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

uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

discourse.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 340 posts

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#111

Post by Hasknewbie »

eridius wrote: post #78
Hasknewbie wrote: post #52

Slightly OT: is that what a 'Discourse' page looks like? It's pretty awful: it will automatically update the URL as you scroll past each post in any direction, while breaking the Back button, so good luck getting back to the original post, since neither clicking on Back nor reloading the page will get you there. Basic UX failure.

What browser are you using? Because when I scroll on that page and the URL changes, it doesn't affect my Back stack (this is in Safari).

Using Firefox for Android.

I can't not notice the irony that this is happening with FF on the mozilla.org Web site.

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#112

Post by greggman »

milcron wrote: post #40
math0ne wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't actually understand what "Instart Logic" is, can anyone explain it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instart_Logic

That doesn't seem related to the topic unless I'm missing it. Also it has nothing to do with browsers or Chrome vs Firefox

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#113

Post by bo1024 »

uwu wrote: post #79
INTPenis wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing I learned several years ago when I decided to jump on the bandwagon and try Chrome was that Chrome was unable to safely block javascript the way NoScript does because the plugin framework doesn't allow a plugin to block Javascript before it's loaded. So all the noscript equivalent for Chrome could offer was to block Javascript after it had loaded. Which seemed unreal and pointless. So I stayed on Firefox. B…

chrome has a setting to block scripts and it lets you add exceptions for sites it's also easy to access: http://cdn2.ubergizmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/site-in... i wish firefox came with something similar

The advantage of Firefox's NoScript plugin is that it can be selective.

Say you randomly visit a site and want to temporarily allow the javascript it uses to do its thing, but you don't want to allow any other javascript on the page such as facebook's and google's. The built-in chrome javascript blocker doesn't let you pick and choose temporary permissions at that moment.

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#114

Post by bsimpson »

kemayo wrote: post #87
i2shar wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is indeed disturbing. Why should a web page be able to detect if dev tools has been opened? Isn't this a browser security issue?

I would suspect it's sniffing for the window-size suddenly changing in certain ways, perhaps along with watching for the normal dev-tools keyboard shortcuts via keydown listeners. I can't actually remember off the top of my head if Chrome suppresses the event in that case, but it wouldn't be surprising if it didn't. The easy check for this would be to see whether opening the devtools in detached mode via the menus ma…

This is what happens when I trigged DevTools while logging key events:

document.addEventListener('keydown', ({ keyCode }) => console.log(keyCode))

91

16

73

You can see each key.

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#115

Post by HannibalLecter »

NewEntryHN wrote: post #28
AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #6

> It baffles me that some people thinks Firefox is becoming a “Chrome clone”, it’s just not the case, it’s just plain silly to make such statement. That's probably the single most reassuring statement about Firefox that I've heard in some time, coming from a serious dev who makes a popular cross-platform addon for both Firefox and Chrome.

I think as an extension developer he is particularly sensitive to the tech behind Firefox, which makes him understand some of Mozilla's decisions. For example, the move from legacy add-ons to WebExtensions is surely one less maintenance burden for Mozilla. As a user who doesn't think about such issues, it terribly looks like it's becoming a Chrome clone. I think it's Mozilla's responsibility to have a clearer communi…

The apparent view that Mozilla would articulate their product line as a Fortune 500 company with Google's track record is patently false. Mozilla is required via its pledge to put open source solutions forward as their central focus. They only earn money in the interest of the public which supports the good, which further supports their central mandate.

Google is a greedy, nosy monster of a company that erratically reacts either with self-interest or blatant marketing attempts at taking a higher road. And at times, Google acts solely upon the whim of minimal oversight. Sure some of the unilateral decisions are in line with a hipster's view of the world, but often they are in line with a corporation's lust.

To what extent will Google "do no evil"? Enough only until they decided to strike that from their mandate.

See more info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#116

Post by saghm »

ohthehugemanate wrote: post #14
jacquesm wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I qualify as a poweruser by some standards, I tend to have 100's of tabs open and I've never left Firefox for speed reasons or others because it has held up extremely well over the years. My machine has a lot of RAM so maybe that's one reason things have been quick, and the main drive is an SSD. Is there anything specific about the 57 release that makes you feel caused the speed bottle-neck to disappear?

57 is lightning fast. Like, almost uncomfortably so on my machine. Broay this is because quantum is much further along in nightly than on the other channels. Specifically, they're more aggressive with multithreaded settings, multiprocess is enabled, and the quantum css component is turned on, too. Is also helps that we compare to chrome. On Linux chrome doesn't even do GPU rendering. So the HN crowd probably has a di…

> 57 is lightning fast. Like, almost uncomfortably so on my machine

As others have said here, I just installed Firefox Nightly after reading this, and you're 100% correct. I think it might even be faster than Chromium for me.

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#117

Post by kasabali »

uBlock Origin on Firefox would be more powerful than uBlock Origin on Chrome, but does it mean that uBlock Origin webextension on Firefox will be as powerful as uBlock Origin "legacy" Firefox extension ?

This is a post of gorhill from the last months Firefox - Google Analytics fiasco:

> Legacy uBlock Origin can block the network request to GA.

> However webext-hybrid uBO as per Network pane in dev tools does not block it. Same for pure webext Ghostery, the network request to GA was not blocked, again as per Network pane in dev tools.

> What is concerning is that both uBO webext-hybrid and Ghostery report the network request to GA as being blocked, while it is really not as per Network pane in dev tools. It's as if the order to block/redirect the network request was silently ignored by the webRequest API, and this causes webext-based blockers to incorrectly and misleadingly report to users what is really happening internally, GA was not really blocked on about:addons, but there is no way for the webext blockers to know this and report properly to users.

https://github.com/mozilla/addons-frontend/issues/2785#issue...

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#118

Post by cakeface »

NormenKD wrote: post #24

I am considering going back to FF, but it seems FIDO U2F still isn't done completely and the U2F Extension for FF is not working anymore since the WebExtension switch. Please correct me if missed something, but i think i have to hold off for a little bit longer.

That is my understanding as well. I haven't been able to get my U2F working on recent Firefox builds. It's such a shame because I really want to use U2F instead of an authenticator app. I have like 20 different sites in there and finding the right number always takes me a minute or two.

Also Google Hangouts and Meet do not work.

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#119

Post by agrahul »

kasabali wrote: post #117

uBlock Origin on Firefox would be more powerful than uBlock Origin on Chrome, but does it mean that uBlock Origin webextension on Firefox will be as powerful as uBlock Origin "legacy" Firefox extension ? This is a post of gorhill from the last months Firefox - Google Analytics fiasco: > Legacy uBlock Origin can block the network request to GA. > However webext-hybrid uBO as per Network pane in dev tools does not bloc…

The issue you linked is specific to the `about:` pseudo-protocol. uBO's WebExtensions version works as intended on the web.

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#120

Post by mst »

smkdtr wrote: post #61
Karunamon wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be perfectly honest I'm not at all interested in "better permissions" for plugins when it comes with the removal of flexibility that you get for free. If I've got plugin-installing malware on my system, I've got worse problems than a rogue plugin. Give me more useful over more secure any day of the week.

As someone worried about security; I hope that is not the majority opinion.

I'd like better permissions, but not at the cost of a more flexible, customisable browser than chrome. There should be reasons to use firefox above and beyond muscle memory.
Post reply on HN