I recently looked at the forthcoming Epiphany browser based-on-Webkit. However, some people told me that Firefox has so many extensions that it would not be possible for a new browser to compete, even among the target audience of GNOME users. Is this true?
I am not a C hacker and don't want to be at this stage, so I can't really help with the heavy lifting in finishing the new Epiphany. However, the previous Gecko-based version allowed you to write extensions in Python, so if that is true in the new version, I could write an extension or two.
The old gecko version of Epiphany had various extensions, and a dozen or so of the best were bundled in the Epiphany-Extensions package.
Firefox extensions
It is early days because, as far as I know, the new Epiphany extension API is not written yet, however, we can do a little research about Firefox extensions, and seeing which ones are worth replicating on Epiphany. I myself have FireGPG (allows you to use GPG with webmail), Flashblock (blocks Flash movies unless whitelisted) and FireBug (see below).
There are 2353 add-ons and themes in the Firefox add-on database, several are abandoned in that they have not been updated to work with modern versions of Firefox. The bottom 1000 have had very little impact. For example, the "Et Lolcat" extension translates English to 'locat', it has only been downloaded 26 times ever. I doubt the lack of a lolcat extension is going to prevent anyone from using Epiphany.
As you might expect, outside the big hitters, the popularity of extensions tails off pretty fast. The top few add-ons have been download hundreds of thousands of times, the 100th add-on has been downloaded 10,000 times, the 1000th add-on has hardly ever been downloaded by anyone.
So lets ignore all the themes as Epiphany themes according to your desktop theme; lets also ignore all the abandoned extensions and the extensions which have never really been downloaded by anyone. So we can say there are less than 500 extensions that are actually relevant for our purposes. This is still a massive number. I cannot think of another piece of software that has 500 active extensions.
In the rest of this post, I look through the list of the top 100 downloaded-add-ons. This list of course is dynamic, so will change according to when you view it. So where I have included a number, it is the position in the top 100 when I looked at it. Do not worry I don't talk about 100 add-ons, a lot of the top 100 add-ons are themes and dictionaries which I have ignored.
The top three
Video DownloadHelper (1) - This allows people to rip videos out of sites like Youtube, as does UnPlug (37) and a million others. This could be easily replicated by Epiphany but maybe a better approach would be a "save-as" button in Gnash? Likewise Flashblock would not be required if Gnash has an option for "only play when the user agrees to".
Adblock Plus (2) provides advert blocking, as does Adblock and Adblock Filterset.G Updater (38). In the old Epiphany, there already was a decent adblock. This can and no doubt will be easily replicated by an Epiphany extension.
NoScript (3) provides blocking and white-listing of Javascript. This could be easily replicated by an Epiphany extension. Epiphany already gives you the ability to turn Javascript on and off globally, the extension just needs to give the ability to control this behaviour per site.
Not all extensions are priorities
IE Tab (7) allows Windows users of Firefox to open non-standard webpages in IE. This is not available on Firefox for Linux so is irrelevant. People should not write IE only webpages.
Next we have the replacements for Firefox's rubbish download dialog: DownThemAll (4), Download Statusbar (6), PDF Download (10), Fast Video Download (15), ScrapBook (28). Hopefully Epiphany's download dialog will be good enough out of the gate. So these are not a priority.
Foxmarks (9) and Speed Dial (29) are replacements for Firefox's annoying bookmarks dialog. Epiphany's bookmark manager is better, so these extensions are not a high priority.
Greasemonkey (5) is a higher level extension tool, it basically makes it easier to write extensions for Firefox, especially per site extensions. If Epiphany's extensions are easy to write, this will not be needed.
The Fasterfox (17) extension allows you to prefetch pages, as well as make concurrent connections, i.e. download the same page ten times at the same time. I am undecided weather this extension is a good idea for the web. I wouldn't want people using it on my sites.
A web browser is not a desktop environment or package manager
Quite a few of the extensions use Firefox as a convenient way to make and distribute an application, not surprising as Windows does not have a package manager. These extensions may have none or only tangential connection to the fact that Firefox is a web browser. Many of these in Linux would work just as fine or better as a separate application, indeed many equivalent applications already exist and are probably better.
FireFTP (18) is an FTP client, GNOME has GFTP which is perfectly fine. FoxyTunes (27) is a media player frontend, Linux has billions of media players. Forecastfox (12) tells you the weather, the GNOME desktop already tells you the weather, we can even look out a window. Likewise, FoxClocks (30) tells you the time, which the GNOME desktop does by default. After 40, we have RSS Readers such as the "Feed Sidebar" and "Sage", as well the IRC client ChatZilla. GNOME has lots of RSS Readers, e.g. Straw and Liferea, and Linux has lots of IRC Clients. The best way to use IRC is to use a client that can run 24/7 on the server, such as Irssi.
ScribeFire is a Firefox extension that provides a text editor for blogging. There is GNOME-blog available through all the package managers, but I prefer to use a real text editor. FoxSaver is an extension to provide a screensaver and photoviewer, GNOME has the Eye of GNOME image viewer and its own screensaver. ReminderFox (35) provides reminders, as GNOME already does.
PicLens (8) provides desktop effects for Firefox on Windows. It is not available for Linux, but Compiz with Epiphany does a better job. The same applies to "Tab Effect" (21) and FireGestures (24).
The Firebug (13) extension is a fantastic toolkit for web designers that turns your browser into a complete Dreamweaver clone. This would perhaps be better as a webkit based application, the same goes for "Web Developer" (20).
"Better Gmail 2" (14) provides extra options for Gmail, turning Gmail into a rich desktop application. The whole point of web-based email is that you can access it from any computer anywhere without special software. If you want to use installed software, then Gnome has Evolution which is richer than any web application.
I also skimmed through the 100 to 200 most popular add-ons, and it was more of the same. I hate to be a snob, but it seems that the most downloaded extensions are not necessarily the best ones!
Conclusion
There are many hundreds of Firefox extensions, some of them are absolutely fantastic, however many are repetitive, many also replicate things that already exist on a GNOME based system by default or are quickly available in the package manager. A large number of the extensions are old and have not been ported to modern versions, and some of them are just bad ideas.
This survey has convinced me that it is quality not quantity that matters, that with just 20 well chosen extensions, Epiphany could offer the features that 80% of GNOME users want, with 50 well chosen extensions, it could offer the features that 95% of GNOME users want. I am talking about extensions that actually have something to do with web browsing, not turning Firefox into a jukebox, or into a calendar, into a Compiz replacement, or into an operating system of its own.
Discuss this post - Leave a comment