and then there are always extensions that no longer work “quite right” when a new version of the browser comes out, so you have to wait for the extension to be updated
The only Firefox extensions I really used when I used Windows served to make it a bit more Safari like: progress bar in the address bar (to remove the unnecessary status bar), and an extension that let me customize the Menus at the top to just the things I actually use and have them drop down on one button. Other than that, simply AdBlock (which I also use with Safari now).
I’m not sure it would really be a good idea to integrate the (current) top 5 extensions into the core Firefox product.
-
Adblock Plus: “Firefox is that browser that prevents all our advertisement from being shown, we can’t support that browser.”
-
VidDownload Helper: Allows breaking the TOU of most video sites, includnig YouTube. Not exactly a good image for the browser either.
-
Download statusbar: This one could actually work in the core product, though one could argue it steals precious screen real estate from displaying actual webpages.
-
FlashGot: Now this one does make sense and I think it could be a good idea to include it.
-
NoScript: “Hey, why did all those cool Web 2.0 sites suddenly stop working?” or the users just won’t understand how to use it anyway.
Out of the top 5, only one really does make sense to include in the core product, from my POV at least.
I think there are a few notable exceptions of highest rated plugins which should definitely be opt-in, for example the web development plugins.
The other problem with unofficial extensions is of course conflicts. At the moment I visit facebook if I’m currently looking at Gmail. My Firefox completely freezes if I try to navigate from one to the other. It’s almost certainly a problem with one or a combination of my plugins, but since all the remaining plugins I use are ‘essential’ I can’t bear to remove any.
Loving your new, extra-accessible captcha.
I’d prefer pre-installed over core feature – one person’s essential feature is another’s unnecessary bloat.
Perhaps including the most popular extensions in the installation kit along with an “Enable these features?” dialog during installation would satisfy both camps.
There’s one more thing: extensions are usually the weakest points in terms of slowdown/hangups. More often than not, a vanilla FF install is fast, but install 4-5 addons and it slows down. Hit the 10 extensions mark and FF comes to a crawl, in terms of start up time and rendering.
So, I stick with just 4 extensions (plus Foxmarks that I usually disable, and enable only for occasional synchro.
This is a thing that I have been trying to tell for a long time now.
Thanks Jeff.
I’m going off the base (potentially ignorant) perspective here that “everything is baked in” essentially means “monolithic”. Both are just ways of looking at the fact that “it does everything.”
Given that Safari is an Apple product, I find it somewhat ironic that what many are praising about Safari (everything’s baked in) is a large part of what (unix-based)OSX enthusiasts claim is wrong with Windows (monolithic).
Disclaimer: I’m not calling anyone a hypocrite, I’m not inviting a flame war, and I’m not claiming on OS rules over the other. I’m just saying that it’s interesting how the views on “the better way to go” seem to change as you go up in scale from browser to OS.
Agree with poster John here. You can’t have everything.
I prefer the flexibility in defining and installing extensions that I find useful. I dont want the FF extension for eBay, or the LinkedIn companion, for example. And I dont want to have to sift through a list of predefined extensions and make sure somethings not installed that I dont want. I find nothing wrong with a baseline version and tailoring it to my specific use. How long before the extensions become “sponsored” after that, and I dont have a choice?
The cries for feature inclusion sound like useless griping to me. Not that the features in and of themselves are not valuable (they are) but I just dont see how hard it is to install the extension.
When you say, that every user has some extensions which he absolutely must have, I think you are missing a crucial point: These are extension that this single user must have, not all of them.
Most extensions you listed are not installed on my browser right now. And if you take, say 100 users who do install extensions there would be not a single one, that all have installed.
On the other hand, there are some extensions, that IMHO are doing things that are just common sense. “Clean and Close” https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/2608 for example.
I would also have not any problem with “9 things Firefox should steal from Safari”, which you mentioned. But even if there are extension, which would do these things, i would not bother to install them. If they are included in Firefox by default, fine. If not I don’t mind.
“If I ran the Firefox development team, every new development cycle, I’d take the list of top 5 Firefox add-ins and demand that we fold that functionality into the core product.”
Lucky for us you don’t then.
I completely disagree. You should have the right to determine how much of a pig your browser will be. Bundling every extension that some subset of people like in the browser is like bundling in every program that some subset of people like into the operating system.
The end result is that then I don’t get to choose the extensions I like, I have to choose between 2 and 1000 different varieties of pre-rolled Firefoxes that seem to be targeted to everyone but me; they’ve already put out some sort of crazy SuperMyspace Firefox…
I already think that they’ve incorporated too much. Naked Firefox is getting chubby. Once Firefox starts checking my spelling, I’m looking for a new browser.
@Bob, I don’t think a new version with pre-installed extensions should be called Firefox Plus or anything, instead the vanilla Firefox should be renamed. It’s a suttle difference but I think it makes quite a bit of difference to which version users will choose.
It could be a problem having different “editions” though, it could lead to the tempation of offering an “edition” which is almost bloated. I definitely agree that the extension’s features shouldn’t be rolled into the core, that would be forcing it upon people too much. The issue comes when extensions are closed source and the developer stops developing them though.
For now, I’ll stick to Opera, although there is some feature-bloat I guess.
The complaints you cite have nothing to do with extensions and everything to do with the monolithic pace of development that a large browser like Firefox tends to follow.
Firefox might have an improved memory footprint, but hey, not once you’ve installed all the “essential” extensions to get it up to the same functionality levels of Opera and Safari.
Uhh, I meant “glacial” not “monolithic”.
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head about Firefox, and also why Linux isn’t more widely adopted.
I’ve been a power user ever since I first edited my autoexec.bat file at work to make the old 286 I was using run faster than the 386’s on everyone else’s desktops. And yet, I’ve been slow to adopt Linux in spite of the tweakability that is available… When Ubuntu Studio came out and Vista was on the horizon, I gave it another try with a seasoned developer’s eye. My first reaction was pleasure at how simple it was to get installed and running… and my second was disappointment at how limited it was out of the box for features that Windows and Mac users take for granted and how very very complicated it was to locate (and sometimes install) the myriad of poorly described packages needed to achieve that same level of functionality.
Linux and Firefox cater to the power tweakers, and while I feel that more of the Millenium generation are being raised as power tweakers, relying on that means your adoption rate is generational
Oddly, I would also classify many of Vista’s/IE7’s/Office2007’s most confusing changes to be in the same category - driven by the wants of power tweakers (e.g. sidebar gadgets, ribbon toolbar, compiz-style desktop switching) at the expense of the biggest user base - those who will never look beyond what is installed for them. Catering to a vocal minority.
Disagree. Totally. That’s the path MS took that now delivers us problematic software bloated with new “features” aped from others in a wretched attempt to be all things to all people. Bah. Sorry, but the app developer’s total focus should be to make the core app as fast and efficient as possible. Do NOT get distracted by feature bloat. Let the users add what they want.
I think it’s a great idea to offer FF packages preinstalled with cream-of-the-crop add-ins, but PLEASE just make the core browser app as lean and mean as possible.
Add-ins are brilliant and it’s one reason why FF is my only browser.
Lucky for us you don’t [run the Firefox dev team] then.
As Neils pointed out, this is a good thing. The minute we incorporated AdBlock, FlashBlock, and FlashGet into Firefox, all our Google ad revenue would “magically” disappear, rendering us destitute.
Obviously there is a balance that needs to be struck, but I think there’s a lot that we could learn from analyzing the top five add-ins for any product, not just Firefox. Say, Visual Studio or Eclipse for example…
Once Firefox starts checking my spelling, I’m looking for a new browser.
I can’t agree on that one:
"Disclaimer: I’m not calling anyone a hypocrite, I’m not inviting a flame war, and I’m not claiming on OS rules over the other. I’m just saying that it’s interesting how the views on “the better way to go” seem to change as you go up in scale from browser to OS."
The mistake you’re making is assuming that the same people are making both arguments. Yes, there are some doing that, but they are the kind of bandwaggon jumpers who spotted Windows as an easy target in high-school, and are committed to that viewpoint.
But I think we’re mostly dealing with non-intersecting 2 camps; the HOMO’s (Honourable Order of Mac Operatives) and the URP’s (Unixy Real Programmers).