Firefox/Thunderbird Plugins: Is Less More?

comforteagle writes "I've published the first of a two part look at the new dynamic duo of Mozilla's Firefox and Thunderbird. While most folks thus far agree with the 'less is more' mantra when it comes to the base applications, the plugins seem to be a different story. Hey, there's little wiggle room to debate that the firefox base application (the subject of the first article) isn't the shizzle, but how about the add-ons and plugins? For that matter, do you agree that less is more. or is too little included?"

blah

[Anonymous Coward]

mouse gestures, flash... that's about all i need

I don't want to view your crappy ads

[vandelais]

If you can't design your webpage to be accessible without plug-ins, I don't need it. I don't need to see what I'm missing. Especially crappy ads.

Less is the opposite of more

[IO ERROR]

(it says so in the man page)

I really like the idea of being able to customize my browser to work just the way I want it to. And being able to pick and choose my plugins with Firefox gives me exactly that. I don't want ALL that junk thrown in! Just a few things, like Adblock, Session Saver, TinyURL Creator, User Agent Switcher and Firesomething (for fun).

Posted from Mozilla Spacemonkey

Depends

[Hamster Of Death]

It all depends at the crowds you're trying to woo.

Myself I prefer absolutely nothing tacked on to my default installation other than the advertised purpose. If I want to add functionality, I'll go looking then.

If you're catering to the masses (ooh look shiny!) then you'll probably have to strike a balance and include the popular functions while leaving the cosmetic or trivial ones to be added in later.

There is no clear cut answer.

I Wish Moz Would Rely a Little Less on Plugins

[FlipmodePlaya]

I know they want to avoid bloat, but programs like Opera prove that you can have tons of features without using tons of memory. I don't like having to fish around for dozens of plugins to get the base functionality of a competing application. Is there a branch, like Firefox, that specializes in including everything rather than trimming it down?

sure, less is more

[ignatus]

Is't that what plugin's are all about? extending the functionality of a basic application with the things you really need, leaving out all the crap you don't use anyway. Righto,it works for me....

Barebones and plugins = good

[torklugnutz]

I switched to Firefox about 2 months ago. I've been converting others along the way. Generally, I make sure that I install the java plugin for IE converts. I think the ability to configure and strip plugins out (or not install the features int he first place) is a big strength of the platform. I do wish it was easier to completely remove the plugins once installed, rather than just disabling them. I had one misbehave and had to go through some hoops to remove it. In short, I would rather have a barebones browser and add to it myself.

Less is more - to a typical end user

[WarehouseCU]

From a usability standpoint less is definitely more when dealing with typical end users. Most of the people I have installed FireFox for on their Windows machines didn't care about anything but me setting it to block popups and that it automatically imported their IE bookmarks. Beyond that it just worked, they were happy.

When dealing with Slashdot style users plugins become huge, I like to customize my browser to fit my browsing style and want to see all the options, not what would be best for the typical end user.

To paraphrase Father Mulcahey:

[kfg]

"Modularity! Modularity!"

KFG

Re:Google Bar

[Vancorps]

You know you can change this to be whatever search engine you want right?

Minimalistic and Modular design makes more sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Modular design just makes much more sense. This goes for firefox's plugins as well. Why would I use the Mozilla suite if I only need the browser? This way, I can use firefox for browsing, evolution for mail, bluefish for html, and x-chat for IRC. If there is one thing that a suite provides it is integration. Because all those programs are internal, they can more easily communicate. This is a bit more difficult with the modular approach. For example, 2 firefox plugins could conflict with eachother, or drag and drop could not work in some instances. This is where standards come in. Modular design that complies with standards is by far the best approach. This way, you only install what you need, and you can add and remove modules as you please. If standards are followed by these programs, then intra-program communication should work. A good example of this is the ROX filer and XMMS. If I drag a music file onto the XMMS playlist, it will add it. If I double click on a music file, it will play the file.

Obvious (and not so) Features

[_Sprocket_]

The obvious advantage is eliminating "features" one doesn't need / want. I suggested Firefox to my wife and she loves it. But the extensions I use are not the same that she uses for her install. To each their own.

When she suggested it to her friend, we ended up with a small laundry list of extensions we like and would suggest. And then I realized - the Firefox that I've come to like is not the Firefox everyone else likes.

Just like any desktop environment I've ever used. If I spend a reasonable amount of time on any system, there are key applications that I must have. Applications that not everyone wants / needs. My desktop environment always looks and behaves very differently than others (how do people work with default environments anyway?).

Maybe this is a reflection of the whole "XUL is a platform" thing. In any case, it is boon and bane. It shows versitility. But it can be a bit daunting to the hapless friend who gets "try Firefox! Oh... and the Widget extension! Oh. And you've got to load up the FooBar too!..."

Re:Thunder/Firebird aren't "less"

[skifreak87]

While I have no issues w/ Firefox, I find thunderbird lacking in a core functionality I enjoy (the ability to sort email - which is not filter incoming email but sort already read email. I don't get enough email for it to be worth it to sort email out of my inbox before it's read but I like having my old email sorted so it's easy to find stuff. I cannot find anyway to do this w/ thunderbird - any help would be appreciated).

What I'd like to see is more plugins from the Mozilla developers, it's my understanding that most plugins are not officially supported and are run-at-your-own-risk. Would be nice to have a base browser and some simple plugins that are officially supported and bug tested by mozilla. I for one, cannot live w/out the tabbrowser extensions which just add more functionality to how tabs are used (including the ability to unclose a window which is a memory hog but wonderful when i accidently hit x)

Isn't this how IE goes bad most of the time?

[LostCluster]

The most common problem in Internet Explorer these days is when a user gets pushed a "Toolbar" that they didn't want, and then it starts messing with things.

Let's hope FireFox doesn't go down that path.

Tabbrowser extensions

[maxmg]

That's the only bit I would like to see go back into the firefox core, as the control you have over the tabs is just not good enough (for example, I absolutely have to have close boxes in all tabs). Apart from that, I use a number of plugins, of which radial context menus is the most important one. It's da shiznit, dawg. And firesomething always makes me smile...
Then there's Adblock, Zoom Image for those who need it (wink wink), but seriously, this is very helpful for working on a 1920x1200 screen.
I am recommending firefox to everybody I know and have so far successfully converted my whole family and at least two thirds of my colleagues.

benefit?

[tomstdenis]

I run gentoo. I once removed mozilla [1.6] and replaced it with the latest and greatest of Firefox and Thunderbird. To my horror both are basically full copies of Mozilla with minor changes [one has the web client disabled the other the mail client]. Essentially both are 30MB tar.bz2's that waste a huge amount of ram when they are both loaded.

Really for the average user who might use both clients it's just better to run mozilla instead.

As for "how many features to include" honestly I think firefox is too big as it is. If it's *just* a web browser it ought to be smaller and take less ram. But it doesn't.

Though I think people miss the point of firefox. It's not meant to be smaller. It's meant to show off the leading edge. Though honestly most new features aren't that keen to be worth it.

Tom

Multiple 'versions'

[MoogMan]

Ok, so how about this for a ludicrously mad idea. When (if?) the installer comes into play, there could be two versions. "Minimal" and another version with a couple of useful plugins etc.

Alternatively, as long as the plugin mechanism is relatively simply (which it is), and as seemless as possible (getting close), then i dont think there should be a problem for most users to upgrade.

Compare with Internet Explorer, which comes with no plugins, Firefox users are no worse off. Granted, in comparison to maybe Opera, we dont get mouse gestures and other funky things as default.

I guess its a hard thing to decide simplicity/speed vs user base/catchment area. Thus why the minimal/standard installations could be a good idea.

Re:Google Bar

[jesser]

I care about being able to see Pagerank, but not enough to use Internet Explorer as my primary browser.

Pros and cons about plugins in my opinion

[Jugalator]

I think there's at least three good things about them:

1. They leave out reasons for bugs and security holes from the main application since it becomes less complex. Core application developers can focus on just that -- developing the core application.

2. They let users get exactly what features they want so they can customize the application better for their needs. It will become easier to use for this reason (no need to navigate through big menu hierarchies and can spend less time learning how to use the applcation, etc).

3. The plugins, on the other hand, will be developed by highly motivated individuals or groups, which often results in a work of higher quality and better specialized for the job than if it would've been part of the main application and given only the necessary time so the main developers wouldn't delay main application releases. Take the adblock plugin for Mozilla as an example with advanced pattern matching and Flash blocking with content being intercepted before it's downloaded (as opposed to with adblocking proxies that analyze and filters already downloaded data). Or the SmoothWheel plugin that contains a dozen settings to let the user control exactly how the smooth algorithm should work (who can of course stick with defaults and never give it more thought too).

The major downsides are probably:

1. Users need to spend time downloading and finding out if plugins exist for their needs.

2. Users need to keep up to date with more than the main application if the plugins contain bugs he/she wish to see fixed.

3. Inexperienced users who aren't used to plugins, users with a lack of patience, or users who don't want to spend time to tinker with their application to get the features they need might be put off by the lack of features in the main application and switch to another one that's advertised having a larger feature set.

Thunderbird annoyance

[Anonymous Coward]

I love Firefox and Thunderbird, but sometimes I wish there were a few more options.

For example, in Thunderbird there still is no way to just receive plain text email without markup of some sort. (Unless you like clicking on View->Message Source for every message.) *text* renders as *text*, text it detects as sigs is grayed out (even in multiple part digest form messages, rendering half a message as gray!, the > quotation is replaced by a graphical |... and there are probably other changes I have forgotten. Even altering my user.js conf file hasn't completely rid me of the above markup.

It's a good mail application, but any mail program's first priority should be display the email as received. After that, start adding markup.

Re:I'm sorry...

[Rick and Roll]

And this earns a flamebait moderation? Whoever gave the moderation is implying that many /.er's like to use the word "shizzle" and that complaining about it will start a flame war. What a scary thought.

Actually the biggest downside

[Kjella]

1. Users need to spend time downloading and finding out if plugins exist for their needs. ...users suckered to download plug-ins they believe they need. Instead of Ad-Block, welcome to Ad-Thief, your friendly plug-in that'll rewrite all banners to come from a different server.

Or flash-click, that'll not only play the one you clicked on, but insert a little ad before and after. And so on. ActiveX = plug-ins is the single biggest source of problems on IE. And most of the time, because the users are "willingly" installing it.

Kjella

Re:Depends

[JohnnyBigodes]

You do realize that the average Joe, as soon as he saw that, would be "so what the hell do I need to download anyway?"

Re:Speaking of the download manager

[itsdave]

that is my number one complaint for mozilla firefox, it wouldnt be half as bad if it didnt look like a link, but since it looks like a link i always find myself clicking on it even though past experience tells me it doesnt do anything.

Re:I like the simple but expandable model

[plover]

I dunno, I think some of the most useful utility programs come from lazy (but not too lazy) programmers.

A drone will repeat the same task over and over because that's "what they do." A very lazy programmer will get sick of the task after about two iterations and say, "I could replace this stupidity with a small program." A lazy programmer actually writes the code. Of course, some of us spend more hours developing code than will ever actually be saved by using the shortcut, but hey, the risk goes with the task.

And if it's really cool, you share it with friends who all say "ooo, ahh, cool." And then your friends say "hey, can you make it do X, too?" and "hey, neat, can it do Y?" So you improve it.

And then it becomes Mozilla, and you end up splitting off the browser function as a standalone app because Mozilla does too much X and Y...