Admittedly, Firefox is the proverbial 800lb gorilla when it comes to non-MS /non-Alphabet browsers, but there are alternatives in-use and relatively well known such as Waterfox and Palemoon.
Both have determined that the WebExtension platform being promoted (and as of v57 onward, mandated) by Mozilla is not viable, so they are keeping and continuing to improve the XUL/XPCOM addon framework.
Adding the XUL/XPCOM version would cover multiple compatible “fork” browsers, bringing BitWarden to a wider audience.
Unfortunately this would require us to re-write a whole new extension for very little gain (user marketshare). All other browsers support web extensions, so we can support them with little additional effort.
Hello. I’ve recently discovered Bitwarden, and have found it to be an elegant solution for password management. As such, I’ve tried unsuccessfully to migrate back to Firefox from Palemoon, but there are certain Palemoon features I can’t replicate in Firefox. I understand and respect your predicament, needing to balance development resources against the number of users reached, but if resources ever become less limited for you in the future, a native Palemoon extension would be greatly appreciated. This is particularly true, given that to my knowledge, there is no current solution for Palemoon which allows a password vault external to the browser alongside browser integration.
I’d like to Vote for a XUL version of the Firefox addon.
Now that “https://basilisk-browser.org/” seems to me to be quite good, and the word on the street is worried about Mozilla, it might me nice to have an alternative.
J
Hello. Apologies for the necropost, but is there any chance that this decision has had any changes? I find the modern versions of Firefox to be unusable, and Chrome does not have many of Pale Moon’s development tools. Thanks for the great product nonetheless.
Small user marketshare (compared mostly to Chrome I guess) is still hundreds of thousands of potential Bitwarden users. Not a couple of mates. Surely you are not only considering software with tens of millions behind it as a minimum?
About the effort: an initial effort will obviously be required but with the constant, rapid changes in Chrome/Firefox, much less effort will be required to maintain a XUL-UXP extension. This platform is stable and major changes are much less frequent.
“All other browsers” is Chrome/ium derivatives and Firefox.
You can at least double the amount of supported browsers by writing a single XUL extension.
Expect an influx of new users (like myself) in light of the recent LastPass change announcement, most of them will be willing to change only their password manager, not the browser as well.
If an independent individual were to write such an extension that can access the vault, would Bitwarden consider this a violation of its Terms of Service? Seeing that it is open source then the code is there and all that is required is to decrypt the hash based on the algorithms in the code. Bitwarden desktop app would create the vault that the extension would then access to fill in the sites.
Thanks Trey. Now if I get it working and wish to release it to the wild what is the next step? Would rather do things by the book than cross swords and get on bad terms.
