• slazer2au@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    174
    ·
    2 months ago

    Mozilla is the maker of the famous Firefox browser which has been using its own web engine called “Gecko” since forever, and hence, is not affected at all by these moves from Google.

    You answered your own question. It doesn’t effect FF.

    But, I do agree they should use the downgrade in functionality of V3 as a point for advertising FF.

    • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      65
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      What good would advertising “Still supporting Manifest V2” do for your average user? They also wouldn’t want to openly advertise that “Your ad block still works with us”.

        • TriflingToad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          that’s also probably a factor in why they don’t say anything, big moneypants might say something

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            No, big moneypants is getting sued for monopoly practices, which means Mozilla’s search revenue may dry up. I’m guessing they don’t want to ruin their chances with a competitor should they need to find another search partner.

            • TriflingToad@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              sure, that’s also probably a factor in why they don’t say anything, new big moneypants might say something

    • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Didn’t they remove XUL extensions to make their extension interface compatible with inferior chrome web extensions?

      • Fisch@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I just did a quick online search and it seems like the reason for removing that was that it was way too much work to maintain and stopped them from implementing performance improvements for Firefox. Apparently it was also a lot of work for extension developers, since they had to update their extensions constantly.

        That’s just what I read tho, I wasn’t there when XUL extensions where still a thing.

      • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yes, after twenty years of refusing to stabilize any part of that interface.

        Chrome is absolutely the villain in this context. But Mozilla has been fucking itself over since the single-digit version numbers.

      • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        i wouldn’t say inferior… mozilla extensions were more performant and flexible, web extensions (ie the initial chrome format - now a standard that most browsers use) are easier to develop, and thus there were a lot more of them