Waterfox Quantum?

[noplanman]

Just wondering if this will be in the pipeline soon-ish 😇

[trajano]

It would be good if Waterfox can run the legacy plugins while in quantum.

[qinidema]

Just escaped to Waterfox from Firefox 57. Please, do not adopt all these awful Quantum things! :)

[noplanman]

@qinidema Mind elaborating on that? I haven't tried Quantum yet, but by the looks of it, it's finally making Firefox a usable browser again. So I'm wondering what features (or other things) that you didn't like about it.

[ghost]

I agree with the others, I rely on my FF/WF extensions/plugins. FF 57 took all those away. WF is faster, WF is the browser that FF ought to be. Please keep WF as separate as possible. I am deleting everything FF on my iMac running Mavericks. As long as WF has its current functionality, configuration, it shall be my main browser. Thanks Mr. Alex.

[magicgoose]

If Waterfox becomes distanced from Firefox too much, it will be harder and harder to merge security fixes and everything else, and it will become second Palemoon. I don't see how that could be good.
Also you guys should probably educate yourself a bit about why old extensions API is being ditched.

[ghost]

I have checked out the reasons for ditching the extensions + plugins but they make my browsing experience that much better. I installed FF Quantum, it was like re-inventing the FF experience, not for me, each to his own. I also use Chrome + occasionally Safari for mac specific functions. Mr. Alex is obviously very bright, perhaps he will come up with a fix to please the majority of WF users.

[sagudev]

I think waterfox needs to update to firefox 57 and still make options for old layout.
And keep xpcom/xul extenetions in waterfox!!!

[Jacalz]

Waterfox really seems to be a great alternative to firefox but I need the speed and look of Quantom to be able to use it 😅

[magicgoose]

@Jacalz there's btw official EME-free version of Firefox, it's buried deep in their website unfortunately
https://releases.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/57.0/mac-EME-free/
https://releases.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/57.0/win64-EME-free/
and for GNU/Linux looks like it needs to be built from sources with the needed flag, but… this is better than nothing I guess.

upd.: new version(s) are/were released since the time of writing, so be sure to apply common sense and search for the right version. Also, autoupdate in EME-free doesn't work at the time of writing: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1422097

[Jacalz]

WaterFox is much more than just a Firefox without EME but thanks 🙂

[L-a-n-g-o-l-i-e-r-s]

@magicgoose Hi, what's EME??

@Jacalz I would love to see it added as an option to enable, like via about:config or something. I don't like some of that new UI, other parts I do like. It's a shame Classic Theme Restorer probably won't be developed further for browsers still using XPCOM/XUL.

😞 🍳 🌵

[Jacalz]

EME stands for Encrypted Media Extensions and it is propriatary non open source media software that with little insight that are used for things such as watching netflix 👎 Used for DRM Digital Rights Management also to make it harder to view files that have copyright, hope i got it right. If not, Sorry 😅

[magicgoose]

Digital Rights Management

More correct is Digital Restrictions Management

[Jacalz]

Well sorry then 😅
Let’s get back to the original question:
Maby just create a branch that has the quantum version and all the legacy Firefox users can still be happy 🙂 That is if it isn’t possible to make it an option in the browser which I don’t think is possible 😅

[WagnerGMD]

I would love to see it added as an option to enable, like via about:config [...]

Me too because I wanted to restore the page "about:addons" but it can't be... At least, that's true because as today, no none options are available and that's just bad.
Unless there is another solution ? Apparently we need the addon manager code :

\omni.ja\chrome\toolkit\skin\classic\mozapps\extensions\extensions.css
## Must be extracted from one previous version (such as Firefox_v56, Firefox_v55, Firefox_v54 etc)

But then how are we supposed to proceed ? The read mode seem's to be a trouble... Because you can't replace the file extensions.css (inside the archive omni.ja).

[WPFilmmaker]

I agree with @trajano you would combine the best of the two words, quantum and XUL addons. I tried the new FF and at the least on my system it is way more reactive than the previous version. I switched to WF though because of the XUL addons :)

[Ulf3000]

sdk addons are just as important !

[bla-ke]

I think that the new version of Firefox is much more faster than older + this new interface looks really good and at least this menu bar doesn't glitch on my laptop. I think it's a good idea to ask users at the beginning which interface they would like to use and which engine, editable in about:config tab. Or, just like @Jacalz said, create a branch with Quantum. But I think it can be pretty difficult to keep everything up-to-date, because, to be honest, it's also something to do after all.

Greetings, Daria

[ghost]

As a iMac user running Mavericks, the Safari browser 9.1.3 is way out of date (now 11.x) but is still the native Mavericks browser. I also have both WF 55.2.2 + FF 56.0.2 running with not allowing any FF updates. I am able to use all my WF extensions/plugins which I must have. I am also using the latest version of Google Chrome which automatically updates without changing the GUI or functionality I enjoy, so it is the most secure. So if it comes to the point where I think WF or FF can no longer suit my requirements, I shall make Chrome my main browser with Safari as a backup. Even if I won't allow any WF updates to Quantum + above, I shall keep using WF because it is still the best browsing experience for me.

[qinidema]

@noplanman

it's finally making Firefox a usable browser again

Did you see the price of that? Sorry, I didn't ordered Chrome in my Firefox (I'm even don't mentioning the TONS of broken extensions here). Yes, I realize this can be disabled (in fact now it can't, the dom.ipc.processCount.web can't be less than 4).

[magicgoose]

@qinidema does it affect the overall performance in practice though? Or you are simply worried about the numbers?

[martpie]

I do not understand the thing about extensions not being compatible. Mozilla has been really clear for months that FF57 would break the current extensions system to switch to a more efficient one, to be able to drop tons of old legacy code, and be able to do the move to Quantum.

Developers had months to adapt their extensions to the new system. If they do not want to do it, you can do it, open-source ftw.

Waterfox is not meant (correct me if I'm wrong) to be the browser Firefox should have been (what do you want, legacy extensions support for 20 years? And a browser unable to keep up with Edge and Chrome?). It is just FF minus EME, Pocket, telemetry ect and other proprietary things. If you want the old extensions, stay with FF56 and disable auto-updates, that's it.

I am curious about the founder's thoughts here and his vision for Waterfox, but as it has been said earlier, code divergence with Firefox is going to be a tough thing to deal with.

[magicgoose]

@KeitIG

If you want the old extensions, stay with FF56 and disable auto-updates, that's it.

It's better to recommend Firefox ESR in this case. Because it will receive security updates for quite some time, but FF 56 won't. Friends don't let friends use potentially exploitable browsers for extended periods of time.

[hallzy]

@keitig the web extensions API is more limited than legacy. Many extensions that were possible with the old firefox are now no longer possible if you want them to do the same thing. It's not as simple as just saying to do it yourself because it can't actually be done.

Even noscript to my understanding wasn't possible originally. The developer had to work with Mozilla to get certain Apis that otherwise wouldn't have existed.

There are several extensions I use that are legacy where the developers have said that the reason they aren't moving forward is because it isn't possible in order to get the same features.

[Serkan-devel]

Maybe support two versions:

• Waterfox Quantum

and

• Waterfox ESR

to keep older plugins

[Ulf3000]

the quantum engine doesnt even have anything to do with the disabling of old addons against THE LESS EFFICIENT WEBEXT ADDONS .....

go into the firefox install folder Nightly\browser\features and see that there are still the same old bootstrapped extension with normal firefox code like its always been ...

open the omni.ja in winrar youll see that firefox is still the same simple browser.xul maindoc , its a little different , some flexboxes have been renamed and removed n stuff .. if you then go into omi.ja modules folder youll see they removed the commonjs folder with all the common jsm modules which were used by sdk addons ...

[Serkan-devel]

@Ulf3000 how are webext less efficient? They are capable of running on multiple processes

[grahamperrin]

… Developers had months to adapt their extensions to the new system. …

Not for some extensions. GitHub is ill-suited to discussions such as this … instead:

• Concern about WebExtensions exclusive strategy from add-on authors and users - Mozillians - Mozilla Discourse

[Ulf3000]

@Serkan-devel , their code base is huge and exports through tons of objects and subobjects ... my smallest addon has around 50 lines .. looking at the codebase of the webext modules , if id port it it would amount to 10 to 20 times the code or even more + tons of messagesender which arent even needed since it runs on the mainthread anyways , and more ram usage too ... that's why .. this is not always the case but good simple addons with native to the point code is much more efficient and they are mutliprocess too !
the modules have tons of extra checks on name, regex checks everywhere , security checks and whatnot checks for every possible situation , everything is wrapped in try{},finally{}catch expressions on top of all that ... but if you know what you´re doing you dont need these checks, or just very few here and there

[magicgoose]

@Ulf3000

the modules have tons of extra checks … security checks …
but if you know what you´re doing you dont need these checks

From the user's point of view, you will need to trust unknown developers to not mistreat your private data. Even if you do know what you're doing, it doesn't and can not follow that all the developers of all the addons you use know what they are doing and also that they don't try to do something bad intentionally. Even if you solve this for yourself by carefully reviewing source code of all addons before installing, it's completely unrealistic to expect this from all users.
And attempts to shove malicious code into addons are nothing new. So they better be sandboxed properly.

[gipi85]

@MrAlex94 Thank you very much for working to keep the pre-Quantum add-ons! Some of them are really great, but developers simply couldn't upgrade them to the new version of Firefox. This is also the reason why I discovered WaterFox, and it's hardly to think now that I will come back. As many other people did. Then the support for those previous add-ons is really important!

[FranzGotsis]

Same goes for me: The reason I looked for Waterfox is the ability to keep using the old extensions. In case there is some coding needed to maintain the old interfaces and to keep them working I am glad to help.

…

On 27.08.2018 16:32, gipi85 wrote: @MrAlex94 <https://github.com/MrAlex94> Thank you very much for working to keep the pre-Quantum add-ons! Some of them are really great, but developers simply couldn't upgrade them to the new version of Firefox. This is also the reason why I discovered WaterFox, and it's hardly to think now that I will come back. As many other people did. Then the support for those previous add-ons is really important! — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#267 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/Ag6oe6YmEV8iUaQTuKHB9MjHEOhVomOmks5uVAL2gaJpZM4Qdw5K>.

[grahamperrin]

… plan to plant base in 60 ESR …

From #834 (comment):

Uh, where? And will it update? 😈

https://www.reddit.com/r/waterfox/comments/8xsfsl/-/e2lqgzl/?context=1 (2018-07) and more recently there are (amongst other things) commits to a private repo https://github.com/MrAlex94?tab=overview&from=2018-10-01&to=2018-10-31#js-contribution-activity which, I guess, is for the future variant next generation.

Postscript

https://blog.waterfoxproject.org/waterfox-56.2.5-release-download#comment-4184045355 (2018-11-08)

The plan is to support (older extensions) in a “bridge” version then offer a more comprehensive API in even future browser releases

[grahamperrin]

From https://www.reddit.com/r/waterfox/comments/acg9a9/-/edqnbzt/?context=4:

… useless once 1419884 gets resolved …

From Mozilla bug 1419884 - [meta] Remove use of legacy add-ons within Mozilla

… remove legacy add-on technologies out of internally signed and system add-ons within Mozilla.

To clarify: 1419884 is primarily about removal of technologies from add-ons; not about removal from Firefox.

---

Maybe more interesting to follow these two Mozilla bugs:

• 1446829 - [meta] Remove in-content XUL
• 1453783 - (top-level-html) [meta] Support top-level chrome HTML windows

– both referred from Life After XUL: Building Firefox Interfaces with HTML | MDN.

Also:

• via https://redd.it/6sp682, 1337841 - (QuantumFlow) [meta] Quantum Flow Project
• 1347507 - (post-57-api-changes) [meta] Stuff we can remove when legacy extensions are no longer supported

General:

• Firefox Browser Architecture

– with links to the architecture review process, newsletters etc..

[Serkan-devel]

Actually, how is Waterfox getting security updates? Isn't the last ESR without quantum already deprecated?

[Serkan-devel]

nvm

[grahamperrin]

ESR without quantum

https://blog.waterfoxproject.org/waterfox-56.2.6-release-download mentions Mozilla Foundation Security Advisory 2018-30, that's https://www.mozilla.org/security/advisories/mfsa2018-30/ relating to Firefox ESR 60.4.

[MarjaE2]

Note that the Quantum tab throbbers make some users sick (including me) and the css hacks to block the tab throbbers don't work while Firefox is loading new tabs (at least for me).

[grahamperrin]

Mozilla bug 1431237 - Can't block tab loading animation in 57 …

[grahamperrin]

From https://www.reddit.com/comments/amenyw/-/eflnh4p/ for an extension:

… new Waterfox version will be based on FF 68 ESR which is planned to be released on 2019-07-09.

NB, for people who might not follow links, that's not a planned date for Waterfox.

[GulajavaMinistudio]

So, any plan to upgrade the engine using Firefox Quantum and Servo CSS Engine ?

[grahamperrin]

@GulajavaMinistudio above, #267 (reference)

[D33M0N]

… new Waterfox version will be based on FF 68 ESR which is planned to be released on 2019-07-09.
NB, for people who might not follow links, that's not a planned date for Waterfox.

Wait ... what? Are you saying we have to wait 2-3 years after the initial Quantum launch to see it happen finally for Waterfox? 😿

[grahamperrin]

In the next few weeks, an Alpha for the next generation of Waterfox will be available. …

In the meantime, https://wiki.mozilla.org/Release_Management/Calendar#Future_branch_dates Firefox 68 is in Central.

-deemon- wrote:

so, 2020 maybe. hopefully before 2022.

That range is overly cautious, I think.

[tycrek]

Just started using Waterfox. I'm not too concerned about extensions, but from what I can tell, the biggest issue of WF 56.x vs the latest FF Quantum is legacy extensions?? That seems a little silly.

From a security/privacy standpoint, am I safe to continue using WF, despite the drastically different versions? I use lot's of (modern) extensions and they seem to work fine so far.

Another minor concern of mine is the ability to use ShadowFox, which so far hasn't worked for me (ShadowFox relies on Quantum I believe).

[grahamperrin]

If you like, think of Waterfox 68 as Waterfox Quantum.

[MelchiorGaspar]

@grahamperrin
but will he still be able to keep legacy extensions running with Waterfox 68?

[grahamperrin]

Please see the wiki, thanks.

[MelchiorGaspar]

yeah I see now.. maintaining TWO branches of code... Waterfox Classic for legacy extensions and Waterfox 68 for newer code... I found it on the update page when I just manually updated to Waterfox v56.2.10

[tycrek]

@grahamperrin @MelchiorGaspar My apologies, I didn't notice the 68 alpha branch nor the alpha downloads on the website. I don't use any legacy extensions so the alpha works fine. Thanks!

[Serkan-devel]

So I guess Waterfox does have two versions then

[tycrek]

@Serkan-devel Yes, from what I've found there is precompiled binaries on the Releases page (you'll have to scroll down a bit) and also the Waterfox/Firefox 68 Alpha branch with the source.

[gipi85]

Dear mr. @grahamperrin , one of the things Firefox developers abandoned with Quantum is the API to protect the add-ons from being disabled/removed.
For that reason, useful protections like mr. @hpaolini 's Procon latte ceased to work on Quantum, and were discontinued. According to above mentioned developer: "Password-protection should be a must in a content filter; therefore, releasing a half-baked version of ProCon without it would not be as convenient."
Waterfox allowed me to continue using this add-on.
I Istalled the alpha build of this new version of Waterfox, based on Quantum, but I was unable to install Procon latte, because it was considered "corrupt". I know this is an initial build, but I kindly ask you to keep letting such API work, so that add-ons like the one mentioned above can still be used.

Thank you very much for your attention.

[grahamperrin]

Waterfox Quantum? … wondering if this will be in the pipeline …

@noplanman with Waterfox Current well and truly in the pipeline, parallel development alongside Waterfox Classic – https://www.waterfox.net/releases/ and so on – the essence of this issue is answered, would you like to close it?

@gipi85 I'm not a developer, can't answer that question, but you can follow https://www.waterfox.net/blog/ and https://github.com/MrAlex94/Waterfox/wiki for updates; questions to the support area https://www.reddit.com/r/waterfox/ if you like.

Thanks