaks and add-on breakage). A new brand says "this is something new; give us a try again."