[0] Firefox is still XUL-based for now, but I think the writing's on the wall given the security issues with XUL and XPCOM, and Firefox's move away from XUL/XPCOM-based extensions.
[0] Firefox is still XUL-based for now, but I think the writing's on the wall given the security issues with XUL and XPCOM, and Firefox's move away from XUL/XPCOM-based extensions.
I know the user base of these addons is not anywhere as big as Thunderbird, but I can't really imagine using Firefox without Vimperator; and it's already started to break in Firefox 45.
but I can't really imagine using Firefox without Vimperator
I can second that (s/vimperator/pentadactyl/). pentadactyl at least still works in Firefox 45.I plan to use VimFx/Vimium in the future though because those keyboard patterns are ingrained in me now. Pentadactyl development has dried up over the last few years and it seems unlikely that such a huge change as XUL deprecation will be addressed. The developers have been asked about this several times through different media and not responded. I'm not sure about Vimperator. The developers are still active but porting is a lot of work and currently all of the necessary API's do not exist. Hopefully, I can cobble together something resembling Pentadactyl/Vimperator by using a few other extensions in addition to VimFx/Vimium.
These products aren't perfect, but they allow the traditional strengths of firefox (powerful extensions based on XUL/XPCOM) as opposed to the new chromification of the firefox extension api. Also, you don't have the mozilla politics and constant moral hectoring (if you read the firefox start page or go to mozilla's website, I think you might know what I mean).
And while XUL is the base that many extensions have been built on, Mozilla are quite right to throw it out. If Firefox chucks it, I doubt forks of it will manage to maintain it well. It's half-dead already.
We would like add-on development to be more like Web development: the same code should run in multiple browsers according to behavior set by standards, with comprehensive documentation available from multiple vendors. To this end, we are implementing a new, Blink-compatible API in Firefox called WebExtensions. Extension code written for Chrome, Opera, or, possibly in the future, Microsoft Edge will run in Firefox with few changes as a WebExtension.
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/08/21/the-future-of-dev...
-Thunderbird
-Instantbird
-Nightingale
-Celtx
-Blue Griffon
-Pencil project
-Komodo IDE
And others.
I hope that once the Thunderbird code base is split from Firefox the churn for the developers will be reduced and they can spend more time on improving performance and adding new features. I do worry though that Thunderbird could become less secure over time without the Firefox team maintain security issues in XUL.
I find it hard to believe that another organization would be a better home for Thunderbird than Mozilla, but some of the language in the blog post and report is disappointing to me. Mainly, the points about Thunderbird needing to be self-funding and use its own infrastructure. If the code bases split and Mozilla focuses its advocacy around Firefox, surely that should be enough to unencumber Firefox and give it a (in my opinion slim) chance to remain relevant. Mozilla really values Thunderbird so little that it can't give it any resources at all? Even when it has all of the infrastructure needed by Thunderbird already set up?
Of course I don't know for sure (I don't even use thunderbird).