51–60 of 256 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They’re not attacking anything - I don’t think ad blockers block search ads, which are embedded into search results - and Firefox royalties have always been for search.
> I don’t think ad blockers block search ads Of course they do.
Edit: Never mind; just had to fiddle around with the filters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been using Firefox for 6+months now as my primary browser. Once used to the slightly different UI I've not noticed any difference in day to day browsing. Only complaint - and this is my fault for enabling it and not a Firefox issue - is that if I used a container for Google, reCAPTCHAs are a huge huge huge pain in the arse now and take many attempts to pass. This is (I guess) because the Google cookie cannot tra…
Try https://www.startpage.com/ Works as proxy for Google Search. No captchas, very customizable. Could never live with the Bing based crap results of DuckDuckGo.
The problem at this point isn't whether chrome will disable it... It can be added back, probably fairly easily as google intents to keep it around for "enterprise" anyway, so it's probably just gonna end up changing/removing one if-statement. If not, then the code already exists and has to be merged back in. The problem is distribution of the actual extensions, as Vivaldi kinda pointed out, as the other browsers most…
If some sort of standardization emerges among the non-Google Chromium versions, Vivaldi users could load ad blockers from Microsoft's store.
The problem at this point isn't whether chrome will disable it... It can be added back, probably fairly easily as google intents to keep it around for "enterprise" anyway, so it's probably just gonna end up changing/removing one if-statement. If not, then the code already exists and has to be merged back in. The problem is distribution of the actual extensions, as Vivaldi kinda pointed out, as the other browsers most…
I've already moved everything to Firefox to test out waters before moving all my relatives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except mobile browsers, arguably the most critical place where you need blocking to get any kind of reasonably decent experience (load times, viewable area, battery life, etc.). Extensions like uBlock target people who don't want to bother with editing hosts files and keeping them updated.
On iOS, you can use DNSCloak[1] which has recently been open-sourced[2]. You can either setup a DNS server (DoH or dnscrypt) somewhere that include these filters, or you can use in-app Blacklist functionality to block domain (although it needs domains only-type of block file, instead of host file, but converting them is quiet trivial). [1]: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/dnscloak-secure-dns-client/i... [2]: https://…
I'll give DNSCloak for iOS a try, thanks for the recommendation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mobile Firefox does. How is this not better known?
The best mobile Firefox feature never marketed by Mozilla at all.
So AFAIK it might be that they want to get rid of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The browser is not fully open source like open in open source. It is a common myth and misconception about Kiwi Browser. https://github.com/kiwibrowser/android/issues/30 There's NewPipe at F-Droid for youtube music in the background and so much more.
Yep, but it's not only Kiwi. There is zero full open-source Chromium browsers for now (with reproducible builds, that's why no Chromium on F-Droid)
The problem at this point isn't whether chrome will disable it... It can be added back, probably fairly easily as google intents to keep it around for "enterprise" anyway, so it's probably just gonna end up changing/removing one if-statement. If not, then the code already exists and has to be merged back in. The problem is distribution of the actual extensions, as Vivaldi kinda pointed out, as the other browsers most…
It doesn't make a logical sense because if they are banning the ad-blockers, it means they accept that chrome is largely used by power users who can install these blockers (otherwise, what's the need?). But they should realize that a power user who installs an addon can just as easily move to another browser like firefox/brave. And the PR repercussions will ensure that a lot of newbies will leave too (because they usually follow the power users on youtube) which will essentially kill the advertising income that they wanted in the first place?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
XUL was replaced quite some time ago.
XUL is not supported for extensions now, but has Firefox's UI really been fully rewritten in HTML yet?
ChromeWindow chrome://browser/content/browser.xul
Does this complicate having a standalone Gecko though? Surely browser authors could write their own UI and embed Gecko inside without touching XUL.