So, when will we be able to use WebExtensions to modify the main UI’s scripts and DOM?
I want to add tab previews with screenshots on hover (as in vivaldi), I want to use custom history (and completely change the way the omnibar works by searching through that custom history server with fulltext indexing of all visited webpages).
When can we expect that (which is possible with existing extensions) to land in WebExtensions?
They have compatibility layers available. You don't have to wait for WebExtensions to add those features, just do it with the old APIs and switch when ready.
Not any time soon. They're aiming for maximum compatibility with Chrome extensions, and Chrome doesn't have anything like that, so I wouldn't expect it to be a priority in Firefox either.
IIRC they're also aiming for most existing extensions to still work (and working with extension authors on this). The extensions will require updating, but the base functionality won't be lost from the spin so an extension that used to work can be rewritten to still work.
The Chrome API is just a base. There's a lot of misinformation about this switch floating around. The intention is to not break existing addons.
I seem to remember them saying that they're interested in adding functionality required by the current addons though. Probably less of a priority than perfect compatibility with Chrome though.
The new multi-process architecture is fundamentally incompatible with many of their old extension APIs. The new multi-process architecture is one of their priorities (they're the last popular browser to get a multi-process architecture -- even IE has had this forever -- and it will solve many of their performance issues), and so another priority is implementing new APIs for extensions to use.
Brazilians being Brazilians it is quite likely that this will create an incentive for people to start using illegal apps.
E.g.: in Brazil abortion is illegal but quite common, tax evasion is illegal but quite common, smuggling from Paraguay is illegal but quite common, gambling is illegal but quite common, ...
It's very hard to make those applications actually illegal (the Congress literally does not have the power for that).
More likely, the government will regulate any company distributing them out of existence, while foreign companies and software-only protocols will get the entire market.
This "announcement" is full of buzzwords and useless marketing mumbo jumbo, but doesn't say if free accounts created years ago will remain free. Can anybody please confirm?
It's obvious that Google is able to change their own videos - and that it does it only to them and maybe premium partners (like Vevo, to upload higher quality versions of music videos). Nothing has changed to anybody until you show any proof that contradicts me.
For example, the text at 0:09 used to say "Envy" (previous band name) instead of "Nico & Vinz" (new band name), but they got Youtube to replace the video with a new one.
And as you can see, the Youtube video with their new name hardcoded into the video was "uploaded" half a year before they actually switched their name (Jan 2014).
You can make certain changes to any video and still keep the id. E.g. any arbitrary trimming or other edits allowed by YouTube's video editor, adding annotations to the video itself etc.
This is my thought as well. This was probably an ill thought through change. Most likely they have only done this to their own content or like you said, to other premium partners for small changes like quality issues etc.
I'm rather going to assume stressed bad ideas over deliberate dick moves.
It's worth noting that it all started on APRIL FOOL'S DAY (2015). That was the convenient day the author of the project decided to say in the comments for a random Github commit "hey, anybody wants to take this over? I'm out", without any previous discussion or announcement. Users assumed it was a joke but it was for real. Literally the first person to reply took over the entire project, and when the developer who was the real responsible for the Firefox and Safari port saw it, he stopped contributing instantly.
However, it's not that "the original author wasn't able to get it back". He is too proud of himself to admit the big mistake it was to give up the project to a random greedy teenager (who after the drama offered to give it back), so he decided to stay with the Origin name.
The result of this is that said teenager still makes a profit off the brand name (see ublock.org). People see that page and happily give him money thinking that they are helping the world.
By the way, it's also worth noting that the greedy teenager inflated his Github commits with minor changes and by hijacking the authorship of some commits, so that people would think that he did more than he actually have done (he can't really do much), and donate more to him. Eventually he just stopped making commits at all (https://github.com/chrisaljoudi/uBlock/graphs/contributors), since people will still donate just for thinking that his domain is legit.
The moral of the story is that uBlock Origin is a good extension, but its developer, despite being talented, can't be trusted to be here tomorrow. He can just have a tantrum and delete the entire project or give it up to some other random teenager again.
The uBlock Origin name just adds to the confusion. The original developer (gorhill) should create a totally new project name. Word would spread that uBlock was the old thing and no longer maintained and that gorhill's new project was the future.
Even using a name like "uBlock Next Generation", which is less ambiguous than "uBlock Origin" and suggests "this is the new project", would still cause confusion. People unfamiliar with the project history would just call it "uBlock", leading to the same donation problems.
Sorry for the late reply. Tox was loosely organized under the umbrella Tox Foundation. When it was discovered that head and CEO (holding the purse strings) was abusing donation money, the devs split and created uTox. However, the Tox Foundation insists on holding the name, but as it's only one guy who doesn't appear to have taken any binding legal action, the name sharing persists.
They must have meant "culturally obligatory". Americans (at least New Yorkers) have a tradition of giving generous tips to all workers they perceive as not making a living wage.
In other countries, tipping isn't as common and can be even be seen as rude (in Japan, for example).
* https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2016/08/02/multi-process-fir...
* https://developer.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Working_with_multiproc...