Google is not what it used to be
Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users
671–680 of 909 posts
Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users
#672From 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…
"The deprecation of the blocking ability of the WebRequest API is to gain back this control, and to further now instrument and report how web pages are filtered since now the exact filters which are applied to web page is information which will be collectable by Google Chrome ." In the same way a company trying to determine what a user looks at on their computer screen is a privacy issue, this is too. Those filters s…
The filters 99.9% of people use are completely public. Otherwise how would you use them?
Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users
#673One of those turning points when techies start recommending friends to use a different technology and in a few years that technology wins?
In this case, Firefox again.
Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users
#674Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I don't think that is correct. You can still stop a web request, but you can only stop it by providing chrome with a list of url patterns to block. The current method passes the url being requested to the extension, which can then decide to block it or not. The new way has the extension give a list of patterns to block to chrome, and from there it will block any request that matches. The stated reason is that thi…
It's not for privacy, the people who were saying that are either mistaken or intentionally lying. It's clear to see because the observational capabilities of the API aren't being removed -- only the blocking capabilities. So the privacy issue is still there. Supposedly, this change is just for performance.
Oh really? Damn
Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users
#675Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is the only way to combat Google in this regards would be for smaller players to come together and form an open-source working group based on a chromium fork. (The train has already left the station for anything besides WebKit or Blink, since the lack of accessibility of Gecko means it will never be adopted by anyone else.) But most of them are directly financed by Google and have almost no common ground…
What do you mean "lack of accessibility of Gecko"? Did you mean "lack of embedability"? Gecko's embedability sucks ... on desktop. But that's not inevitable, it's just a matter of priorities and resources. On Android it's getting a lot better and something like GeckoView on Android could be made to work on desktop too ... if there's demand and perceived benefit. (Mozilla's in the middle of upgrading Gecko's multiproc…
What i've read is that Gecko is a bit more difficult to understand when it comes to the entire code base, compared wo WebKit or Blink.
Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users
#676Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I want to be free to move onto something else if ever I get tired working on these projects (no donations = no expectations). Well this is exactly why we wanted to hive him money. Hopefully if he gets bored someone else will carry the torch.
Last time that happened uBlock was captured by the enemy.
Interesting. Is that where the Origin in uBlock comes from?
Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users
#677Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Was it really just to become the world's most comprehensive search engine? Hell no, it was to get people into the ecosystem and to stay there, and be content with doing so. >Chrome is the same thing. Why would a for-profit company develop a web browser more or less unprompted and give it away for free? To draw people into the system and get them comfortable with staying there. I think you're giving them too much cr…
> I think you're giving them too much credit, bordering on a conspiracy theory. There's no way they knew all of this would happen and that they would now be in the position to dictate the plug-ins we use. Think about it. The time when Chrome came around, Firefox was poised to become the dominant player in the market, barring Safari, which was big on mobile but small on traditional desktops. To some extent, Mozilla de…
I agree with everything but Safari was never a contender for the status of "standard" browser. It's a browser limited to a single vendor platform and a relatively small one, expecially on the desktop. Apple never had plans to move it anywhere else, with the exception of an aborted version for Windows XP more than 10 years ago.
Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users
#678Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just switched to Firefox today after a few years hiatus, and I agree that it is hugely improved, and rendering speed is at least on part with Chrome if not faster. They've done a great job with it, and the dev tools seem greatly improved in the developer edition as well. The issue I have with firefox on both Linux and Windows is not speed, but stability. I think it's the process model. Windows freeze if I open too…
How many tabs do you consider to be too many tabs? Most of the time I open up to 10 tabs, and Firefox is performing fine. But I have also seen people opening 40 tabs.
As an alternative data-point:
My firefox session is persistent (tab are restored when I open firefox again). Apparently, I'm around 500 right now, which is a bit above average for me (I usually stay around 300).
Firefox's lazy loading is very good, which means I only have 10 to 100 tabs that are actually loaded. Firefox is still fast in these conditions. Since I use tree-style-tabs, most of the tabs are neatly sorted in trees by topic.
Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users
#679Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it doesn't work in Firefox I don't use it. I've been using Firefox for as long as I can remember, probably shortly after it was made and Netscape died. And would never use Chrome. Chrome users are now going to be betrayed and just didn't see it coming. I look forward to Firefox' upcoming rebound which I have every faith this news will spur on.
I came back to Firefox a while back - maybe a year or two? - and have never regretted it. It's a fast, modern, respectful browser. Maintained by a non-profit. I do all my front-end dev work in Firefox, and also test in Chrome. Never had a problem. Come on back folks!
I think I'm gonna switch now, too.
Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users
#680I'm starting to question whether it was such a good idea to make web browsers virtual machines (for Javascript or WebAssembly apps).
It makes web browsers big and complex. I know both Chrome and Firefox are open source, but does that really matter so much when the codebase is so big and complex that only large and well-funded organizations are able to develop it? I'm not sure if it's realistic anymore for a few guys to get together and create a web browser (including rendering engine) in their spare time.
This centralization can lead to censorship, as we're starting to see here.
We also end up with a mono-culture (well, not quite there yet, since there are still at least 2 web rendering engines), which is horrible for security. The Irish potato famine is good example of what can happen when you have a mono culture. These days, you often have to let strangers execute code on your computer, if you just want to read an article or look at some pictures.