back to article Old Firefox add-ons get 'dead man walking' call

The end of legacy Firefox plugins is drawing closer, with Mozilla's Jorge Villalobos saying they'll be disabled in an upcoming nightly build of the browser's 57th edition. While he didn't specify just how soon the dread date will arrive, Villalobos writes: “There should be no expectation of legacy add-on support on this or …

Page:

  1. Joe Werner Silver badge

    The other way round#

    “That can make it difficult for users of older versions of Firefox to find a compatible version."

    That should rather be:

    "That will make it difficult for users of newer Firefox versions to have a usable browser without the plugins they rely on."

    Thanks oh so bloody much.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The other way round#

      I'm quite happy with v40.0.3.

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Devil

        Re: The other way round#

        "I'm quite happy with v40.0.3."

        ACK, I installed 53 from ports in FreeBSD recently, and I really do NOT believe that "bleeding edge" wiill EVAR be tracked for operating systems _LIKE_ FreeBSD. Or Debian, for that matter.

        "bleeding edge" is HIGHLY overrated. After all, they may SURPRISE us (unpleasantly) by looking/actnig even MORE like Chrome. 'Australis' anyone? (yeah, YUCHHH)

        MOZILLA: don't you *DARE* break the add-ons that give me a CLASSIC interface!!!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: The other way round#

          "MOZILLA: don't you *DARE* break the add-ons that give me a CLASSIC interface!!!"

          My impression was that these are exactly the type of plugins being targetted.

          1. bombastic bob Silver badge
            Pirate

            Re: The other way round#

            "My impression was that these are exactly the type of plugins being targetted."

            maybe we should go to their github site and add some issues in places where you can.

            This has no publically editable issues:

            https://github.com/mozilla/gecko-dev

            but it does have instructions for contributing. There other repos that I found, one dealing with firefox themes, that may be good places to ask niicely (with firmness) for the features we might lose if we can't continue using things LIKE "Classic UI Restorer" etc.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The other way round#

      I think this highlights a major problem that, sadly, occurs all too often with developer-driven software; it ends up being developed to satisfy the wishes and whims of the developers instead of the users.

      Without users, of course, any software, no matter how 'good' it may be, is worthless.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

    3. Oh Homer
      Alien

      Constantly breaking the API

      I get why the actual software itself is constantly updated, but is there some particular reason why they feel the need to keep faffing around with the API?

      Essentially this means that they're not really releasing a new version of the browser each release, they're actually releasing an entirely different and incompatible browser.

      Why?

      1. Orv Silver badge

        Re: Constantly breaking the API

        is there some particular reason why they feel the need to keep faffing around with the API?

        Supposedly the old API was incompatible with the sandboxing measures they're implementing to improve security. That may be true if it was allowed to muck around unhindered in all the browser internals.

    4. hellwig

      Re: The other way round#

      "That will make it difficult for users of newer Firefox versions to have a usable browser without the plugins they rely on."

      Agreed. All I know is, every time Firefox updates, more of my plugins get turned off as being incompatible. How are people still running these ancient add-ons in the first place?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Any way to tell?

    Sure would be nice if the "about:addons" screen would flag ones that are going to be axed so we can look for alternatives. This isn't being handled very well if the user has no warning until the new version just disables them.

    1. richardcox13

      Re: Any way to tell?

      On one system that is running FireFox v55 there is a whole set of "Legacy" labels on extensions.

      All of them: are there any Web Extensions for FF out there at all?

    2. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: Any way to tell?

      Use the Add-on Compatibility Reporter add-on to check add-ons compatibility status.

      Use about:config > plugin.load_flash_only = false to turn all NPAPI plugins back on.

      When you update to Firefox 56, switch to manual updates only. When Firefox 57 comes out, install Firefox ESR.

      Finally, when Firefox ESR is obliged to throw out old-style add-ons...

      - If you can live with your reduced selection of add-ons, continue with Firefox ESR or go back to Firefox.

      - If not, look for another browser (completely different add-ons) or continue surfing unprotected against the newest CVEs.

      Oddly enough Flash support in Firefox will continue until 2019, which is fucked up.

      1. Charles 9

        Re: Any way to tell?

        Not really because there are still too many critical things (like expensive enterprise stuff) that can ONLY be controlled by Flash.

        1. Dan 55 Silver badge

          Re: Any way to tell?

          If they've made that choice it's probably in spite of enterprise, not because of it. If Mozilla were bothered about enterprise they'd have left a lot of things alone and made other changes instead (separate about:config pref to enable Java plugin, allow older/weaker certificates on the LAN, official MSI support...).

      2. roselan

        Re: Any way to tell?

        fun fact, the compatibility reporter add-on is not compatible with 57.

      3. Richard 12 Silver badge

        Switch to ESR about a month ago

        If you switch to ESR 52 after 54, then your profile is incompatible and won't work.

        It should theoretically be possible to export your profile then import it, but...

        Essentially it seems that Mozilla have decided that it's too much hassle to continue existence and would like to quietly die.

        1. Dan 55 Silver badge
          Alert

          Re: Switch to ESR about a month ago

          Firefox 55 is being pushed out now so if you're reading this, disable updates and install Firefox ESR.

          Here's a roadmap of the crash to come: Legacy add-ons like CTR will stop working when Mozillas XUL/XPCOM support ends with Firefox 57 release #299. The mock-ups of future versions will probably convince you to change.

          1. Lee D Silver badge

            Re: Switch to ESR about a month ago

            Personally, I want to see ESR die.

            Because then I'd like my workplace's bank to explain how handling millions of pounds can only be done via IE, which is an unsupported browser by its own manufacturer.

            Seriously, as soon as smartcards or "Gemalto" is involved, it's Firefox ESR or IE only.

            Edge, Chrome, Safari or anything else just don't work or aren't supported.

            They've been dragging their feet for years, and I want it to catch up with them but I know what they'll do. They'll insist you have to use IE. And then I want to file a complaint with them about how compatible that is with PCI DSS and other requirements.

            Or they could just, you know, actually get out of the 90's with respect to their online banking signatory process and/or supply an application (you just know it would be 32-bit Windows only), or an independent 2FA device that doesn't need browser support at all in order to work.

            P.S. Yes. Major UK high-street bank.

      4. Updraft102

        Re: Any way to tell?

        I will be sticking with Waterfox and/or Pale Moon. The dev of Waterfox has only committed to supporting the older addons "as long as possible," so it suggests that eventually it will be Pale Moon or nothing.

        Pale Moon is better than FF in some ways; for example, it retains the classic, non-Australis UI. On the other hand, it has no E10s support, and it probably never will. The lack of smoothness and stuttering that causes will remain a part of PM as they have been part of FF for ages. It's still far better than accepting a neutered FF that looks like Chrome and won't accept addons to change it by a mile, but as long as I can have e10s AND my addons, that is the better solution right now, as I see it.

        For the immediate future, Waterfox will be closer to what I am used to, but the question is for how long. "As long as possible" is vague and ambiguous; it could be "possible" by his estimation for a decade, or maybe only for six months. It also suggests a question of where these addons will be hosted after Mozilla's suicide bid; certainly, they're not going to keep hosting addons that no longer work with their "it's basically a skin for Chrome" version of Firefox.

        I know one thing, though: Given a choice of using a FF derivative that cuts off most of my addons or an out of date, old version of FF/WF that still allows the addons (even if the addons themselves get dropped by their devs because of Mozilla's actions), I would take the latter. FF 57, like Windows 10, does not and will not exist, as far as I am concerned. It's not an option; the options consist of competing products or using older versions regardless of the security implications. It's not a place I wanted to be, but the choice was made for me.

        You know, this always happens with software. I've come to realize that all software devs eventually will move to sabotage their own product in a fit of development suicide. Microsoft is doing that with Windows now just as much as Mozilla is doing it with Firefox. It already happened to Opera, and the wayside is littered with corpses of other once-relevant products that are no more.

    3. Hans 1

      Re: Any way to tell?

      Last Firefox update removed my adblock, b@st@rds! I got it installed again, but all my settings were gone ... so, back at square one, whitelist this and that ...

      I want ads on my favorite sites, when they are from a brand I do not like, I click the ads in support of my favorite sites ;-). It is a sort of "crowd-funding" ;-)

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Boy they are making my upgrades pretty difficult. First they made Windows 7 my last Windows version, then they made Intel 6th Generation the last generation if I was to stick with Windows 7. Now they're making Firefox 56 my last Firefox version. My Photoshop upgrades already stopped on CS6...

    What is it with these companies and their hate for choice?

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge
      Stop

      You might like to come out from under your rock a bit more often. While the Firefox developers have been guilty of chasing unicorns from time to time, the discussion about plugin architecture wasn't one of the rainbows. It's hardly surprising that an architecture designed rather hastily in the 1990s should later to be shown to be insecure. Still it's a testament to developers of the time that it "worked" as a well as it did for as long as it did. But the combination of NPAPI and the power given to the runtimes (essentially black boxes) through it, that made it such a powerful attack vector.

      Google did a lot of research on NPAPI before proposing a replacement which was generally welcomed by other developers. And the whole browser developer community has put a lot of effort into developing standards so that fewer plugins are required for things like video conferencing.

      1. Dan 55 Silver badge

        Are you under the impression that NPAPI on Firefox doesn't have a sandbox?

        Google proposed something different to NPAPI because NPAPI was NIH.

        1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

          Are you under the impression that NPAPI on Firefox doesn't have a sandbox?

          No, but because it's in the same process, if it crashes it can bring the browser down with it. Also, as any fule noes: sandboxes are not infallible.

          Anyway, this really is old news. Mozilla announced years ago it was going to make the switch and also explained why. Wish they'd done more with some of the stupid UI changes they made and it's nice to see that they're finally getting round to supporting WebP.

        2. Jonathan 27

          Nah, every browser maker is dropping NPAPI because it's an in-process binary specification and they want to go with a HTML-Javascript implementation that's easier to sandbox and integrate with their browsers. Everything being Javascript (or HTML5 as hipsters like to call the new ECMAScript versions) is much simpler for browser makers and web developers. This is helpful, particularly for security. NPAPI leaves security in the hands of 3rd party plugin developers and there have been many instances of those developers dropping the ball, particularly Adobe with Flash and Reader plugins.

          1. Orv Silver badge

            Even when they're not insecure, the binary interface leads to nasty glitches. I can't count how many times I've found my computer running hot, and discovered one core is maxed out on a Flash process for a window I closed five minutes ago.

      2. Richard 12 Silver badge

        The plugin API change isn't the problem

        The problem is that the new WebExtensions API intentionally lacks most of the features required for tha majority of popular Firefox plugins to work.

        Mozilla were asked to add these missing APIs before they made the switch, but instead of doing that they said "No, we have no intention of ever implementing these things".

        It is a shame, but it seems very likely that this hubris is about to kill Mozilla.

  4. Mage Silver badge
    Flame

    Bonkers

    This will kill Classic Theme Restorer and who knows what else.

    Of course I shouldn't need CTR.

    I installed Firefox 52 ESR while I figure out what the replacement for firefox should be. I don't use Flash. There is some issue with settings trying to go from 55 or 56 to 52.

    1. Tac Eht Xilef

      Re: Bonkers

      "I installed Firefox 52 ESR while I figure out what the replacement for firefox should be."

      Me too; and that was only recently, after hanging back on 40-something became untenable (layout/functionality breakage became too much on multiple sites I frequent).

      On OSX I've been using Safari more and more since uBlock Origin started supporting it. I'm told Palemoon now builds cleanly on OSX from source, but I'm not going to pissfart around setting up a build environment & waiting hours for compilation just to find out if that's true or not...

      1. src
        Pint

        Re: Bonkers

        You don't have to wait. Start the build then go to the pub.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Bonkers

      Luddite stick-in-the-muds hung up on ten year old UI changes are a cancer that Mozilla needs to cut out of its user base, and if these forthcoming changes achieve that, then Mozilla will have done themselves a solid, even if it leaves that already-decimated group even smaller. Any chance they have of finding a new direction and re-establishing some relevance depends on moving forward, not backwards. I'm not saying the chances of them successfully re-establishing Firefox as a major player are high, but they're not zero either.

      1. Dan 55 Silver badge

        Re: Bonkers

        XUL is fully themable. Mozilla didn't need to drop the old theme to make way for the new one, they just needed to keep Classic when they introduced Australis.

      2. Down not across

        Re: Bonkers

        Luddite stick-in-the-muds hung up on ten year old UI changes are a cancer that Mozilla needs to cut out of its user base

        What is so wrong with giving users a choice? Not everyone likes same UI. If I wanted something that looked like Chrome I'd install the cancer that is Chrome. I don't.

        Don't assume everyone likes same thing as you.

        1. Orv Silver badge

          Re: Bonkers

          What is so wrong with giving users a choice?

          I think Joel's old post about options dialogues covers it pretty well:

          https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/12/choices/

          In addition, each choice is something you have to update every time APIs change, write unit tests for, and generally maintain -- energy you could be using to work on other aspects of the software, like security or performance.

          1. Richard 12 Silver badge

            Who are your users?

            If you simply copy your competitor, then you lose.

            Why should I use Firefox when I can get Chrome for the same price - since Australis, they now look almost identical and Chrome is faster.

            Firefox' USP was the customisation. I could install many extensions/addons that customised the way it looked and worked.

            Not just colours and textures, but layout and some UI behaviour.

            Yes, that all came at a cost but the cost was shared between Mozilla and the extension authors.

            Take that away, and what is left to recommend Firefox over Chrome, Edge, Opera or Safari?

            If they all look and behave the same, then I should pick the cheapest or the fastest. Firefox isn't either of those.

      3. Updraft102

        Re: Bonkers

        "Luddite stick-in-the-muds hung up on ten year old UI changes are a cancer that Mozilla needs to cut out of its user base,"

        No, they ARE its user base. Rather than cater to those who have always supported and used Firefox, they've chosen to go after the market that Chrome is specifically designed for, and that is already quite happy with Chrome.

    3. Jonathan 27

      Re: Bonkers

      If you don't like it, switch browsers. Outdated browsers aren't really an option with the pace the web moves at now, you'll quickly find the gates start coming down on you once you're a year or so behind.

    4. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Mushroom

      Re: Bonkers

      "This will kill Classic Theme Restorer"

      killing THAT may motivate me to FORK FIREFOX into something that ALWAYS looks like 'Classic Theme Restorer' is installed. You know, eliminate that CRAPPY "Australis" CRAP-CRAP-CRAP chrome-clone CRAP CRAP 2D FLATSO CRAP HAMBURGER-MENU CRAP TOUCHY-FEELY CRAP.

      (keeping it moderately safe for work, though I wanted to use STRONGER and more offensive profanities)

      [chrome is the way it is because of phones and slabs. THAT SHOULD NEVER BE ON THE DAMN DESKTOP!]

      1. Updraft102

        Re: Bonkers

        ""This will kill Classic Theme Restorer"

        killing THAT may motivate me to FORK FIREFOX into something that ALWAYS looks like 'Classic Theme Restorer' is installed. You know, eliminate that CRAPPY "Australis" CRAP-CRAP-CRAP chrome-clone CRAP CRAP 2D FLATSO CRAP HAMBURGER-MENU CRAP TOUCHY-FEELY CRAP."

        That's Pale Moon.

        Waterfox is what I am using now since it supports e10s as well as my non-optional addons like CTR, but its dev has signaled that this probably won't last forever. Pale Moon doesn't need CTR, since it never went Australis in the first place.

      2. Daniel von Asmuth
        Mushroom

        Villalobos says the changes will land in the “coming weeks”

        Unless of course Kim's nukes land before Firefox 57 does.

        1. jelabarre59

          Re: Villalobos says the changes will land in the “coming weeks”

          Unless of course Kim's nukes land before Firefox 57 does.

          Which one would cause more damage?

  5. Dave Bell

    Does any browser team manage to communicate with actual users?

    Firefox is only the most obvious. They all come up with changes that are poorly explained to the end user. I use Opera a lot. I set it to open maximised. And suddenly it didn't. There's a long-running series of bug reports, obsolete third-party fixes, and eventually I found something which worked. Except when it doesn't.

    It is as if programmers can talk to computers, but struggle to communicate with human beings. Even when there is documentation, it can be confusing and out-of-date. I have seen a technical label change, and if there is a link between old and new, it's one-way.

    It's not so terribly hard to see that Damore chap at Google as part of the same problem. Management, the control of programmers, is a part of the general human communication problem, and he didn't seem to think that mattered to a programming company.

    I know good programmers who don't have that problem, but C. P. Snow's problem of The Two Cultures hasn't gone away. Though perhaps Flanders and Swann did manage to help with the Second Law of Thermodynamics

    Are today's Two Cultures the programmers and the users?

    (Use one side of the screen only)

    1. Jonathan 27

      Re: Does any browser team manage to communicate with actual users?

      I think you've missed the point of Mozilla entirely. They're an open-source project that doesn't get any funding from users. So therefore, they don't care what users think. They do what they want, similar to many other open source projects. GIMP comes to mind particularly, because it's had a terrible user interface for years, but instead of fixing it the team just constantly talks about how they think it's better than any other option, years and years after everyone else ditched floating palettes, they're still there in GIMP.

      To distill this down, Mozilla doesn't care what you think. If you don't like it switch browsers.

      1. Tac Eht Xilef

        Re: Does any browser team manage to communicate with actual users?

        "I think you've missed the point of Mozilla entirely. They're an open-source project that doesn't get any funding from users. So therefore, they don't care what users think."

        True. I'd recommend not looking too closely at the Mozilla Foundation's financial statements - if you do, it starts to look very much like a half-billion dollar fun club supporting the pet projects of a few hundred people...

  6. Carl D

    Really?

    "they made Intel 6th Generation the last generation if I was to stick with Windows 7"

    -Anonymous Coward.

    Not for me they haven't.

    Running Windows 7 on a 7th Generation Kaby Lake i5 processor with all drivers installed (despite the Gigabyte motherboard driver disc claiming that the drivers were only for 6th but not 7th Generation).

    Been running fine for a month and a half now. And, I have all of the Windows 7 security updates installed as well despite MS's attempt to block updates for 7th Generation back in April (lucky I didn't hold my breath waiting for the lawsuits regarding that... same as lawsuits about the GWX fiasco. Doesn't look like anyone on the entire planet has the balls to take MS to court apart from the lady who got $10,000 last year).

    Oh, and it looks like Firefox 55 will be the last version I'll ever use if things like NoScript, Self Destructing Cookies and uBlock Origin won't work from version 57 onwards.

    1. Jonathan 27

      Re: Really?

      It works, they just don't want to support it. Those are different things. You can install Windows 98 on an Intel 7th generation Core processor as well. Doesn't mean it support all the new features of that processor.

  7. WonkoTheSane
    Facepalm

    I'd like to know how to revert "coloured bookmark folders" in FF 55.0.1...

    Black text on a black bar is NOT good UI design!

    1. Elmer Phud

      Re: I'd like to know how to revert "coloured bookmark folders" in FF 55.0.1...

      change it

    2. WonkoTheSane

      Re: I'd like to know how to revert "coloured bookmark folders" in FF 55.0.1...

      It turns out a simple browser restart fixed it.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like