Hi, I was wondering if there are any plans for a full version of Firebug for Chrome. I used to love Firefox until they came out with version 4. It has just gone downhill ever since. Firefox is Commodore 64 slow. All other browsers blow it away as far as speed is concerned. I am just sick of it already. Constant version updates, never increasing any speed, memory hogging, etc. Chrome is insanely fast, but I don't like the developer tools thing that is just a Firebug wannabe.
> Hi,
> I was wondering if there are any plans for a full version of Firebug for
> Chrome.
> I used to love Firefox until they came out with version 4. It has just
> gone downhill ever since. Firefox is Commodore 64 slow. All other
> browsers blow it away as far as speed is concerned. I am just sick of it
> already. Constant version updates, never increasing any speed, memory
> hogging, etc.
> Chrome is insanely fast, but I don't like the developer tools thing that is
> just a Firebug wannabe.
Im sure he knows that. Its the full version that many of us are dreaming of for chrome. Its very frustrating having to keep going back to firefox because the developer panel on chrome is no where near as good as firebug.
> Im sure he knows that. Its the full version that many of us are dreaming > of for chrome. Its very frustrating having to keep going back to firefox > because the developer panel on chrome is no where near as good as firebug.
Making Firebug compatible with Chrome would require a complete own developer team because Firebug uses a lot of Firefox specific APIs. Because we already have limited resources I'm afraid the answer is no, there are no plans for making it compatible with Chrome.
I think there would be literally thousands of developers who would contribute.
I appreciate it would be a challenge but there is mad desperation for it. Added to that the sad truth is the writing is on the wall in the chrome v firefox fight.
On Monday, 2 July 2012 13:14:18 UTC+1, Sebastian Zartner wrote:
> Im sure he knows that. Its the full version that many of us are dreaming >> of for chrome. Its very frustrating having to keep going back to firefox >> because the developer panel on chrome is no where near as good as firebug.
> Making Firebug compatible with Chrome would require a complete own > developer team because Firebug uses a lot of Firefox specific APIs. Because > we already have limited resources I'm afraid the answer is no, there are no > plans for making it compatible with Chrome.
On Saturday, July 14, 2012 8:57:20 AM UTC+10, Matt Bourne wrote:
> Have you considered a kickstarter appeal?
> I think there would be literally thousands of developers who would > contribute.
> I appreciate it would be a challenge but there is mad desperation for it. > Added to that the sad truth is the writing is on the wall in the chrome v > firefox fight.
> Matt
> On Monday, 2 July 2012 13:14:18 UTC+1, Sebastian Zartner wrote:
>> Im sure he knows that. Its the full version that many of us are dreaming >>> of for chrome. Its very frustrating having to keep going back to firefox >>> because the developer panel on chrome is no where near as good as firebug.
>> Making Firebug compatible with Chrome would require a complete own >> developer team because Firebug uses a lot of Firefox specific APIs. Because >> we already have limited resources I'm afraid the answer is no, there are no >> plans for making it compatible with Chrome.
We thought more of winning new team members for the current Firebug (for Firefox) project by moving to github. But Firebug is open source. So everyone wanting to work on a project like this is welcome to do so. If you want to be the leader of that project, we'll help you with it.
> I think there would be literally thousands of developers who would > contribute.
There could be a lot of potential developers for that. Though note it's already hard to find contributors for Firebug Lite, which is currently on ice due to a lack of resources.
I appreciate it would be a challenge but there is mad desperation for it.
> Added to that the sad truth is the writing is on the wall in the chrome v > firefox fight.
Again, if somebody wants to take that challenge, we appreciate that. Though the current Firebug team doesn't have the resources to start a second big project.
On Saturday, July 14, 2012 6:26:53 AM UTC+2, Sid wrote:
> Yeh I thought about that, if they even sell the extinction for like $1.99 > they will be able to provide some sort of support for it.
I didn't see that comment earlier. I hope you mean extension and not extinction. ;-) Firebug is open source and freeware. So there's nothing to sell. And if you mean, we should charge money for it, there would still be a lack of resources.
Again, everyone willing to start working on such a project is welcome to do so.
I had also thought that a revise of ChromeBug was in order, until I started
using NodeJS. With a little bit of work to turn the NodeJS .EXE into a
service, it allows the server hosting to occur as a localhost, with the
absolutely simple use of a single executable! NODE.EXE. Running NODE.EXE on
the client eliminates most needs for plugins and does not require the
broken security model which non-certified plugIns create.
NodeJS is not without its own pain, but it creates a single paradigm for
any requirement that needs unrestricted access to the client PC. Now the
plug-ins become NODEJS plug-ins. Instead of trusting your Mozilla plug-in,
you need to trust your NODEjs apps.
I know that "...NodeJS is the answer" may not be what FFx/Mozilla
afficionados want to hear, but there is no way that any technology can
approach the legacy and proven install-base of FFx/XUL. Each piece has a
role to play and to blur these is a mistake.
I am developing a a tool, soon to be delivered to 18,000 clients who need
to operate in an offline mode, with access to "host" storage (i.e. their
own hard-drives), which I am providing via NODEjs on the client. The reason
I am using FFx/XUL is that this is the only way I can completely control my
sandbox. I have a single operating target environment (i.e. whichever
XULRunner I choose to install). That XULRunner will work with decades-old
PCs without any conflict with any versions of any browsers. And I don't
have to worry about different browser providers or even old FFx versions--
only the XULRunner that I choose to package with my tool. If the client has
FFx, it is not an issue!
The legacy of hard working Mozilla committed developers worldwide for the
last decade have already proven that this target sandbox will be
install-able. I can leave the details of that install to the folks at
Installshield or some other similar tool and spend my time developing in a
world of knowns.
Thank you Mozilla committed developers for making this possible and for
continuing to improve Firebug and the environment it supports.
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Sebastian Zartner <
sebastianzart...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, July 14, 2012 6:26:53 AM UTC+2, Sid wrote:
>> Yeh I thought about that, if they even sell the extinction for like $1.99
>> they will be able to provide some sort of support for it.
> I didn't see that comment earlier.
> I hope you mean extension and not extinction. ;-) Firebug is open source
> and freeware. So there's nothing to sell. And if you mean, we should charge
> money for it, there would still be a lack of resources.
> Again, everyone willing to start working on such a project is welcome to
> do so.
> Sebastian
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Firebug" group.
> To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> firebug+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/firebug
-- Ken Amron
Digital Parts, Inc.
877.374.4300 ext. 567
> I had also thought that a revise of ChromeBug was in order, until I > started using NodeJS. With a little bit of work to turn the NodeJS .EXE > into a service, it allows the server hosting to occur as a localhost, with > the absolutely simple use of a single executable! NODE.EXE. Running > NODE.EXE on the client eliminates most needs for plugins and does not > require the broken security model which non-certified plugIns create.
> NodeJS is not without its own pain, but it creates a single paradigm for > any requirement that needs unrestricted access to the client PC. Now the > plug-ins become NODEJS plug-ins. Instead of trusting your Mozilla plug-in, > you need to trust your NODEjs apps.
> I know that "...NodeJS is the answer" may not be what FFx/Mozilla > afficionados want to hear, but there is no way that any technology can > approach the legacy and proven install-base of FFx/XUL. Each piece has a > role to play and to blur these is a mistake.
> I am developing a a tool, soon to be delivered to 18,000 clients who need > to operate in an offline mode, with access to "host" storage (i.e. their > own hard-drives), which I am providing via NODEjs on the client. The reason > I am using FFx/XUL is that this is the only way I can completely control my > sandbox. I have a single operating target environment (i.e. whichever > XULRunner I choose to install). That XULRunner will work with decades-old > PCs without any conflict with any versions of any browsers. And I don't > have to worry about different browser providers or even old FFx versions-- > only the XULRunner that I choose to package with my tool. If the client has > FFx, it is not an issue!
Your project sounds really interesting. Though it is not Chromebug that the people are asking for here. They want to port Firebug to the Google Chrome browser. So that are two different worlds.
> The legacy of hard working Mozilla committed developers worldwide for the > last decade have already proven that this target sandbox will be > install-able. I can leave the details of that install to the folks at > Installshield or some other similar tool and spend my time developing in a > world of knowns.
> Thank you Mozilla committed developers for making this possible and for > continuing to improve Firebug and the environment it supports.
Just want to note that most of the people behind Firebug are not working for Mozilla.
On Thursday, June 14, 2012 10:57:53 AM UTC-4, George99 wrote:
> Hi, > I was wondering if there are any plans for a full version of Firebug for > Chrome. > I used to love Firefox until they came out with version 4. It has just > gone downhill ever since. Firefox is Commodore 64 slow. All other > browsers blow it away as far as speed is concerned. I am just sick of it > already. Constant version updates, never increasing any speed, memory > hogging, etc. > Chrome is insanely fast, but I don't like the developer tools thing that > is just a Firebug wannabe.
Nothing new on a Firebug for Chrome, or at least a solid alternative? I'm pretty stuck on Chrome OS and would rather not use Firefox, but the extension is so fantastic. :(
On Thursday, June 14, 2012 7:57:53 AM UTC-7, George99 wrote:
> Hi, > I was wondering if there are any plans for a full version of Firebug for > Chrome. > I used to love Firefox until they came out with version 4. It has just > gone downhill ever since. Firefox is Commodore 64 slow. All other > browsers blow it away as far as speed is concerned. I am just sick of it > already. Constant version updates, never increasing any speed, memory > hogging, etc. > Chrome is insanely fast, but I don't like the developer tools thing that > is just a Firebug wannabe.
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:31:41 AM UTC+2, Thomas O'Hearn wrote:
> Nothing new on a Firebug for Chrome, or at least a solid alternative? I'm > pretty stuck on Chrome OS and would rather not use Firefox, but the > extension is so fantastic. :(
Thanks!
But we still don't have enough resources to maintain even the Firebug Lite project.
> On Thursday, June 14, 2012 7:57:53 AM UTC-7, George99 wrote:
>> Hi, >> I was wondering if there are any plans for a full version of Firebug for >> Chrome. >> I used to love Firefox until they came out with version 4. It has just >> gone downhill ever since. Firefox is Commodore 64 slow. All other >> browsers blow it away as far as speed is concerned. I am just sick of it >> already. Constant version updates, never increasing any speed, memory >> hogging, etc. >> Chrome is insanely fast, but I don't like the developer tools thing that >> is just a Firebug wannabe.
>> Firebug is the only reason I still use Firefox.
