> This kills innovation in the browser extension space in its tracks,
I was under the impression that innovation in the browser extension space had long been killed since the transition of extension APIs to WebExtensions in the major browsers.
I was under the impression that innovation in the browser extension space had long been killed since the transition of extension APIs to WebExtensions in the major browsers.
When the existing APIs run out of steam, you can work with Mozilla developers to design and implement new APIs and submit them to Mozilla as a contribution to Firefox. No guarantee they'll be accepted --- performance, security, maintainability must be maintained --- but people have done this successfully to enable their extensions (e.g. NoScript).
Mozilla needed to clear out the unmaintainable mess of letting any extension poke the browser's internals in any way. They've done that, without "killing innovation".
Yes, "killing" is too strong, but they've certainly reduced it. The loss of functionality in the new extension system is a big problem for me, and prevents me from using the new Firefox in any serious way.
And yes, I know that I'm in the minority here and my opinion means nothing. Mozilla has shifted what market it's trying to address, and I am not in the target demographic. I recognize that's a personal issue and it's not really a criticism of the new Firefox.
This is considerably more cumbersome than previously, but still far better than having to fork the whole browser. (On the topic of forks, if running a bleeding edge browser — nightly — is not for you, you can use Waterfox, which is approximately Firefox ESR + the ability to run full-powered extensions.)
But if you're going to use Waterfox (as I do), and you want to use the most recent version, be sure to check if the extensions you want to use will work. 68 introduced changes that do prevent some older extensions from working.