Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 119 posts

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#31

Post by Nexxxeh »

cven714 wrote: post #2

Will this affect those of us who already have it installed?

In the immediate term, no, it shouldn't. The update was rejected, but the already published version remains up. There's nothing catastrophic in the earlier version.

In the medium term, yes, because if this issues can't be resolved then the Chrome version will be stuck on that version and lag behind other browsers.

And while there are hoops you can jump through, if it's not approved on the Chrome Web Store, it's not getting in your Chrome.

On the plus side, sounds like good news for Opera.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#32

Post by [deleted] »

fsaintjacques wrote: post #21
weirdentropy wrote: post #15

I've switched over from ABP to UBlock Origin. UBO is so much faster than ABP, uses fewer resources, and does a better job. And, most importantly, they do not get in bed with the ad companies to arrange for acceptable ads. There are no acceptable ads in my view (no pun intended). I block ads precisely because they use my bandwidth, they are a vector for malware, they interfere with my viewing of websites, they track m…

Second time I see your comment, would you care sharing how you accomplish all this?

[deleted]

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#33

Post by theg2 »

weirdentropy wrote: post #15

I've switched over from ABP to UBlock Origin. UBO is so much faster than ABP, uses fewer resources, and does a better job. And, most importantly, they do not get in bed with the ad companies to arrange for acceptable ads. There are no acceptable ads in my view (no pun intended). I block ads precisely because they use my bandwidth, they are a vector for malware, they interfere with my viewing of websites, they track m…

What a magical world you live in where everything is free and no one needs to be paid for their work.

Ads have been abused by companies over the years but whitelisting sites that whose content and services you value and don't abuse you with those ads are the only reason they can afford to exist.

Edit: I get it, you don't want ads. People have abused them over the years and that's bad. My only point is that whitelisting (or donating/subscribing to where possible) the sites you value keeps those sites running. It's nice that some sites don't need financial support to pay for reporters, editors, producers, and photographers but that's not the case for many sites that do great journalism.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#35

Post by gorhill »

maxerickson wrote: post #18
gorhill wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it still is in the store as of now. However the email I received is titled "Chrome Web Store: Removal notification for uBlock Origin". In any case, it's just impossible for me to figure what is the issue. I could spend a inordinate amount of time guess-shuffling code around for no result. Assuming the email title is misleading -- let's say uBlock Origin won't be removed from the Chrome store, there is nothing sp…

Are the block lists maybe considered code? Updating them at first start would fit the description of not having them visible in the package.

The filter lists which are selected by default are part of the package. An updated versions of these lists is progressively downloaded a few minutes after first install. But this has been like this since forever now, this is not new.

This demonstrates the problem here, we are left to speculate endlessly about what the is the issue(s) according to the Chrome store.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#36

Post by ivank »

bambax wrote: post #29

Besides findability, what benefits does the Chrome Web Store provide to extension developers? Does Chrome prevent or somehow limit the functionality of extensions that aren't coming from the store? (I developed a few Chrome extensions 5 years ago and used to distribute them "by hand" to users, but haven't much followed what has happened since).

You can't install extensions "by hand" any more, unless you turn on developer mode. And then you see a nag screen every time you start Chrome. Unless you're on Linux.

https://www.chromium.org/developers/extensions-deployment-fa...

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#37

Post by jessaustin »

jug wrote: post #10

"Please reply to this email for issues regarding this item removal." Maybe he could try that?

Google is famous for never responding to anything. Which is fine; that's their business model. However, it does mean that if they wanted to communicate, they would have included the full description of the issues, in the email that notified him of the existence of the issues. It's not like they sent him a tweet. Emails can include lots of detail.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#38

Post by Touche »

theg2 wrote: post #33
weirdentropy wrote: post #15

I've switched over from ABP to UBlock Origin. UBO is so much faster than ABP, uses fewer resources, and does a better job. And, most importantly, they do not get in bed with the ad companies to arrange for acceptable ads. There are no acceptable ads in my view (no pun intended). I block ads precisely because they use my bandwidth, they are a vector for malware, they interfere with my viewing of websites, they track m…

What a magical world you live in where everything is free and no one needs to be paid for their work. Ads have been abused by companies over the years but whitelisting sites that whose content and services you value and don't abuse you with those ads are the only reason they can afford to exist. Edit: I get it, you don't want ads. People have abused them over the years and that's bad. My only point is that whitelisti…

Bytes are distributed over the public internet. He/she has a right to ignore the bytes he/she doesn't care about.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#39

Post by neoeldex »

weirdentropy wrote: post #15

I've switched over from ABP to UBlock Origin. UBO is so much faster than ABP, uses fewer resources, and does a better job. And, most importantly, they do not get in bed with the ad companies to arrange for acceptable ads. There are no acceptable ads in my view (no pun intended). I block ads precisely because they use my bandwidth, they are a vector for malware, they interfere with my viewing of websites, they track m…

Just switched over, but I'm wondering what you mean by blocking DOM? are you using lynx? CSS visited links are not able to be checked using javascript, so why are you blocking this?

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#40

Post by [deleted] »

weirdentropy wrote: post #15

I've switched over from ABP to UBlock Origin. UBO is so much faster than ABP, uses fewer resources, and does a better job. And, most importantly, they do not get in bed with the ad companies to arrange for acceptable ads. There are no acceptable ads in my view (no pun intended). I block ads precisely because they use my bandwidth, they are a vector for malware, they interfere with my viewing of websites, they track m…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN