Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Making moves
Status: In review

A less complex product will have less bugs.

The core of Firefox should only be the needed functionality to browse the web.

Additions that are built in like Pocket add additional code.

I my idea is that Firefox should split Pocket out from the Firefox executable and have it as an pre-installed extension which can be disabled by users or even removed if they do not want to have have it in their installation.


Making moves

If you're so busy browsing the web, what are you worried about Pocket for?

Firefox is at least a gig of code.  And how much is Pocket?  If they removed it, how would your experience change?

Sometimes I use it. sometimes I don't.  If I didn't see this thread, I wouldn't have even remembered that it was there?

I don't know what you're talking about (and maybe you don't either), unless there is something that I do not know (and I will be the first to admit it, or if not admit it then notice it, but...)

Just ignore it.  There are bigger problems in the world and even in our beloved browser!

Making moves

A browser is an operating system.

As much as Mozilla wants to be Google, they insist on doing things as they have done before.

Make Firefox OS a reality, starting with the Firefox browser.  (It might be clearer if different names were used.)

Very briefly, I believe that a mainline browser should be a core (nspr, xpcom, blah blah), then layers (maybe xpcom goes here? not my decision...; xul, etc; gecko, etc), then plugins, preferences and processes (content and rendering).

Last jab -- the less C++ the better.  Why do you still bother with that nonsense?


As to the title of the post, a layered architecture may provide for easier selection of features, especially in differentiation of products (like full featured, slimmed down; browser, Thunderbird, OS).


PS (cant stop myself) -- why didnt you support activestate komodo?

Making moves

The thing with adding feature-creep into any product is that the code base grows.

Design decisions that seemed to be good at the time can't easily be changed years later without also having to take into consideration legacy code.

Pocket is an superfluous bit of code that should only be run if and when the user wants and needs it. 

By looking at Pocket and creating a framework for who it could be integrated as an default add-on that can be removed by the end user I believe that even more functions in Firefox could be made like this.
The reason I'm saying default add-on is that I expect there to be some kind of contract that states that Pocket should be integrated and that the foundation receives a certain amount of money for that.

I'm not against the foundation being able to fund itself.

I'm for a Firefox that can be slimmed down by user choice after installation removing add-ons that have been preinstalled and getting a smaller and less resource hungry browser.

This new framework I'm imagining would also open up for other collaborations which would be good - because the final power would be in the end-users hands on what gets to stay after installation and what gets removed.



Not applicable

I use Pocket a lot, but I don't feel the need to integrate it with Firefox because all the features are available on the website.

I no longer use Pocket. I deleted unnecessary bookmarks because my local bookmarks were enough for me.

Strollin' around

I use Pocket, but I want Firefox lean and minimal, with all functionality provided by add-ons, like the good old days.

Strollin' around

Pocket is not a firefox feature - otherwise it wouldn't be called Pocket with its own website.

Make it an addon.

Making moves

At least make pocket in par with Chromium browser... In Chromium browser, People can see their list offline, their article offline,, with the highlight.. yet in Firefox, it's just a bookmark tagging, what a joke. Just remove it already... if pocket team doesn't care about it...

Making moves

When Pocket brings money to Mozilla, that's good.

And this might be more important to Firefox than slimming the code.

Mozilla team knows best.

Familiar face

Exactly, many users never use it, like for example Other tools section full of features that a common user would never use.

Making moves


As I've written it's not about removing a revenue stream for the foundation, but rather to refactor the code and make it slimmer.

The collaboration with Pocket could continue as a per-installed add-on.

And if a framework is made for this then it can be used for other partners in the future thereby bringing more opportunity for future financing.

Strollin' around

I totally agree with this idea. Pocket should be make as an option.

Making moves

I prefer knowing Mozilla is activingly working on Pocket rather than it being another "Recommended or Officially Mozilla addon", Because it can make people forget how increadibly awsome Pocket is overall.

And I haven't been around other communities where they talk about "official" Addons, but if you mention Pocket in Firefox, they most likely know what it is and what it does.

Making moves

@GnenoDEVYou could look at it from another direction.

If Mozilla creates a plugin system that is robust using Pocket as the first official plugin it will be open for other official plugins which would make more resources available to work on the official plugin system.

It would then give best of both worlds. Mozilla can continue to create partnerships that will pay the bills and the users are able to chose to have the plugins enabled, removed or only enabled on the devices where they are using them - leaving total choice for the end user.

Making moves

@Gustav Okey, thats one thing I didnt think through properly. Thank you!

I do like the idea of what you posted, however what about the never-ending Question "Security"?, if Mozilla all of sudden allows people to create 3rd-party Addons towards GetPocket, they can potentially allow "Fake-Creators" to harvest your Saved Stories/Articles etc, etc.

But I do like the idea of maybe more positive ways of position/settings in the "GetPocket"-feature.

Not applicable

Why does Mozilla stick with Pocket? Better to sell it and use the funds to develop other features.