231–240 of 909 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People depend on Chromium/Blink because there's no other options. You can't really embed Gecko, and WebKit (Safari) can sometimes lack desirable web platform features.
You can't embed Gecko? Patently false. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Gecko/Embed...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually no! In fact, responses like this make me afraid to post at all. Because, either I make honest disclosures that I work for Google, when talking about Google software or other things, or I try to be pseudonymous and not disclose. If I do the latter, well, that could have a lot of repercussions, it would be a violation of the social media policy as well, so it's not really worth considering, plus it even just f…
[deleted]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People depend on Chromium/Blink because there's no other options. You can't really embed Gecko, and WebKit (Safari) can sometimes lack desirable web platform features.
You can't embed Gecko? Patently false. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Gecko/Embed...
My understanding is that on Desktop it's much more difficult than it ideally should be.
With that said we've got a pretty solid story being worked on for mobile via GeckoView [1] and Android Components [2], there's a post on the Mozilla Hacks blog about our use of them in Focus [3] and they're also what is being used for building the "next generation" version of Firefox for Android currently code-named Fenix [4][5].
I wouldn't be surprised if there was an effort to get some of the GeckoView work back onto our desktop platforms.
[1] https://github.com/mozilla/geckoview
[2] https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/android-components
[3] https://hacks.mozilla.org/2018/09/focus-with-geckoview/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why wouldn't they just patch that part of the code? I'm seriously surprised though Microsoft didn't build an adblock in IE much earlier, that would have stopped google in the tracks.
That part of the code doesn't exist in a vacuum, and it's baked in at a rather low level in the browser. That's how it can block requests! In JavaScript! Google will begin by deprecating the webRequest block API (that's in progress). Then they will begin deprecating the code that supports it. Then they will begin removing and deleting the "unnecessary" code. Then, at some point in the future, they may make other brea…
Merging incompatible changes seems like a win compared to doing everything themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The original creators of Opera have been building out Vivaldi for a while, which has the specific design goal of being a browser for power users https://vivaldi.com/
What's their business model?
I don't get it. I've used Firefox and Chrome for years. Firefox is easily as good and capable as Chrome. The barrier to switch from Chrome to Firefox is almost non-existent. Is Google counting on the majority of people not being knowledgeable enough or motivated enough to switch browsers?
Unfortunately, my Firefox on Ubuntu just keeps claiming more and more memory until it runs out and freezes the system. I don’t want to use Chrome, but I still wouldn’t call that very great.
From the author of uBlock on this: What we see are the public statements, for public consumption, they are designed to "sell" the changes to the wider public. What we do not see is what is being said in private meetings by officers who get to decide how to optimize the business. So we have to judge not by what is said for public consumption purpose, but by what in effect is being done, or what they plan to do. This i…
Indeed, almost the entire ad-blocking market is controlled by the company behind Adblock Plus (eyeo GmbH), who has contracts with Google. It appears they also own AdBlock, and uBlock (not confused with uBO), so during the last years they basically tried to capture the entire market. The fact that Eyeo has >150 employees tells us something about the amount of money to be made from ad blocking. Although they have only…
This naming is a catastrophe. I just tried to find out which is which and it isn't easy, even if you know what you're looking for.
I'd think that uBlock Origin should consider changing the name. Yes, "it means giving up", but it's a battle they can't win anyway, and at least users will be able to tell which one is owned by eyeo.
EDIT: AdBlock and AdBlock Plus are similarly confusing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that true? IE was incumbent and Firefox unseated it. They had the legacy of Netscape, sure, but they didn’t throw the towel and reskin IE the same way other browsers of the time did. Besides that, at which point does the dominant search and advertising company of the internet get an antitrust case for this? People think google is trustworthy yet they do nothing to earn that trust.
This kinda erases history. IE was riddled with security flaws and stagnant beyond belief when Firefox usurped it. There was a compelling reason to use an IE alternative back then - they actually offered something IE couldn't give. Chrome doesn't have that problem.