mozilla :: #firefox

8 Sep 2017
03:08casperlHi, I got error when building firefox
03:09araiwhat error?
03:10araiis there any other information around the lines?
03:11araican you post all lines after that part?
03:13araiespecially, stderr might contain some more info
03:13araithat will be printed after stdout part
03:13casperlI paste all message
03:14araioh, there's no stderr part
03:15araiis the issue reproducible?
03:16araiwhich version of rust are you using?
03:16araiany chance updating it solves?
03:16casperllet me see
03:17casperlrustc 1.19.0 (0ade33941 2017-07-17)
03:17casperlI installed rust by ./mach bootstrap
03:17araithere's 1.20.0
03:31casperlhow to install 1.20.0 ...
03:32araimaybe `./mach bootstrap` again?
03:32araior rustup command (I don't know exact arguments tho
03:34arai`rustup update`
03:53CelmorI'm having problems using a self-hosted proxy server with firefox, I'm using that configuration
03:54CelmorI can use the proxy just fine with cromium if opened like that: chromium --proxy-server=
03:54Celmoror curl via: curl --proxy ...
03:55Celmorgetting "The proxy server is refusing connections" when trying to load websites using the configuration from that screenshot
03:57araido you see any request to the server?
03:57araimaybe in the proxy server's log
04:02Celmordon't think squid writes a log by default, at least not from what I found
04:02Celmorand can't really restart it since it's in use by other software
04:04araiwhat happens if you remove SOCKS part?
04:08Celmornow it just bypasses proxy
04:09Celmorapparently I had to set "Use this proxy server for all protocols"
04:09Celmornow it works
04:10Redhat71so your socks proxy doesn't work, and you are loading https site? 9_9
04:26Celmorit was an http proxy
04:29Celmorand ff tried to use the socks proxy although I didn't check "Use this proxy server for all protocols" then
08:52heftigdouble-clicking on a word surrounded by U+2009 thin spaces selects the spaces as well; is this a bug?
10:04cjboiiHello whats poppin?!
11:48lanky_leguanhello, my firefox 55.0.2 (32-Bit) on windows 10 seems to have a problem updating to 55.0.3, in the Help-About I see ~ "restart to finish updating", I click, firefox closes, I get a dialog "app wants to change ...", I confirm, a little progress bar dialog shows and firefox starts as ... 55.0.2 again
11:49lanky_leguanwhat might be going on?
11:57lanky_leguanok, I might have something, windows "Apps & Features" shows 2 firefoxes
11:57firebotJust appeared in Planet Mozilla - :
11:57firebot Mozilla Addons Blog: Last chance to migrate your legacy user data
12:00lanky_leguanis it a known problem that the updater might update to 32-bit, even though I had 64-bit installed?
12:00Caspy7it's not an issue I'm yet familiar with
12:07SanchoPensahey, guys!
12:08SanchoPensai wonder; can I somehow teach firefox, to remember, what sites to open in what containers?
12:08SanchoPensacurrently, I always have to open a container first, then the site in it, which is especially annoying, if you're opening sites from for example a link in a mail within thunderbird?
12:24knafragHi. I found what I think is a bug in firefox focus on android. Is this also the right place to discuss that or is this channel only about the desktop versions of Firefox?
12:26Caspy7SanchoPensa: I think this may only be available via the addon
12:26SanchoPensaCaspy7: thereis an addon too?
12:26SanchoPensathanks for the hint, m8! :D
12:27Caspy7knafrag: #mobile is a better place probably, or file a bug on
12:28knafragCaspy: Thanks, I'll ask in #mobile then. I'd like somebody to confirm that I'm not getting something wrong before I file a bug in the bug tracker. Plus I can't find where to file a bug for focus.
12:28knafrag^ this should say Caspy7, not Caspy
12:29Caspy7knafrag: when in doubt, when filing, accept all defaults and let the triage ppl guide it from there
12:30knafragI guess I'll do that
12:31Arfedthis is becoming an almost weekly thing, lately - but I'll ask again: Is there any way to get stats made public, on how many firefox users, are running an addon that would break if webextensions became mandatory?
12:32Arfedive tried a whole bunch of ways to seek an answer to this, and they've all basically been means of fobbing me off
12:32lol768Hi, pdf.js isn't working for me in Nightly?
12:32Arfedmore specifically, I want to know the percentage of firefox users, who are running an addon that would break if webextensions became mandatory
12:33lol768actually, that's not a question. It's a statement
12:33DuClareWorks for me
12:33lol768I just get prompted to download the file
12:33DuClaremime type or content-disposition?
12:33Caspy7Arfed: there are probably a lot. It sounds like you're trying to build a case for changing course on deprecating legacy extensions. But the train has left the building.
12:33Arfedcan someone please release the statistic
12:34lol768Content-Type: application/pdf, no content disposition header
12:34lol768 is the URL if you want to try
12:34DuClareWorks for me
12:34lol768hmm, "plugin.disable_full_page_plugin_for_types" is set to "application/pdf"
12:35Caspy7Arfed: maybe try #AMO
12:35Arfedokey - don't expect much luck, but wil ltry
12:35lol768you on 57.0a1 (2017-09-08) Caspy7?
12:36Caspy7I'm restarting to update to make sure I'm current
12:37Caspy7Arfed: it may be a very early hour for many developers, etc
12:37Caspy7esp in the US
12:37Arfedokey - I've tried asking this on the dev-addons mailing list and all though - no answer
12:39Caspy7lol768: still works fine
12:39lol768anything I can check?
12:39lol768I've tried disabling extensions
12:40Caspy7lol768: test in a fresh profile
12:40Caspy7guessing it will work fine
12:41lol768yup, now to figure out what's changed
13:09TylerArfed: we've had this talk before
13:09Arfedas I said when I first came here. with no result, even after I've tried many avenues
13:10TylerMost likely because the various teams at mozilla are busy with real work to make 57 a success.
13:10TylerA random person demanding a data release might not be top priority
13:10Arfedit takes minutes to pull out these statistics - and these stats are an important component of making their work a success
13:13TylerI'm sure they have pulled them (for example, over 4,000 add-ons are currently WE compatible) but releasing them changes nothing. If you can show a real reason we should make releasing them a priority, then sure. But you haven't yet
13:13Arfedit's releasing one distilled statistic - an effort that takes minutes - and the firefox team should release them as a matter of transparency
13:21TimvdeIs it possible for a Firefox that is started with -no-remote to open its links in the main Firefox that normally accepts third party links?
13:22azakiTimvde: wait a second... you mean you want to click a link in a session started with -no-remote
13:22TimvdeUse case: I got fed up with Slack's crappy Electron app, so I am using a separate Firefox install in which I've hidden all UI elements, it works pretty well :)
13:22azakiand have it open a tab in the other session?
13:22Timvdeazaki: yes
13:22TimvdeAs if it's just an app and not a browser that can open links
13:23azakii don't know what electron is.. so you'll have to clarify the use case =p
13:23Timvdeazaki: Not important to my question actually. It's a way to easily build desktop apps using web technology, it's based on Blink
13:24Tonneshow to bump bug 1392028? looks like a regression
13:24firebot UNCONFIRMED, FF 55 doesn't show table lines after first page for table that spans multiple pages
13:24Tonnessupport questions came up
13:25azakiTimvde: i'm just confused on the whole hiding ui elements thing..
13:25azakii'm just not understanding what you're trying to do =p
13:26Timvdeazaki: I want a standalone Slack app
13:26TimvdeBut the one they provide sucks
13:26TimvdeSo I'm using the web interface in a separate Firefox install
13:26Timvdebut I don't want to use it as a browser, so I've just hidden all UI elements
13:26TimvdeI have only a title bar and the Slack website
13:27azakioh, so you're trying to use the browser as an application framework for a desktop app?
13:28azakiok, that makes sense now. hm, were you able to get this far without having to edit any C++ code ?
13:28azakihow did you hide the UI elements?
13:28TimvdeuserChrome.css :)
13:28azakiah. ok. hm
13:28TimvdeThe only thing that rests is finding out how to open links in my normal Firefox
13:29azakii think xulrunner back in the day was supposed to be usable as a framework, but yeah, that's kind of dead now. =\
13:29azakimaybe they would have better ideas in one of the more dev oriented channels
13:29azakilike #fx-team
13:29TimvdeEnough technical people in here, I'll just wait a little longer :)
13:31azakiArfed: I don't work and nor am I affiliated with Mozilla, but honestly if it was me I'd rather keep the numbers private. There's no need to give people more ammunition to hate Mozilla with.
13:32Arfedazaki: that's not a reason for not releasing the stat. what should happen, is that any mandatory switchover is put off until the percentage I'm looking for, rises to a certain threshold
13:32azakiI mean there's two negative outcomes I can see, from releasing this data. One is that people will go on "I'm not a number!" rants, and hate them even more and claim they are looking at numbers rather than the people behind the numbers.
13:33DuClareMozilla should give me unicorns.
13:33azakiAnd second of all, even if the numbers of affected users are small, like say 1-2%, people will rant about how that is a lot of users when we look at how many is in that 1%
13:34Arfedasking for a single stat is hardly asking for unicorns.
13:34Arfedis it 1-2% though? we don't know.
13:34Arfedmozilla have the stats, mozilla could release that single percentage stat, and inform us - but that doesn't appear to be possible
13:35Arfedwe can't even have an informed discussion about that stat here - because we dont know the stat
13:35DuClareI don't think this is the channel for discussing a stat.
13:35azakiThe point is that no matter what the numbers are, people will still use it as an excuse to hate mozilla, this is the kind of stuff you learn if you research PR and marketing, everyone hates "marketers", but the reality is, the *majority* of people aren't convinced by data or science, they think emotionally. like i can totally imagine if it's 1% people saying "well linux is also 1% marketshare, does that mean we should drop linux support!?" and other
13:35azakiflawed analogies.
13:36Arfedit's the firefox channel. im asking for a stat about firefox. nobody can provide an answer, they can only fob me off to tell me to ask somewhere else - where i get fobbed off yet again elsewhere
13:37DuClareYes indeed -- it's the wrong place.
13:37Arfedyou're making assumptions about the motivations behind me asking for the stats. i want to know that stat, so that i can know the extent of how the mandatory webextensions switch, will affect the firefox userbase
13:37azakithere are very good PR reasons to keep this information private. that may be uncomfortable, and "untransparent", but honestly, no one will care a year from now if they succeed with 57 and their post-57 plans.
13:37Arfedwhere's the right place DuClare? there is no place I can get an answer to this.
13:38Arfedif the firefox channel - an irc channel about firefox - isnt the right place to ask for a stat about firefox, then bloody where is?
13:38Arfedive tried multiple irc channels, and email lists, and directly emailed mozilla even - no answer to the simple question
13:39azakiArfed: At this point you are fantasizing if you think there is a snowball's chance in hell that they will delay the transition. In fact, there are good PR reasons for this too. If you renege on promises, you end up getting accused of vaporware (e10s had this problem for many years).
13:39azakiThere are no brakes on this train.
13:39azakiChoo choo.
13:39Arfedyou are making assumptions about why i am asking for the stat again.
13:40azakiArfed: No, I'm using the exact sentence you said, which is you want it to be delayed until x percentage is reached, which you plan to analyze after getting the data.
13:41ArfedI said things should be delayed, if the percentage isn't high enough - I didnt say that's why I want to know the percentage
13:41azakiThe implication being if you (some random dude) don't like the numbers in these stats, then they should pull the brakes for his/her majesty, Arfed the first of their name, ruler of the andals and the first men.
13:41Arfedand I dont want a raw data dump - I want one single stat.
13:42azakiBut you having the stat won't change anything.
13:42Arfedthen release the fucking stat.
13:43Arfedit doesn't change anything. so release it.
13:43azakiWhat you're saying makes no sense. You're being disingenuous. I just explained some very complex PR facts to you, about why such data can be problematic to release.
13:44Arfedyou're being disingenuous yourself, in - after the way youve been replying to me - accusing me of disingenuousness...
13:44azakiYou're not being intellectually honest here. You know damn well how easily things can go viral and spiral out of control if the data can be twisted to make Mozilla look bad.
13:45azakiBut then you're saying "oh that's not why i want it, i'm innocent, i didnt say i wanted them to delay"
13:45Arfedsee, that way you're paraphrasing me - putting words in my mouth - shows your own lack of intellectual honesty, and your own disingenuousness
13:45azakiYou wouldn't want it, if you didn't think there was a chance, maybe a 0.0000000001% chance, but a chance, that things could go badly enough that they'd have to delay it.
13:46Arfedapparently you're a fucking mindreader now too
13:47azakiArfed: I've been completely honest with the facts here. I've told you something that most people wouldn't. The reason people rebuff you is because no one wants to appeal to PR reasons for denying your request, because that in itself is controversial, since everyone hates PR and marketing people.
13:47Arfedif what you say is true, then it's reasonable to believe that mozilla cares more about branding and PR/marketing, than their end users
13:47azakiI could've just used the same secretive tone as others, or ignored you until you went away, like the others.
13:48azakiThe mere fact that I am engaging you instead of handwaving you away, shows a respect that I think you should acknowledge.
13:48Arfedyes you've been speaking in a most respectful way towards me...
13:49Arfedlook, if what you say is true - and yea, there's a reason for mozilla to potentially be embarassed about that stat - then it shows mozilla cares more about image, about marketing/PR and their branding - than the people who actually use their software
13:49Arfedthat's a very bad image
13:49azakiArfed: I'm not affiliated with them as I said, so who knows what their reasons actually are. But I know how organizations operate, and I know that open source projects continuously tend to get screwed for being transparent over and over. (like people in the tech media writing articles based on discussions in bug reports)
13:50azakiMeanwhile, proprietary software companies get *success* for being private. The community certainly doesn't *act* as if they care about transparency.
13:51Arfedsince mozilla make active efforts to be transparent - im going to expect and demand that from them here
13:51azakiArfed: They're more transparent than everyone else. Doesn't mean they owe you every single piece of data they have. Would you also ask them for the root passwords of all their employees' PCs? =p
13:52TokoyamiTimvde: re: your slack thing. have you tried qbrt? (
13:52azaki(yes, reductio ad absurdum. on purpose =p)
13:52Arfedim asking for one piece of data. a single distilled and very publicly relevant piece of data
13:52TokoyamiTimvde: it's sort of a replacement for xulrunner
13:52Arfedthe reductio ad absurdum is just a trolling tactic really
13:53TokoyamiTimvde: nodejs though, so no idea if you are ok with that
13:53azakiArfed: Do you understand the motivations for this change? That xul/xpcom has held back browser development, making even simple changes require anywhere from 4 to 10 times the effort, in order to maintain backwards-compat with legacy addons?
13:54Arfedazaki - nothing you're saying here is an excuse for not releasing that single stat
13:54azakiWhich has in turn meant Firefox is behind every other browser in performance and security?
13:54Arfednot a reason for withholding the stat.
13:54azakiArfed: It's mostly addressing your comments about how they don't care enough about their users.
13:55TimvdeTokoyami: No, haven't tried it, I'll give it a show
13:55Arfedwell ive shown their transparency pledge, their commitment to transparency - which i expect from them since they make an effort to be transparent - so you can discard that past statement
13:55TimvdeI'd be more comfortable with SpiderMonkey, yes :)
13:55Arfedas that past statement was based on your assumption, of their lack of transparency
13:56azakiIt's possible to care more about users, then they themselves do, in the context of complex technology that these users do not understand. What they say they want isn't often what they really want, as can be seen by the difference between focus group opinions vs market research.
13:56TokoyamiTimvde: the runtime is gecko underneat
13:56TimvdeIs it just the launcher?
13:56Arfednone of this is an excuse for not releasing that stat.
13:56TokoyamiTimvde: I think only the startup stuff is node
13:56azakiPeople often say they want x, but then betray x in favor of y.
13:56TimvdeWell, I'm still not really a fan of that, but it's manageable I guess
13:57Arfedazaki i dont care about the wider discussion you're embarking on - i just want the fucking stat released. a stat showing the percentage of firefox users, who are running any addon that would break if webextensions became mandatory
13:57azakiArfed: It is when and organization has complex choices to make based on future survival. Mozilla dying benefits no one, and all of the loss in marketshare they have suffered to date has been caused to some extent by these legacy addons and the problems of maintaining compatibility with them.
13:57lol768what's up with
13:58Arfedi dont care about your opinion on that stuff. there is no reason for not releasing that stat there
13:58azakiArfed: There are plenty.
13:58Arfedyou're just waffling about why not to hold back the webextensions switchover. nothing stated about why the stat should not be released
14:05azakilooks like my last message didn't end, according to the logs
14:06DuClareendless message?
14:06azakiArfed: I mentioned that if the stat has the potential to hold back the webext transition, due to whining from a vocal minority of people, and then the tech media picking up on the whining and writing clickbait articles which makes trouble for mozilla, then it's best kept private.
14:07azakiArfed: that's how it's connected. and yes, that is a strong empirical reason for not releasing it.
14:08Arfedexcept mozilla make efforts to be open and transparent - which directly goes against that, as they'd be discarding transparency out of the fear of bad PR
14:09Arfedwhich makes a mockery of the whole idea of transparency, as the entire point is to be transparent about things which may make you look bad
14:09Arfedif they are in the public interest
14:10Arfedso no, mozilla has pledged to be transparent in a spirit which direct contradicts your PR argument - and which makes it right to place an expectation on mozilla, to release that one simple stat
14:10azakitransparency is a large umbrella, and it's never really an absolute, it's always judged relative to others for instance.
14:11azakiagain, it's easy to create a reductio ad absurdum that shows this, which was the *real* intent earlier, not "trolling" as you accused.
14:11Arfedit's either upheld in spirit, or enacted based on technicalities in violation of the overall spirit of transparency
14:11azakiit's to show that there is such a thing as "too much"
14:11Arfedno it was trolling - ive been very specific that i only want one single stat
14:12azakiyeah, that's you.
14:12azakiwhat about the next guy
14:12azakiwho wants something else
14:12azakiand then the next one, who wants something else.
14:12Arfedyou're talking bollocks now - the stat ive asked for is very publicly relevant
14:12azakioh, a brit.
14:12Arfedand displaying your own willingness to make ignorant/offensive assumptions further
14:12azakii like stewart lee. he's my favorite brit.
14:14azakireally? my assumption that other people may want mozilla to release other data is "offensive" ?
14:14Arfedim not a brit.
14:14azakii wouldn't say it's ignorant either... i mean, people want stuff..
14:14Arfedanyway - enough time gone with someone deliberately taking the piss
14:15azakifor a non brit you sure talk like one...
14:16DuClareI'd be flattered if people took me for a birt. Maybe I need to start using the c word.
14:16azakioh wait, ireland isp.
14:16azakisimilar slang =p
14:17Arfednot if you're irish.
14:20merpnderpAnyone have a good idea on why more websites aren't doing web notifications?
14:20merpnderpI'd have thought Facebook would be first to jump on board.
14:21DuClareDon't give them any ideas..
14:21merpnderpDuClare: it's not like they can force them on you.
14:21azakiyour browser still annoys you with that popup whenever you visit the website though ;o
14:21azaki"would you like to enable notifications"
14:22merpnderpazaki: I thought after you disabled it, you werne't prompted again.
14:22merpnderpI disabled it in Slack and haven't seen it since.
14:22azakii tend to ignore it. =p
14:25merpnderpI wonder where in firefox you manage notifications.
14:28WaltS48In Firefox 56 it is under Options > Privacy & Security > Permissions, but you have to reset it after every restart. There is also "Choose which websites are allowed to send you notifications" there.
14:38basildoes anyone else get this error every time they to open a link from an external application?
14:38basil"Firefox is already running, but is not responding. The old Firefox process must be closed to open a new window."
14:38basilClosing the window (which restarts Firefox) opens the link in a new tab but it's really annoying having to do that every time..
14:38nicomachusis there a "duplicate tab" option in firefox?
14:41TylerArfed: the problem is two fold, and I've explained this a few times. 1. More add-ons become WE compatible every day, so a simple percentage doesn't give a good idea of the real situation (plus how many add-ons are abandoned, malware, etc.) 2. What does this state change for you? 57 is still going to be released, you know what add-ons you use and if they are
14:41Tylergoing to be compatible or if you will need to find a replacement. This stat changes Nothing
14:41Mardegnicomachus: middle-click the reload button
14:42TylerWe know the raw number of we add-ons, roughly 4k with more all the time.
14:42nicomachusMardeg: vvv nice. ty
14:42Arfedtyler: not good reasons for withholding the stat
14:44TylerArfed: good reasons for not making your request a priority when we are swamped for work. I am working on about ten projects right now and I'm not on the add-ons team, who I know are even more swamped. When something has no value it doesn't happen when stuff with real value needs to get done
14:45Arfedthe value to the public of knowing that stat, is obvious - and it takes minutes to gather the stat and make it public - just one single compiled stat
14:46TylerYou assume it just takes minutes and that there is value, but you haven't told me what the value is
14:46TylerBecause Mozilla is so privacy oriented, stuff often isn't that simple to compile, it may not even be something we could release, and you never addressed the errors in the stat you want
14:48Arfedthe privacy implications of that stat are nonsense. it's a single compiled stat with no privacy implications. the value to the public is knowing how big an effect a switchover to webextensions - right now - would cause - particularly how much of the userbase it would affect
14:48TylerIf you told me what goal you want to accomplish with this number then I might be able to have a more productive conversation with you
14:51TylerArfed: that's not a value statement. A value statement for a piece of data would be something like "I would like to know the top API's that have been proposed but not implemented, because if I know the top ten API's that I could have engineering work on then I can quantify that into add-ons that would use those API's and roughly how many users would benefit
14:51Tylerfrom having those add-ons, and balance the work against other high priority things".
14:51Arfedthe goal is to be informed about how much of the userbase the webextensions switchover will affect, at present - a moving number, up to the time of the switch
14:51TylerJust saying "I want to know how many of x" when knowing x doesn't change the action being taken doesn't justify the data.
14:51TylerArfed: why. What will it change if you know that?
14:52TylerEspecially when the number you are asking for is flawed
14:54Arfedthe number doesnt have to be aimed at changing anything, in order to justify releasing it. it's a valid piece of information for informing public debate on the topic of the switchover. the number isnt flawed either, as it shows how ready the existing addon ecosystem is for the switchover
14:55WaltS48Why do container tabs have precedence over normal tabs?
14:56nicomachusMardeg: is that advertised anywhere? seems pretty hidden. I wonder how many people actually know about it
14:57WaltS48I open multiple news tabs and one is in a container. Firefox always switches to that tab when opening all of them.
14:58Mardegnicomachus: I'm just a middle-click addict and like to try it out on many things. It's also handy on many menu items
14:59Mardegnicomachus: I'm thinking the prevalence of touchpad laptops and touchscreens means it's hard to promote as a feature
15:01TylerArfed: I'm failing to see a reason in your argument. The only thing that would come of it is someone seeing it and deciding to not upgrade, which we don't want. Add-ons will never bee 100% ported, and we don't expect that
15:01azakiArfed: "public debate" is a nice and polite way of saying "people slandering mozilla no matter what the numbers are"
15:01TylerMaybe there is something else you can focus your energy on. Are you an add-on developer?
15:02TylerAlso, there is no debate. Web extensions are happening in 57. It's been known for years. That isn't changing
15:03TylerWe are working on systems to help add-ons devs migrate, and to help users find alternatives to unsupported add-ons. But the change is happening
15:03azakiI think he/she means "debate about whether mozilla is rushing through this switch" or whatever, hence why i said insinuated it would be a slanderfest, because that's how those discussions usually go.
15:04azaki"oh, mozilla doesnt know what they're doing, blah blah blah"
15:05TylerStill, that's a debate that has no impact on the change, and can easily be countered with blog posts dating to almost two years ago
15:06azakiI mean they've denied and accused me of making "assumptions" about their motivations, but I cannot see anything productive coming from these debates. It seems like an attempt to create controversy by throwing mozilla to the wolves (aka, ghacks =p)
15:06TylerArfed: if you're an add-on developer, why not help your fellow devs migrate their add-ons? Or assist with documentation. Or helping users who add-ons are not being upgraded find alternatives.
15:10firebotbasil: Welcome to #firefox! Just ask your question and someone should be with you shortly. If you don't get an answer after a while, you can try taking a look through the support site:
15:10basilthanks firebot
15:10firebotbasil: np
15:12ArfedTyler - all of that is just fobbing me off once again - if the Mozilla team was respectful enough of the firefox userbase, to actually release this kind of stat informing the public of how badly they will be affected - then I might indeed be motivated, to help shift that percentage figure im looking for, in a favourable direction
15:13Arfedperhaps play less PR games justifying the withholding of that stat, and pull a string or two so that 5 minutes later someone can release the stat
15:13TylerArfed: I've said again and again, and you don't seem to be listening, the number you are asking for is essentially meaningless.
15:13Arfedit is not meaningless - it helps state the present readiness of the addon ecosystem, for a switchover
15:14TylerA simple percentage means nothing when you don't know how many add-ons in the wild are abandoned by their authors, who many have Web Extension versions in the works, how many are malware, how many are not being upgraded but have alternatives that are, etc.
15:14Arfedevery day between now and FF 57, that stat provides good info on the changing state of readyness
15:15Arfedit's a perfect stat for actually seeing how big of a problem those other issues you mention may be
15:15Arfedand for devising strategies for solving those other problems
15:15Timvdenicomachus: In Firefox 57, it will be added to the context menu :)
15:15Arfedthat stat can actually help the switchover go more smoothly
15:15Tylerthe "state of readiness" means nothing. We already track the top add-ons, and are working with authors to make sure they are compatible. 57 isn't being released until november, so devs still have time, and we already know there will be add-ons that aren't compatible, no way around it
15:16Timvde<Tyler> Also, there is no debate. Web extensions are happening in 57. It&#39;s been known for years. That isn&#39;t changing <-- That&#39;s a strange statement, though. How could you know years ago what the status of WE APIs would be at this point?
15:16TylerIt is better if you focus all this energy and persistence you have into something actually productive :)
15:16mbesoHello from french west indies
15:16Arfedthe state of readiness means everything - it tells you the number of users who are going to be affected by the switchover - who are ging to have to deal with some of their addons not working. that&#39;s a critical area of difficulty for users who are upgrading
15:16TylerTimvde: we&#39;ve known for years we will be making this switch. Not the exact date until end of last year, but this actual change has been known
15:17TylerArfed: and we know that and we are working on migitation techniques, as I already said
15:17TimvdeOkay, that sounds more like an informed decision, good :P
15:17ArfedTyler - that you fail to see that what I am asking for, IS productive, because it INFORMS people - which can be used to devise added strategies for making the switchover happen smoothly - that failure on your part shows a significant level of disconnectedness, between the devs and the userbase
15:18firebotJust appeared in Planet Mozilla - :
15:18firebot Hacks.Mozilla.Org: Meta 2 AR Headset with Firefox
15:18TylerArfed: what people will be informed in your mind?
15:18Arfedthe userbase who will be affected by the switchover
15:18TylerMozilla devs are already informed. Add-on devs are informed. Users with affected add-ons are already informed. Who still needs to be informed?
15:18Arfedno they are not informed - they dont have this stat on the overall readiness of the userbase and addon ecosystem
15:19TylerArfed: they already are informed. That&#39;s the point of the whole &quot;legacy&quot; tag in the add-ons manager
15:19TylerArfed: overall readiness does nothing to better inform a user.
15:19Arfedan aggregate stat gives a macro-level view of the readiness of the userbase and addon ecosystem - you&#39;re talking about micro-level stats
15:19Arfedyes it bloody does.
15:19TimvdeArfed: Chances are that Mozilla doesn&#39;t even have relevant numbers, though. Telemetry is disabled by default, and I&#39;m pretty sure that the users who opt in aren&#39;t really representative for a stat like this.
15:19Arfedtyler said before that mozilla have the relevant stats
15:19TylerArfed: ok, let&#39;s run with your idea for a minute and take it to it&#39;s conclusion
15:20TimvdeArfed: From the userbase who opts in to telemetry, sure
15:20TimvdeBut I just don&#39;t think it&#39;s representative
15:20* Arfed shrugs
15:20Arfedit&#39;s something
15:21TimvdeIt&#39;s better not to share information than to share wrong information
15:21Tokoyamihere is an uneducated guess at the number so we can all stop with this roundabout: 70% of all extension users will have atleast one extension they cannot replace, 35% of those will find it&#39;s actually a functionality already in ff57, another 10% will use a userChrome.css replacement.
15:21Arfedyes but you&#39;re assuming the information is bad
15:21Tokoyaminumber is the absolute truth forever and not upto debate
15:22TylerLet&#39;s say we release this stat and on the Firefox 57 release date, 40% of all add-ons in the Firefox ecosystem are not WE compatible (purely imaginary number). We announce that on Facebook. What happens? Users see that number and do one of two things: 1. Upgrade anyway because their add-ons are already compatible, they don&#39;t know what add-ons are, or, like
15:22Tylerthe vast majority of users, they don&#39;t have any add-ons. OR 2. They don&#39;t upgrade to 57 because they a. have an add-on that isn&#39;t compatible b. get worried they have an add-on that isn&#39;t compatible and decide to not update just to be safe (even though they probably don&#39;t even have an add-on to begin with)
15:23TylerArfed: in that situation, what is the good that came of releasing this number? I see no good, and lots of FUD resulting in people not upgrading (which is a HORRIBLE end result)
15:24TylerOR we do what Mozilla is already doing, inform users who have add-ons that haven&#39;t been updated (which we have already done). Work with those add-on authors to get them to update. And for users who have add-ons that won&#39;t be updated, build a feature to help them find alternatives (which is in the works).
15:24Tylerwhich situation sounds better for the average user sitting at home?
15:24Arfedthe good comes from the userbase having an idea, of how many peopel will be negatively affected, and being able to bring public pressure to bare on mozilla - and the stat can then be used as a headline figure for judging the readiness for a switchover
15:24TylerTimvde: I think we can see that number off blocklist pings and amo stats, but I&#39;m not 100% certain. It probably doesn&#39;t require telemetry. regardless, it is a flawed metric to begin with.
15:25TylerArfed: what public pressure do you want? for this decision to be reversed? because that isn&#39;t happening (it sounds like you have an agen