Feature Creep?

[rdtmk]

Firefox developers, I'd like to implore you NOT to turn FF into a bloated
behemoth with subsequent version releases. I read an article today of
planned 'improvements' to FF3 and, frankly, it made me nervous. Slowly but
surely, it seems that our favorite svelte browser is going to steadily gain
weight through the inclusion of features (and the resultant instability)
that most us will probably never use or want. Please keep the core product
compact and let the extension community continue to do its magic. Do not
lose sight of what made Firefox successful in the first place.

From a concerned FF devotee. Thank you for your consideration.

[Boris Zbarsky]

rdtmk wrote:
> Firefox developers, I'd like to implore you NOT to turn FF into a bloated
> behemoth with subsequent version releases. I read an article today of
> planned 'improvements' to FF3 and, frankly, it made me nervous.

What particular items do you think belong in extensions instead?

Hard to respond to a plea to "not add stuff" if there's no indication of what
should not be added. Unless you think nothing should be added at all?

-Boris

[Lucky]

He did mention the planned 'improvements' of FF3
cairo is a good one for obvious reasons,
but stuff such as 'places', etc.
and bundling in code that was an extension already as seen already.

I too think the lighter-weight shell is a must.
and then just release "flavors" that go off-the-deep end w/ such add-ons..

Great work by all, nonetheless.

but give all the choice of the most core setup, lightweight & fast.
even if that is not your commercial version. blah.

[Boris Zbarsky]

Lucky wrote:
> He did mention the planned 'improvements' of FF3

He just listed all changes since FF2. If his real request is that nothing
change, that's fine. But don't talk about "feature creep" then. ;)

> cairo is a good one for obvious reasons,

I must be missing these reasons. Especially since "cairo" is not a "feature"

> but stuff such as 'places', etc.

Places is replacing existing bookmarks/history, so it's not so much "feature
creep"... but anyway.

> and bundling in code that was an extension already as seen already.

If 99% of our users would use the code, perhaps it should be bundled after all.
But how would I know? You didn't say _which_ extensions.

Again, please cite _specific_ examples of feature additions that should not have
been added if you expect the conversation to get somewhere.

-Boris