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

181–190 of 340 posts

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#181

Post by agrahul »

kasabali wrote: post #121
agrahul wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, that specific case wasn't fixed; it appears that Mozilla doesn't intend to let addons run on `about:`. However, they did make `about:` respect DNT by disabling GA.

WebExtensions currently fall short when it comes to any addon that modifies the UI significantly (tree-style tabs etc), though it's been mentioned in some other comments here that they're talking to addon devs to extend the API where possible.

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#182

Post by Aissen »

Paul-ish wrote: post #33
NewEntryHN wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

> 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.

Not if you previously moved to the Jetpack, err addon-sdk with cfx, err jpm tool. Now there's yet-another API to move to. At least this one will make it easier to develop portable extensions (but still not straight-forward).

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#183

Post by jabl »

Silhouette wrote: post #171
pcwalton wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

With respect, that doesn't really matter. I used to have a useful feature that worked. Now I don't. That was the practical result of the change we're talking about for this user, regardless of any theoretical benefits elsewhere or any theoretical ability to provide equivalent functionality within the new architecture. Other people are welcome to use other browsers, but I was using Firefox, and a big reason I was stil…

> I used to have a useful feature that worked.

> Now I don't.

Well, imagine for a moment that you're whoever is in charge of firefox development at mozilla:

- You want to take advantage of modern hardware such as multiple cores, GPU's etc.

- You want to get rid of XUL which is an evolutionary dead end.

- You have an existing extension model which basically allows extensions to more or less freely poke about in the internals of the browser

- You want to improve security for users, both against malicious sites and (to a lesser extent, I suppose, but still) malicious browser extensions.

Now, what would YOU do if the constraint is that you can never ever break existing extensions?

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#184

Post by newscracker »

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 idea is for extensions to have the flexibility they have had. I don't think anyone would object to WebExtensions if it didn't cripple or make existing extensions impossible to exist in the future.

Also, this interest is not about the majority of the users. This is about the users who know about Firefox extensions and use a bunch of them everyday! I know my life has certainly become more productive and less stressful with several extensions than without. In my experience, Firefox extensions have also historically been of better quality and reliability compared to Chrome extensions. For now, I have just two examples for my case - switching proxy servers and saving/restoring browser sessions. I use Firefox extensions that work beautifully, and just as one would expect (they're Foxy Proxy and Session Manager), but similar extensions in Chrome don't work and I always end up fighting more with the browser and the extensions to have a better experience. To this day, I can't trust Chrome to restore a crashed session on the first (re)launch. So I use Chrome more as a one-off browser once in a while and try to avoid having long running sessions (my browser sessions on Firefox can span several days, weeks or sometimes even months).

My opinion is that technically savvy people must use their knowledge and influence to guide others to use things that make life easier and better. I have been following this myself by encouraging people to use Firefox and by showing them some great extensions to have.

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#185

Post by jrimbault »

notatoad wrote: post #159
yohui wrote: post #152

> Chromium-based browsers do not support user styles Does anyone know what gorhill means by this? Stylish for Chrome seems to work fine: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/stylish-custom-the... Am I missing something? (Probably, but what?)

IIRC, stylish for chrome converts userstyles into javascript, and runs the scripts to add inline styles to elements on the page. stylish for firefox changes the page's stylesheet.

Last time I checked stylish seemed to insert a link tag in the head linking to the css file.

Edit: on Chrome Stylish inserts a tag at the end with the css, it seems stylish insert the css via javascript in Firefox though.

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#186

Post by Aissen »

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…

I'm pretty sure there might be a bug for this in the Chromium bug tracker that is hidden from the common folk, just like they hide their bug where websites can detect if you're in private mode(!):

https://github.com/brave/browser-laptop/issues/9082#issuecom...

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#188

Post by distances »

djsumdog wrote: post #41
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?

It's pretty insane how much your browser knows about you: http://webkay.robinlinus.com/ There's another one I can't find, but it writes out things like "user moved mouse to x,y. User has been idle for 10 seconds, page lost focus, page gained focus" .. kinda creepy how much is available to the Javascript engine.

Operating system, browser, CPU, local IP, connection speed. That's all I was shown, probably thanks to uMatrix blocking 3rd party scripts.

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#189

Post by pawadu »

I still think Chrome has some advantages. For example you can disable a lot of things like location services in the settings. In Firefox you can decline access to location once a site asks for it but I would rather disable it once and for all if I am setting up a machine for a less tech-savvy person.

Also, firefox comes with tons of built in features you cannot disable. In past they have caused security issues (e.g. the pdf.js exploit).

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#190

Post by OOPMan »

djsumdog wrote: post #41
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?

It's pretty insane how much your browser knows about you: http://webkay.robinlinus.com/ There's another one I can't find, but it writes out things like "user moved mouse to x,y. User has been idle for 10 seconds, page lost focus, page gained focus" .. kinda creepy how much is available to the Javascript engine.

If you think this stuff is creepy well...okay?

I mean, it's not like every desktop application you've ever used in your life couldn't do the same or more?

Post reply on HN