Firefox

17574 readers

78 users here now

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

k_o_t@lemmy.ml

171

Mozilla Has Been Suspiciously Silent About Google And Manifest V3 (fosspost.org)

submitted 3 weeks ago by cerement@slrpnk.net to c/firefox@lemmy.ml

58 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 174 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

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 63 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

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".

[–] tb_@lemmy.world 17 points 3 weeks ago

Most sane take in this whole thread.

Some of y'all get a little conspiratorial.

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

That is literally the premise of the article

[–] eruchitanda@lemmy.world 44 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Don't they get like 90% of their money from Google?

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 28 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes.

[–] TriflingToad@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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 1 points 2 weeks ago

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

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 9 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

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

[–] Fisch@discuss.tchncs.de 16 points 3 weeks 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 3 points 3 weeks 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.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 1 points 2 weeks 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