New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

When support for Firefox Quantum? #270

Open
neocrivi opened this Issue Nov 16, 2017 · 58 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
@neocrivi

neocrivi commented Nov 16, 2017

Your DownThemAll! and Browser Version and Language and Operating System

latest downthemall version - windows7 64 - firefox quantum v57

Expected Behavior

Downthemall not work

Actual Behavior

Steps To Reproduce

Additional info such as log extracts

Please enable Diagnostic Logging in the Privacy tab of the DownThemAll! preferences and either copy/paste essential part of the log or attach the entire log. Please note that the log may include sentitive information which you have to remove prior to posting it!

@damoclark

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@damoclark

damoclark Nov 19, 2017

@nmaier is working on a new version right now. But like many open source developers, Nils' work on dta is unpaid.

You might consider a donation or become a patron of Nils' work.

damoclark commented Nov 19, 2017

@nmaier is working on a new version right now. But like many open source developers, Nils' work on dta is unpaid.

You might consider a donation or become a patron of Nils' work.

@EMBBlaster

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@EMBBlaster

EMBBlaster Nov 24, 2017

Should be closed as duplicate of issue #240.

EMBBlaster commented Nov 24, 2017

Should be closed as duplicate of issue #240.

@ericis

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ericis

ericis Nov 27, 2017

@EMBBlaster Issue #240 is not the same as this. They may be related. DTA is completely disabled in FF Quantum and v57, however #240 suggests that the add-in is not disabled, but just doesn't work. However, this issue is a duplicate of #269.

ericis commented Nov 27, 2017

@EMBBlaster Issue #240 is not the same as this. They may be related. DTA is completely disabled in FF Quantum and v57, however #240 suggests that the add-in is not disabled, but just doesn't work. However, this issue is a duplicate of #269.

@EMBBlaster

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@EMBBlaster

EMBBlaster Nov 29, 2017

@ericis I'm not sure.
They are all talking about same fundamental problem (not a webextension) and version (57 is the same as quantum) and fix (make DTA! a webextesion).
#240 is talking about an alpha quantum version (57.0a1). So to me, they are about the same problem: "Not working in quantum (v57)".
Anyway, If devs think they should track it separated exactly because it is an alpha version, I don't see any problem...
I was just trying to help relating all issues that will be fixed only when the new webextesion version arrive.

EMBBlaster commented Nov 29, 2017

@ericis I'm not sure.
They are all talking about same fundamental problem (not a webextension) and version (57 is the same as quantum) and fix (make DTA! a webextesion).
#240 is talking about an alpha quantum version (57.0a1). So to me, they are about the same problem: "Not working in quantum (v57)".
Anyway, If devs think they should track it separated exactly because it is an alpha version, I don't see any problem...
I was just trying to help relating all issues that will be fixed only when the new webextesion version arrive.

@Foadsf

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Foadsf

Foadsf Dec 17, 2017

I have used Downthemall for a decade now and I hadn't felt the void before. Today I contributed on Patreon. It is nothing for the amount of work they do and I help all other developers make a Patreon so we can support them.

Foadsf commented Dec 17, 2017

I have used Downthemall for a decade now and I hadn't felt the void before. Today I contributed on Patreon. It is nothing for the amount of work they do and I help all other developers make a Patreon so we can support them.

@sreevisakh

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sreevisakh

sreevisakh Dec 21, 2017

I was only keeping firefox becuase of this plugin. Please bring it to quantum

sreevisakh commented Dec 21, 2017

I was only keeping firefox becuase of this plugin. Please bring it to quantum

@jarredou

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment

jarredou commented Dec 21, 2017

@Xmetalfanx

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Xmetalfanx

Xmetalfanx Jan 4, 2018

I really hate to post this here (question/comments to the devs) but as others have said, even if its a really rough work-in-progress version that is not really done, others may be willing to take a look at the code and submit PRs to get stuff done so its 'not all on you". We all GREATLY appreciate the hard work you have done and continue to do, on such a great (a must have for me) addon.

This may be a repeat question but as someone who is open to use different browsers .... would it be easier (noting I have no idea where dta lite is development wise) to NOT work in the box of the new Firefox API but rather to port things to Chrome? ... (I mean redo the addon from scratch where it word work in a SERIES of browsers, such as Chromium, Google Chrome, Vivaldi, and even if you need the "google chrome addons er .. addon" for it .. Opera too. It may be more work out of the gate, but it may prevent a "oh crap Mozilla changed the API again" issue down the line, say they decide to do that to addon devs.

just a thought ... and again sorry for posting "chit-chat" here ... didn't see a forum or something like that to post this in, or i would have put this post there

Xmetalfanx commented Jan 4, 2018

I really hate to post this here (question/comments to the devs) but as others have said, even if its a really rough work-in-progress version that is not really done, others may be willing to take a look at the code and submit PRs to get stuff done so its 'not all on you". We all GREATLY appreciate the hard work you have done and continue to do, on such a great (a must have for me) addon.

This may be a repeat question but as someone who is open to use different browsers .... would it be easier (noting I have no idea where dta lite is development wise) to NOT work in the box of the new Firefox API but rather to port things to Chrome? ... (I mean redo the addon from scratch where it word work in a SERIES of browsers, such as Chromium, Google Chrome, Vivaldi, and even if you need the "google chrome addons er .. addon" for it .. Opera too. It may be more work out of the gate, but it may prevent a "oh crap Mozilla changed the API again" issue down the line, say they decide to do that to addon devs.

just a thought ... and again sorry for posting "chit-chat" here ... didn't see a forum or something like that to post this in, or i would have put this post there

@damoclark

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@damoclark

damoclark Jan 4, 2018

Hi @Xmetalfanx

others may be willing to take a look at the code and submit PRs to get stuff done so its 'not all on you".

I also would be prepared to put shoulder to wheel to assist, if given the opportunity.

but rather to port things to Chrome

Mozilla's new API is based on Chrome's. This in part, is the crux of the problem for dta because Chrome's API is substantially limited compared to Firefox's old API. In any event, writing dta for Firefox will for the most part, make it easy to publish for Chrome-like browsers as well. Mozilla have promised to build upon and extend Chrome's API to do more. But it's very difficult to see how Mozilla is doing this, and how their API diverges from Chrome's. The download API in my mind is a clear area where Mozilla could extend the functionality further, and perhaps loosen the 'security' apron a little.

Damo.

damoclark commented Jan 4, 2018

Hi @Xmetalfanx

others may be willing to take a look at the code and submit PRs to get stuff done so its 'not all on you".

I also would be prepared to put shoulder to wheel to assist, if given the opportunity.

but rather to port things to Chrome

Mozilla's new API is based on Chrome's. This in part, is the crux of the problem for dta because Chrome's API is substantially limited compared to Firefox's old API. In any event, writing dta for Firefox will for the most part, make it easy to publish for Chrome-like browsers as well. Mozilla have promised to build upon and extend Chrome's API to do more. But it's very difficult to see how Mozilla is doing this, and how their API diverges from Chrome's. The download API in my mind is a clear area where Mozilla could extend the functionality further, and perhaps loosen the 'security' apron a little.

Damo.

@regs01

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@regs01

regs01 Jan 12, 2018

I was only keeping firefox becuase of this plugin. Please bring it to quantum

You can install Waterfox. It will keep supporting full extensions.

regs01 commented Jan 12, 2018

I was only keeping firefox becuase of this plugin. Please bring it to quantum

You can install Waterfox. It will keep supporting full extensions.

@xdhmoore

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@xdhmoore

xdhmoore Feb 27, 2018

I also would be interested in at least attempting to make a code contribution. ;)

xdhmoore commented Feb 27, 2018

I also would be interested in at least attempting to make a code contribution. ;)

@marczellm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@marczellm

marczellm Mar 8, 2018

I would also contribute. I already ported another addon that I will not part with, gtranslate, to WebExtension.

marczellm commented Mar 8, 2018

I would also contribute. I already ported another addon that I will not part with, gtranslate, to WebExtension.

@IsaacWeiss

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@IsaacWeiss

IsaacWeiss Mar 14, 2018

It's been almost three months since the last blog post, and there haven't been any commits pushed to this repository, either. @nmaier, can you comment to let us know where things stand and/or push your latest work?

IsaacWeiss commented Mar 14, 2018

It's been almost three months since the last blog post, and there haven't been any commits pushed to this repository, either. @nmaier, can you comment to let us know where things stand and/or push your latest work?

@doc171

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@doc171

doc171 May 2, 2018

I dont see no more information about downthemall, evolve i imagine that mozilla foundantion fullfill his objectives to kill downthemall, my only question is, have some chance to migrate to a new browser, like, opera, chrome, internet explores???
i only use Firefox because of downthemall, without him i prefer to use other browsers....is that the reason of my question....have some chance to downthemall migrate for a new browser?

doc171 commented May 2, 2018

I dont see no more information about downthemall, evolve i imagine that mozilla foundantion fullfill his objectives to kill downthemall, my only question is, have some chance to migrate to a new browser, like, opera, chrome, internet explores???
i only use Firefox because of downthemall, without him i prefer to use other browsers....is that the reason of my question....have some chance to downthemall migrate for a new browser?

@MartinX3

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MartinX3

MartinX3 May 2, 2018

I still prefer FF over other browsers since FF Quantum.
You can try Basilisk https://www.basilisk-browser.org/ (New and far better Version of PaleMoon, which is a Firefox Fork).
Basilisk is able to use the old FF Addons AND the new WebExtensions.

MartinX3 commented May 2, 2018

I still prefer FF over other browsers since FF Quantum.
You can try Basilisk https://www.basilisk-browser.org/ (New and far better Version of PaleMoon, which is a Firefox Fork).
Basilisk is able to use the old FF Addons AND the new WebExtensions.

@julian-alarcon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@julian-alarcon

julian-alarcon May 14, 2018

Here is some information of DownThemAll Lite https://www.patreon.com/posts/downthemall-18089324

DownThemAll Lite is a new extension from zero, to support the new WebExtensions APIs of new Mozilla Firefox.

Right now, my plan is to stop with my initial plan, throw away the download implementation I got so far and start that from scratch since I cannot seem to make the stuff work in a reasonable manner. At least I will be able to use most of the User Interface code I wrote.

julian-alarcon commented May 14, 2018

Here is some information of DownThemAll Lite https://www.patreon.com/posts/downthemall-18089324

DownThemAll Lite is a new extension from zero, to support the new WebExtensions APIs of new Mozilla Firefox.

Right now, my plan is to stop with my initial plan, throw away the download implementation I got so far and start that from scratch since I cannot seem to make the stuff work in a reasonable manner. At least I will be able to use most of the User Interface code I wrote.

@5t0rmr1d3r

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@5t0rmr1d3r

5t0rmr1d3r May 14, 2018

@julian-alarcon thanks for that information!

5t0rmr1d3r commented May 14, 2018

@julian-alarcon thanks for that information!

@Zhuinden

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Zhuinden

Zhuinden May 15, 2018

Maybe you should actually just ditch Firefox Quantum, and go with Basilisk instead.

Looks promising.

Zhuinden commented May 15, 2018

Maybe you should actually just ditch Firefox Quantum, and go with Basilisk instead.

Looks promising.

@MartinX3

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MartinX3

MartinX3 May 15, 2018

Basilisk will be PaleMoon v28 which will be released at the end of this year or 2019
But it is still stable and promising.
But I miss the multithreading of quantum.

MartinX3 commented May 15, 2018

Basilisk will be PaleMoon v28 which will be released at the end of this year or 2019
But it is still stable and promising.
But I miss the multithreading of quantum.

@Xmetalfanx

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Xmetalfanx

Xmetalfanx May 16, 2018

If you have 64bit ... really there is no point for me to use this OTHER than THE SUPPORT for addons pre-Firefox 57 .... but ... Waterfox is a good option .... IIRC it doesn't have alot of that extra crud (I say that loosely/half joking) that Mozilla has been adding on to Firefox too ... I looked at it after a few years of not using it and i was "oh ...that and that ... and this other thing too ... that's handy" ... it's here on github too https://github.com/MrAlex94/Waterfox ... I can't 100% speak for how to date with Mozilla security fixes it is ... not saying anything one way or the other until i have more info

Xmetalfanx commented May 16, 2018

If you have 64bit ... really there is no point for me to use this OTHER than THE SUPPORT for addons pre-Firefox 57 .... but ... Waterfox is a good option .... IIRC it doesn't have alot of that extra crud (I say that loosely/half joking) that Mozilla has been adding on to Firefox too ... I looked at it after a few years of not using it and i was "oh ...that and that ... and this other thing too ... that's handy" ... it's here on github too https://github.com/MrAlex94/Waterfox ... I can't 100% speak for how to date with Mozilla security fixes it is ... not saying anything one way or the other until i have more info

@Xmetalfanx

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Xmetalfanx

Xmetalfanx May 16, 2018

^ for some of the stuff it doesn't include that Firefox has from Mozilla .. just look down at the README, btw

Xmetalfanx commented May 16, 2018

^ for some of the stuff it doesn't include that Firefox has from Mozilla .. just look down at the README, btw

@GianniGi

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@GianniGi

GianniGi May 20, 2018

I hope to see a downloader addon soon. All the webextesions ones suck. I don't know why the downloader category was so forgotten among the webestsions.

GianniGi commented May 20, 2018

I hope to see a downloader addon soon. All the webextesions ones suck. I don't know why the downloader category was so forgotten among the webestsions.

@xdhmoore

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@xdhmoore

xdhmoore May 22, 2018

I'm disappointed as well with the effect of Mozilla's choice to deprecate XUL extensions, but I'm not sure I want to entrust my online activity with a fork like Waterfox, Pale Moon, etc. I would think there would be too much going on with web security and evolving standards for anyone but a medium to large sized and well-funded group of developers to keep up with, even if it is just backporting fixes.

xdhmoore commented May 22, 2018

I'm disappointed as well with the effect of Mozilla's choice to deprecate XUL extensions, but I'm not sure I want to entrust my online activity with a fork like Waterfox, Pale Moon, etc. I would think there would be too much going on with web security and evolving standards for anyone but a medium to large sized and well-funded group of developers to keep up with, even if it is just backporting fixes.

@msdobrescu

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@msdobrescu

msdobrescu May 23, 2018

I've used DTA and DTA anti-container since forever. I'd use even unstable versions if available. There is no other download option for Quantum. Only crap. What are the technical reasons it is so hard to develop? How could we contribute? If there was a list of requests to Mozilla related to missing API for this great piece, I would have added my voice there. Could anybody point me to such reports?

msdobrescu commented May 23, 2018

I've used DTA and DTA anti-container since forever. I'd use even unstable versions if available. There is no other download option for Quantum. Only crap. What are the technical reasons it is so hard to develop? How could we contribute? If there was a list of requests to Mozilla related to missing API for this great piece, I would have added my voice there. Could anybody point me to such reports?

@marczellm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@marczellm

marczellm May 23, 2018

@msdobrescu Quantum requires old extensions to be essentially completely rewritten. If their UI was using XUL it has to be redone in HTML. The Javascript APIs that old extensions used were all deprecated, and the WebExtension APIs only provide a (growing, thankfully) subset of the functionality.

marczellm commented May 23, 2018

@msdobrescu Quantum requires old extensions to be essentially completely rewritten. If their UI was using XUL it has to be redone in HTML. The Javascript APIs that old extensions used were all deprecated, and the WebExtension APIs only provide a (growing, thankfully) subset of the functionality.

@msdobrescu

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@msdobrescu

msdobrescu May 25, 2018

@marczellm I know. My question is what is needed to be added to the new API, where are the requests for it, could we vote for them somewhere?

msdobrescu commented May 25, 2018

@marczellm I know. My question is what is needed to be added to the new API, where are the requests for it, could we vote for them somewhere?

@julian-alarcon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@julian-alarcon

julian-alarcon May 25, 2018

Hi @msdobrescu , I guess there are 2 main issues related to the still missing APIs on WebExtensions:

  1. Download files in streaming (multiple chunks), this is, for me, the main issue as this is the "acceleration" feature to be able to download from the same source different parts of the same file. The are plans no specific roadmap to get this from Mozilla guys, you can see wiki info and bug report here:
    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1323414
    https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions/Filesystem#Firefox_57

  2. Save files to different folders and more file system related features. I guess this is needed if you want to download type of files in different folders. WebExtensions is able to download files using the downloads API.
    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1246236

There is no a website like uservoice or similar to vote up for features in Mozilla, but you can participate in WebExtensions meetings using their communications channels: https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions#Communication_and_meetings
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Contribute/Triage

julian-alarcon commented May 25, 2018

Hi @msdobrescu , I guess there are 2 main issues related to the still missing APIs on WebExtensions:

  1. Download files in streaming (multiple chunks), this is, for me, the main issue as this is the "acceleration" feature to be able to download from the same source different parts of the same file. The are plans no specific roadmap to get this from Mozilla guys, you can see wiki info and bug report here:
    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1323414
    https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions/Filesystem#Firefox_57

  2. Save files to different folders and more file system related features. I guess this is needed if you want to download type of files in different folders. WebExtensions is able to download files using the downloads API.
    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1246236

There is no a website like uservoice or similar to vote up for features in Mozilla, but you can participate in WebExtensions meetings using their communications channels: https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions#Communication_and_meetings
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Contribute/Triage

@msdobrescu

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@msdobrescu

msdobrescu May 25, 2018

Well, this is disappointing. I see basic features missing. I understand the risks, still... Firefox might become extinct due to this. But. excuse me to be off-topic, I see WE that are able to alter pages DOM that proves to be more dangerous, and also annoying for web developers. A question arises, again, my apologies if I'm off-topic, but why not thinking of implementing an extension to grab multiple links as DTA does, and sending them to Firefox' download feature? It would be so useful as now we have to go back in years by clicking on each link, save as etc.?

msdobrescu commented May 25, 2018

Well, this is disappointing. I see basic features missing. I understand the risks, still... Firefox might become extinct due to this. But. excuse me to be off-topic, I see WE that are able to alter pages DOM that proves to be more dangerous, and also annoying for web developers. A question arises, again, my apologies if I'm off-topic, but why not thinking of implementing an extension to grab multiple links as DTA does, and sending them to Firefox' download feature? It would be so useful as now we have to go back in years by clicking on each link, save as etc.?

@hybtoy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@hybtoy

hybtoy Jul 11, 2018

@AnickaT
Download Star is not replacement for DTA. DTA is full download manager but DS not.

hybtoy commented Jul 11, 2018

@AnickaT
Download Star is not replacement for DTA. DTA is full download manager but DS not.

@RajaKumar1

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@RajaKumar1

RajaKumar1 Aug 17, 2018

May I suggest that the devs create a kickstarter project to create a new downthemall ?
funding goal + deadline for execution
I would gladly fund that.

RajaKumar1 commented Aug 17, 2018

May I suggest that the devs create a kickstarter project to create a new downthemall ?
funding goal + deadline for execution
I would gladly fund that.

@GianniGi

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@GianniGi

GianniGi Aug 17, 2018

GianniGi commented Aug 17, 2018

@RajaKumar1

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@RajaKumar1

RajaKumar1 Aug 17, 2018

create a minimum viable product which can be left to the open source community to maintain

Given the huge community that benefits from this i am sure that people would be willing to pay for atleast a one time implementation

beyond the initial kickstarter payments to help with the ground up development
new developers could be funded through donations via patreon etc

I think as of right now the problem is getting the critical mass of resources required to get this done quickly. worry about implementation first and maintenance later.

or if you really want to be picky then add multiple layers in the kickstarter funding
a. for minimum dev
b. for minimum dev + 1/2/3 years of support

RajaKumar1 commented Aug 17, 2018

create a minimum viable product which can be left to the open source community to maintain

Given the huge community that benefits from this i am sure that people would be willing to pay for atleast a one time implementation

beyond the initial kickstarter payments to help with the ground up development
new developers could be funded through donations via patreon etc

I think as of right now the problem is getting the critical mass of resources required to get this done quickly. worry about implementation first and maintenance later.

or if you really want to be picky then add multiple layers in the kickstarter funding
a. for minimum dev
b. for minimum dev + 1/2/3 years of support

@IsaacWeiss

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@IsaacWeiss

IsaacWeiss Aug 17, 2018

I haven't had cause to test these yet, but am I correct in assessing that these two extensions between them contain most of DTA's functionality? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bulk-media-downloader/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/turbo-download-manager/

IsaacWeiss commented Aug 17, 2018

I haven't had cause to test these yet, but am I correct in assessing that these two extensions between them contain most of DTA's functionality? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bulk-media-downloader/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/turbo-download-manager/

@digital-idiot

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@digital-idiot

digital-idiot Aug 22, 2018

I haven't had cause to test these yet, but am I correct in assessing that these two extensions between them contain most of DTA's functionality? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bulk-media-downloader/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/turbo-download-manager/

I tried both of these, in my experience those are not even close to good old DTA.

digital-idiot commented Aug 22, 2018

I haven't had cause to test these yet, but am I correct in assessing that these two extensions between them contain most of DTA's functionality? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bulk-media-downloader/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/turbo-download-manager/

I tried both of these, in my experience those are not even close to good old DTA.

@doc171

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@doc171

doc171 Aug 24, 2018

doc171 commented Aug 24, 2018

@zioalex

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@zioalex

zioalex Aug 27, 2018

It is a pity that we do not have it yet on FF Quantum.
However I found a good alternative: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/download-star/?src=search

zioalex commented Aug 27, 2018

It is a pity that we do not have it yet on FF Quantum.
However I found a good alternative: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/download-star/?src=search

@doc171

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@doc171

doc171 Aug 27, 2018

doc171 commented Aug 27, 2018

@MartinX3

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MartinX3

MartinX3 Aug 27, 2018

I thought the new addon format is now the same as in chrome, because of security benefits (rights management)
How would chrome be the better option?

MartinX3 commented Aug 27, 2018

I thought the new addon format is now the same as in chrome, because of security benefits (rights management)
How would chrome be the better option?

@ssokolow

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ssokolow

ssokolow Aug 27, 2018

Also, I'd say that Firefox is still the better option because:

  1. As long as you're not tripping over something that's still on Firefox's TODO list, like onDeterminingFilename, Firefox's API is a superset of Chrome's.
  2. Chrome doesn't have userChrome.css for customizing the UI above and beyond what WebExtensions allows. (The "Browser Toolbox" window will give you a DOM inspector you can use to figure out which CSS selectors you need as well as a toggle to hold panels open when they lose focus so you can poke at them.)

ssokolow commented Aug 27, 2018

Also, I'd say that Firefox is still the better option because:

  1. As long as you're not tripping over something that's still on Firefox's TODO list, like onDeterminingFilename, Firefox's API is a superset of Chrome's.
  2. Chrome doesn't have userChrome.css for customizing the UI above and beyond what WebExtensions allows. (The "Browser Toolbox" window will give you a DOM inspector you can use to figure out which CSS selectors you need as well as a toggle to hold panels open when they lose focus so you can poke at them.)
@Xmetalfanx

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Xmetalfanx

Xmetalfanx Aug 27, 2018

I dont think Downgrading Firefox version for one addon (as much as I love it) is a great idea .... now having say Firefox 57+ AND browser .. say Waterfox for example that still supports the older addons ... that is a different story

Xmetalfanx commented Aug 27, 2018

I dont think Downgrading Firefox version for one addon (as much as I love it) is a great idea .... now having say Firefox 57+ AND browser .. say Waterfox for example that still supports the older addons ... that is a different story

@doc171

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@doc171

doc171 Aug 28, 2018

doc171 commented Aug 28, 2018

@GianniGi

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@GianniGi

GianniGi Aug 28, 2018

GianniGi commented Aug 28, 2018

@hardhub

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@hardhub

hardhub Sep 22, 2018

depending like i talk i only use firefox exclusively because downthemall, if downthemall migrate to chrome, edge (i really hate edge), opera, imediately i abandon firefox withou no problem. Its not only a addon its the best addon ever done in my opinion...

On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 6:43 PM Xmetal ***@***.***> wrote: I dont think Downgrading Firefox version for one addon (as much as I love it) is a great idea .... now having say Firefox 57+ AND browser .. say Waterfox for example that still supports the older addons ... that is a different story — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#270 (comment)>, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AlHuPACqzDOzJ0KYYMinRaVqS1vIWBzWks5uVGfngaJpZM4QgSya .

And I hate Chrome but it is not question for this issues.

hardhub commented Sep 22, 2018

depending like i talk i only use firefox exclusively because downthemall, if downthemall migrate to chrome, edge (i really hate edge), opera, imediately i abandon firefox withou no problem. Its not only a addon its the best addon ever done in my opinion...

On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 6:43 PM Xmetal ***@***.***> wrote: I dont think Downgrading Firefox version for one addon (as much as I love it) is a great idea .... now having say Firefox 57+ AND browser .. say Waterfox for example that still supports the older addons ... that is a different story — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#270 (comment)>, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AlHuPACqzDOzJ0KYYMinRaVqS1vIWBzWks5uVGfngaJpZM4QgSya .

And I hate Chrome but it is not question for this issues.

@Xmetalfanx

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Xmetalfanx

Xmetalfanx Sep 22, 2018

I have been using Download Star and it seems really good for F57+

Xmetalfanx commented Sep 22, 2018

I have been using Download Star and it seems really good for F57+

@Xmetalfanx

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Xmetalfanx

Xmetalfanx Sep 22, 2018

I also would suggest if possible to merge or at least consolidate say at least 4 or 5+ "DownloadThemAll doesn't work on Firefox 57+" issues ... and to close the rest, to cut down on the number of issues listed when they basically are the exact same thing

Xmetalfanx commented Sep 22, 2018

I also would suggest if possible to merge or at least consolidate say at least 4 or 5+ "DownloadThemAll doesn't work on Firefox 57+" issues ... and to close the rest, to cut down on the number of issues listed when they basically are the exact same thing

@hardhub

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@hardhub

hardhub Sep 23, 2018

I have been using Download Star and it seems really good for F57+

Does it support multithread downloading?
On their site they say only about links filtering.

hardhub commented Sep 23, 2018

I have been using Download Star and it seems really good for F57+

Does it support multithread downloading?
On their site they say only about links filtering.

@albertdick

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@albertdick

albertdick Sep 25, 2018

I dont think Downgrading Firefox version for one addon (as much as I love it) is a great idea .... now having say Firefox 57+ AND browser .. say Waterfox for example that still supports the older addons ... that is a different story

That's why I still use Firefox 56.0.2. When something gone wrong, I use Chrome as an alternative.

For me, without DownThemAll! or some download manager like that, with file split in various connections and checksum verify, I would do better to migrate to Chrome definitely.

albertdick commented Sep 25, 2018

I dont think Downgrading Firefox version for one addon (as much as I love it) is a great idea .... now having say Firefox 57+ AND browser .. say Waterfox for example that still supports the older addons ... that is a different story

That's why I still use Firefox 56.0.2. When something gone wrong, I use Chrome as an alternative.

For me, without DownThemAll! or some download manager like that, with file split in various connections and checksum verify, I would do better to migrate to Chrome definitely.

@doc171

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@doc171

doc171 Sep 26, 2018

doc171 commented Sep 26, 2018

@ssokolow

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ssokolow

ssokolow Sep 26, 2018

I'm not quite that detached from Firefox for several reasons:

  1. Mozilla does a better job than Google of keeping the extension ecosystem free of bad actors.
  2. Mozilla is a non-profit with supporting their users best interests as their mission statement, rather than an ad company.
  3. Even though it's far more crippled than legacy extensions, the WebExtensions API is already projected to be much richer than Chrome's.

Drop by MDN and take a look at the various API extensions which were created for Firefox, that Google has made no promise to support. Sure, there are some Chrome APIs that Firefox doesn't support yet, like onDeterminingFilename... but that "yet" is the key. Mozilla has to work with limited manpower and refactor deep design mistakes, but they're the "Internet Explorer 6" in the phrase "Netscape and Microsoft were both extending HTML willy-nilly, but Internet Explorer 6 was better at supporting both their own extensions and their competitor's."

ssokolow commented Sep 26, 2018

I'm not quite that detached from Firefox for several reasons:

  1. Mozilla does a better job than Google of keeping the extension ecosystem free of bad actors.
  2. Mozilla is a non-profit with supporting their users best interests as their mission statement, rather than an ad company.
  3. Even though it's far more crippled than legacy extensions, the WebExtensions API is already projected to be much richer than Chrome's.

Drop by MDN and take a look at the various API extensions which were created for Firefox, that Google has made no promise to support. Sure, there are some Chrome APIs that Firefox doesn't support yet, like onDeterminingFilename... but that "yet" is the key. Mozilla has to work with limited manpower and refactor deep design mistakes, but they're the "Internet Explorer 6" in the phrase "Netscape and Microsoft were both extending HTML willy-nilly, but Internet Explorer 6 was better at supporting both their own extensions and their competitor's."

@regs01

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@regs01

regs01 Sep 26, 2018

Mozilla Corporation is pretty much a profit corporation with revenue of over $0,5 billion.

just for a side note

regs01 commented Sep 26, 2018

Mozilla Corporation is pretty much a profit corporation with revenue of over $0,5 billion.

just for a side note

@ssokolow

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ssokolow

ssokolow Sep 27, 2018

True, but it's also a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation. As Wikipedia puts it, "The subsidiary is 100% owned by the parent, and therefore follows the same non-profit principles."

ssokolow commented Sep 27, 2018

True, but it's also a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation. As Wikipedia puts it, "The subsidiary is 100% owned by the parent, and therefore follows the same non-profit principles."

@regs01

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@regs01

regs01 Sep 27, 2018

It is not follows the same principles) Corporation was made to make money on Firefox and other businesses.

regs01 commented Sep 27, 2018

It is not follows the same principles) Corporation was made to make money on Firefox and other businesses.

@damoclark

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@damoclark

damoclark Sep 27, 2018

It is not follows the same principles) Corporation was made to make money on Firefox and other businesses.

How do you know the corporation doesn't follow the same principles as the foundation? Do you have evidence to substantiate this?

The Mozilla Corporation was established in August 2005 as a wholly owned taxable subsidiary that serves the non-profit, public benefit goals of its parent, the Mozilla Foundation, and the vast Mozilla community. About Mozilla Corporation

damoclark commented Sep 27, 2018

It is not follows the same principles) Corporation was made to make money on Firefox and other businesses.

How do you know the corporation doesn't follow the same principles as the foundation? Do you have evidence to substantiate this?

The Mozilla Corporation was established in August 2005 as a wholly owned taxable subsidiary that serves the non-profit, public benefit goals of its parent, the Mozilla Foundation, and the vast Mozilla community. About Mozilla Corporation

@ssokolow

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ssokolow

ssokolow Sep 27, 2018

Publicly-traded corporations do have a fiduciary duty to maximize profit, no matter what the externalities (the whole point of a healthy system of regulation is to keep companies from pushing costs off into externalities), but what privately-owned companies do is entirely up to their owners. That's why the "wholly owned taxable subsidiary" part is so important.

EDIT: @rodrigost23 I'd intended this to be my final off-topic response.

ssokolow commented Sep 27, 2018

Publicly-traded corporations do have a fiduciary duty to maximize profit, no matter what the externalities (the whole point of a healthy system of regulation is to keep companies from pushing costs off into externalities), but what privately-owned companies do is entirely up to their owners. That's why the "wholly owned taxable subsidiary" part is so important.

EDIT: @rodrigost23 I'd intended this to be my final off-topic response.

@rodrigost23

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@rodrigost23

rodrigost23 Sep 27, 2018

rodrigost23 commented Sep 27, 2018

@Xmetalfanx

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Xmetalfanx

Xmetalfanx Sep 27, 2018

I was just about to say this is getting way off topic ... and also this is why I suggested a mod/op/whatever consider merging a number of these "This doesn't work on Firefox 57 anymore :( " issues to consoliate things

Xmetalfanx commented Sep 27, 2018

I was just about to say this is getting way off topic ... and also this is why I suggested a mod/op/whatever consider merging a number of these "This doesn't work on Firefox 57 anymore :( " issues to consoliate things

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment