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

121–130 of 340 posts

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#121

Post by kasabali »

agrahul wrote: post #119
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.

I know that, thanks. I posted it as a real life example of where webextensions are still not as powerful as the so called legacy extensions and wonder if that specific case still applies, is it fixed, planning to be fixed, or are there other specific examples where webextensions fall short.

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#122

Post by JoshTriplett »

unexistance wrote: post #104
JoshTriplett wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm trying DuckDuckGo, but it's just not as good. It took me a while of using DDG before I realized how much I had equated "good" with "looks like Google". What finally hit me, hard, was that I switched the DDG theme to a color scheme designed to look like Google search results, and all of a sudden the results "felt better". Markedly better. So, I started regularly comparing results, every time I found something th…

how'd you report to DDG? tried reporting that !gi does not utilizes encrypted.google.com (which I think it should), seems like no dice

I used the "Feedback" mechanism, and typically got a human response by email.

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#123

Post by userbinator »

pcwalton wrote: post #108
Silhouette wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not entirely unreasonable. We use software because it's useful. If you make it so secure that it is no longer useful, what have you got left? In the case of Firefox extensions, I'm aware of the risks of the old model, but the fact is that the only observable difference it has made to me so far is that when I accidentally hit back on a page with an unsubmitted form the other day I lost about 20 minutes' worth of…

The idea that the XUL extension model is necessary for a browser to be useful is obviously false. The majority of Web users use browsers that do not have a XUL extension model. (And, of course, I don't believe your desired functionality is incompatible with Web Extensions anyhow.)

The majority of Web users use browsers that do not have a XUL extension model

And the majority of these users may have no idea what an extension is either. That doesn't mean all browsers should be dumbed down to cater to the lowest-common-denominator who will manage to infect themselves regardless of how featureless and "secure" browsers become.

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#124

Post by [deleted] »

Karunamon wrote: post #56
Paul-ish wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, the move to WebExtensions is a move to a more secure extension model. Traditional XUL extensions were comparable to the extension developer compiling their own code into the browser. Yikes. WebExtensions should be better sandboxed and have better permissions management. You can't get those security benefits if you allow older XUL extensions to stick around. You have to sunset XUL extension at some point.

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.

[deleted]

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#125

Post by milcron »

greggman wrote: post #112
milcron wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's referenced in the OP:

    Chromium-based browsers are being “infested” by Instart Logic tech
    which works around blockers and worst, around browser privacy
    settings (they may start “infecting” Firefox eventually, but that
    is not happening now).
And there is a link to further elaboration: https://github.com/gorhill/uBO-Extra/wiki/Sites-on-which-uBO...

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#126

Post by jamiek88 »

bo1024 wrote: post #113
uwu wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I didn't know the firefox version could do that, it's something I've wanted for sometime.

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#127

Post by arca_vorago »

fencepost wrote: post #110
abandonliberty wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox is maybe 80% of the way there. Just like in the IE Anitrust days, firefox suffers from sites that do not design with it in mind. Still better than Google Creep. Change to a search engine that protects privacy too.

If you think "not designed with Firefox in mind" breaks things, try using uMatrix for a while.

If people would focus on content in HTML and CSS for layout and newfad devs weren't shoving 50 jscripts a page down our throat this wouldn't be happening as bad. I plan to make all my future sites librejs compatible, and forgoe js altogether whenever possible.

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#128

Post by Forbo »

retox wrote: post #97
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How often do you end up at Google though; a few years back I tried DDG for a couple of months but ended up basically always doing !g and so went back to Google. Might be time for another go?

It depends on what I'm searching for. If its an error code or something a bit esoteric around tech then google usually has better results, but for everyday topics the results are pretty decent, and they feel like they have improved over the years. I probably do less searching than I used to, but the bang system really helps me search other sites much more effectively. The more common bangs I use are !w for wikipedia,…

!sp for startpage is really nice to use if you want to have the Google results without the tracking. Edit: looks like this was already mentioned below. Whoops.

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#129

Post by abtinf »

ehaughee wrote: post #29
yborg wrote: post #9

I found this disturbing: "Chromium-based browsers are being “infested” by Instart Logic tech which works around blockers and worst, around browser privacy settings (they may start “infecting” Firefox eventually, but that is not happening now)." From his linked post: "Instart Logic will detect when the developer console opens, and cleanup everything then to hide what it does" Is this implemented via a CDN-delivered sc…

This actually made me try switching to Firefox again. There's some minor things missing, but for the most part all the features I want are there.

Same for me. I fired up Firefox for the first time in years and it works great. The hardest part to get used to is their super-weird hamburger menu layout.

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#130

Post by chinhodado »

fabrice_d wrote: post #98
wyc wrote: post #94

Keep in mind that it's not within Google's incentives to facilitate ad-blocking and prevention of tracking. After all, that's where the lion's share of their revenue comes from. However, Mozilla is free to actively support such efforts.

If that was that clear cut, they would ship tracking protection enabled by default, not just in Private Browsing mode. The default configuration of Safari is actually protecting you better than Firefox's and most users don't have an ad blocker installed.

Just like in IE/Edge, the "Do not track" setting used to be enabled by default, then it became disabled by default, and for good reason. The argument is, if it is enabled by default, sites will not bothered to support it since it was not something that the user turned on explicitly and was aware of.
Post reply on HN