Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 614 posts

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#141

Post by the_duke »

gtirloni wrote: post #29
jacquesm wrote: post #11

An advertising company fielding a major distribution browser always was a really bad idea.

It was a pretty good idea for Google and, judging by the adoption, it serves users very well too. I think it's up to other browsers to offer better solutions.

Most users still don't care about their browser.

The main reason Chrome became so dominant is because:

* Google search results nagged all users to install it for a better experience

* bundled Chrome with countless free software downloads

* it is the default browser on Android

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#142

Post by cookie_monsta »

zaarn wrote: post #124
cookie_monsta wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it'll be bad because Google can force features into standards and essentially do what they want with no recourse. Again, not the way it worked with IE 1-8 > Everyone who doesn't see that is just a Google-apologist. Well I don't and I'm not.

And again, that's what Google is already doing, I'm not saying they're doing the exact same things that happened with IE1-8 but a browser monopoly is still equally bad regardless of how badly a browser is maintained.

Oh, absolutely - I'm not arguing in favour of browser monopolies. I'm saying that browser standards aren't a popularity contest. You can have the most popular browser in the world but still not be able to strongarm your way into compliance. Remember attachEvent?

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#143

Post by phasnox »

SomeOtherThrow wrote: post #62
phasnox wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd try Brave.

Brave looks really cool, but it uses chromium so its hands are forever tied to google. I remember they considered Gecko but rejected it for some reason.

Yeahp I wish they could decouple from it.

What we really need is an alternative to the official Chrome Web Store.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#144

Post by frankharv »

hv42 wrote: post #67
starbugs wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not surprised, but a bit baffled why they allowed for uBO for such a long time in the first place? It looks as if they misused the community's products and trust to build their monopoly and then kick us out once it's gotten hard enough to compete. Perhaps this is a good thing in the long run, because now people will finally have to switch and maybe contribute to improving Firefox. I am hopeful, but also I must say in…

Firefox has better tooling for CSS (really good flexbox for e.g.) but it lacks on the JS side. One basic feature that is missing for e.g. is that one cannot open a file using the syntax filename:line:column in the source editor. You will need to navigate the line number manually after opening the file.

Thank goodness. Browsers are for browing the internet. File Managers are used for opening files. I lock down SeaMonkeys JS.

Personally I like SeaMonkey as it is community build Mozilla. Many of the "features" have settings in preferences.

It seems to me that the Mozilla Foundation is pushing the project in some weird spots(DoH) and while not ad revenue based, they do take money from companies.

Notice the Search Provides list? Who uses Ebay as their primary search provides? Heck who wants to search from the URL bar.

Otter-Browser is making great strides and I use it on untrusted sites. Please make the browser simple and not hide settings in about:config.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#145

Post by behringer »

alexfromapex wrote: post #129

Someone needs to create a rival search engine to Google. I have tried switching but Bing and DuckDuckGo aren't anywhere near as good.

Now is the best time too since Google is getting so terrible, not returning any decent websites for the search terms entered, ignoring keywords, returning what it thinks I want or what's good for google instead of returning what I'm looking for.

The market is ready for a new provider imo.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#146

Post by Ayesh »

jokoon wrote: post #43
agumonkey wrote: post #27

Few monthes ago I forced myself to fully drop Chromium. Painful. But I don't have chrome on any laptops (only my smartphone). I don't regret it. Google is stringing bad news after bad news.

what was painful?

Not the OP, but password management and syncing in Firefox is a bit clunky.

I use and love the send to device feature and password syncing (I use FF as my main drive for desktop and mobile), but they are quite slow compared to Chrome. I get it that Chrome is syncing aggressively, which would have been nice in Firefox too, even if it eats up my mobile data.

Chrome web view is also the default web view in Android.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#147

Post by _-o-_ »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #95
bureaucrat wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d rather trust Google than Brave.

Same. Plus, even with Brave, you'd still need to install the latest uBO from github, so there's no benefit aside from "I hate Google but I'll still use a fork of their open source browser"

Is there anything that uBO blocks that isn't covered by Brave's integrated adblocker?

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#148

Post by behringer »

the_duke wrote: post #141
gtirloni wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a pretty good idea for Google and, judging by the adoption, it serves users very well too. I think it's up to other browsers to offer better solutions.

Most users still don't care about their browser. The main reason Chrome became so dominant is because: * Google search results nagged all users to install it for a better experience * bundled Chrome with countless free software downloads * it is the default browser on Android

Not only is it the default on Android, it is required by some apps, like gmail that all its links open in Chrome despite Firefox being default on my phone. It stinks of the monopolistic behavior MS was engaged in with IE back in the day.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#149

Post by quotemstr »

Over the past few years, it's become normal for a tiny number of people at a tiny number of companies to make decisions about which software packages ordinary people can run on devices that they own. When this practice started, a few people, myself included, said it would lead to a dark place. We were ignored. Can we revisit this decision now? As a general principle, if you own a device, you should be able to override any west-coast meeting room and run any package you want on it. If necessary, we should guarantee this freedom with legislation. The alternative is an inevitable shift toward banning things that this tiny group of software supervisors finds inconvenient.
Post reply on HN