Is it a good thing or a bad thing for Firefox to move closer to Chrome?

Is it a good thing or a bad thing for Firefox to move closer to Chrome?

Firefox is doing something unimaginable. Maybe I should say that Firefox is doing incredible things. Maybe I should say that Firefox is very correct at the beginning, but the result may be very wrong.

It is actively embracing Chrome.

But it is not a direct hug. What it does is embrace the WebExtensions API, which is a new API compatible with Blink. Blink is a Web browser engine developed by the Chromium project. It is a branch of the WebCore component of WebKit.

Do you understand?

This has aroused many rumors. One rumor is that Firefox will discard its plug-in and use Google Chrome's attachment instead. This is wrong to some extent. The Mozilla Foundation has decided to make plug-in development more consistent with Web development. In other words, this is a "one-time development, run by many browsers" method.

Microsoft Needham, Mozilla channel manager, said in an official statement:

"We want attachment development to be more like Web development: the same code should be able to run in multiple browsers and comply with the behaviors determined by the standards, along with a comprehensive instruction document provided by a number of developers ."

From any perspective, this should be considered an important step forward. First, developing Firefox plug-ins is always more complex than Chrome and Opera. Why? Firefox currently uses technologies such as XUL and XPCOM to develop plug-ins using JavaScript to access underlying features. The old one is being phased out and switched to the new Jetpack SDK (it does not use any lower-layer API ).

Once this step is put in place, developers of Chrome and Opera attachments are more likely to migrate applications to Firefox, theoretically.

However, developers will face a major obstacle. Since Firefox 42, all plug-ins are reviewed and signed by Mozilla before deployment. Because of the WebExtensions API, this audit process will be shortened to a maximum of five days (in theory ).

For those who are worried that the favored plug-ins cannot run normally in the new system, some of these concerns are not totally unreasonable. Why? Because many existing plug-ins have to be rewritten from the beginning. This does not mean that they will be rewritten from the beginning. Whether the plug-in is rewritten to run normally in the new framework depends on the developer of each plug-in. Mozilla does plan to work with developers to make the migration process as smooth as possible, but this cannot ensure that all plug-ins will indeed be migrated.

This may mean that your favorite plug-ins will not be included in the end, and the "possibility" here is a keyword. In fact, this "possibility" may be the cause of the entire change failure. Why? Because Mozilla staff have no way to solve all the problems, even after the announcement. Developers now have no motivation to update the plug-in because they have to completely rewrite the Code a year later. What do we think of this fact? What if developers do not want to migrate to a new API (because Mozilla may allow access to XUL to a certain extent in the future? How does Mozilla attract developers to make changes?

In my opinion in the future, Mozilla will have a way to solve such problems and then announce such a major change. At the moment, Firefox is not very popular. What Mozilla does not want to see most is that all plug-in developers abandon the ship and switch to a technology that makes a clear plan for the future, that is, Chrome.

Don't get me wrong. I think this is a positive change for Firefox, an open-source browser. Of course, it depends on this change. If we finally see that the number (and quality) of available Firefox plug-ins increases at the same time, this migration will be worthwhile. On the other hand, if there is not much change, or we find that the number of high-quality plug-ins is small, it may sound like a dead bell for Firefox.

To become a more unique Firefox, Firefox looks more and more like Chrome. Is this the correct step forward? Frankly speaking, at this stage (along with all these urgent issues), I cannot say it is a correct step. If developers decide to support new APIs, Firefox will be revived. However, if developers abandon the ship and escape, the outcome is as you can imagine.

As a Firefox user, I hope this is a wise move made by the Mozilla Foundation. What do you think? Is this a wise move, or is it more like a dead Bell?