71 points

::Laughs in Firefox::

permalink
report
reply
10 points

Who knows… Firefox might just follow suit. If devs have to write their extensions one for Chrome and once for Firefox, the Firefox one will probably be the first to die.

Anti Commercial-AI license

permalink
report
parent
reply

That’s not how it works. Firefox has full support for Manifest v3 extensions, but it does also support MV2 at the same time, and aims to keep MV2 support alive in the future.

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points
*

From the article:

Firefox plans to support Manifest V3 because Chrome is the world’s most popular browser, and it wants extensions to be cross-browser compatible, but it has no plans to turn off support for Manifest V2.

I doubt they’ll ever choose to shut down V2, but Google is already forcing their hand a little by making them require supporting V3 to stay relevant

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

Not if more people use FireFox…

Firefox also supports mobile extensions, unlike Chrome.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Unfortunately, as much as I like and use firefox on both pc and mobile, chrome and chromium based browsers dominate the market. It doesn’t help that they come pre-installed in both cases.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Then there will be thousands, millions of people continuing development of FF extensions.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Isn’t that already how it works? Are there extensions trust work unchanged on both browsers? At the very least they’d have to maintain them on both addon stores.

permalink
report
parent
reply

There’s a common specification called WebExtension, which is used by all modern browsers. Firefox had their own API (XUL/XPCOM) before that, but they deprecated it in 2017. Safari also used to have its own system for extensions, but it’s been deprecated since 2019. The Manifest API is a subset of WebExtension, which defines an extension.

permalink
report
parent
reply
52 points
*

Firefox plans to support Manifest V3 because Chrome is the world’s most popular browser, and it wants extensions to be cross-browser compatible, but it has no plans to turn off support for Manifest V2.

If Google decided to break V2 compatibility with V3, Mozilla should announce V4 (or V3 extended), which is V3 but with the missing stuff readded.

That’d be a good practical and great product/tech marketing move. Just like most people won’t see how V3 is worse than V2, V4 will indicate it’s the evolved and improved V3.

It would also simplify supporting V3 and V4 at the same time for extension authors. A great practical gain for extension authors, not having to read and understand two manifest schemes and APIs.

permalink
report
reply
12 points

Mozilla’s V3 implementation already extends out removing artificial limitations from it. Mozilla’s doing a reverse E3 and I’m all here for it.

Now if only the nincompoop IT dept on my company allowed me to run Firefox…

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

When my company enabled Microsoft InTune this year, so that our administration could ensure software is updated on our PCs, it repeatedly downgraded my Firefox back to before a security update, on every login. lol

permalink
report
parent
reply
42 points

We went through all this shit with Microsoft and Internet Explorer. It’s time to break up Google’s monopoly.

permalink
report
reply
18 points

I’ll develop my own browser before using an ad-infested internet. Luckily I don’t have to do that, because there are alternatives and also because it would be a damn time consuming project to put it mildly 😅

permalink
report
reply

I went back to FireFox way back when the announcement of V3 killing adblockers in chromium first was made. I could go without everything else a browser offers, as long as it has ad blocking.

I legit want AR glasses for the same thing; to block ads IRL.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

Literally just gave up brave for Firefox two weeks ago just for that reason even though brave isn’t supposedly gonna be affected. I have no doubt Google might deliberately just break chromium one day once and for all.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I actually really like the AR glasses idea. That said, They need to be open source and de-spookified, and there needs to be some kind of regulation that they can’t store or transmit images without first displaying a recording indicator.

It’s probably not going to happen like that, though, so I’m not mad existing ones have such bad battery lives.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@beehaw.org

Create post

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community’s icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

Community stats

  • 3K

    Monthly active users

  • 2.8K

    Posts

  • 55K

    Comments