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

151–160 of 614 posts

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

#151

Post by zaarn »

scarface74 wrote: post #138
zaarn wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is certainly not a corporation that has ever shown to have an interest in the best for their users. They have already done quite a few things that benefit them or hurt competitors (youtube's UI is slow on firefox, changing the scrolling UI for no reason, trying to kill adblockers and now blocking uBlock from their store).

Google is no different than any other for profit corporation. Their first interest is making money by getting their customers to pay them. Their customers are advertisers. Their users are what they sell to their customers.

Even better reason to push for independent browser engines like Gecko (Firefox).

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

#152

Post by Ayesh »

tomrod wrote: post #128
me551ah wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your firefox using Webrender? Vanilla firefox is slower than chrome but WebRender is noticeably faster than chrome. Chrome on a 4K monitor slows down to a crawl, but WebRender handles it like a champ. It can be easily enabled with a flag.

If any firefox devs are reading this - Can you please make this a default? - Can you please fix text rendering on mobile? Sites like reddit render at desktop resolution on mobile screen, and there is no clear text sizing that works. With Chrome I just set my size option and move on with life.

I could be wrong, but AFAIK, webrender is the default on latest versions.

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

#153

Post by CharlesW »

behringer wrote: post #132
fishtacos wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Odd - my experience is the opposite. FF is noticeably slower than Chrome, and my Chrome installation is loaded with extensions, unlike Firefox. Phoronix's tests seem to back my experience as well. From 4 days ago: "As for the Firefox vs. Chrome performance, Google's web browser continues generally delivering better performance." https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=firefox6...

I don't know why people choose their browser based on resource usage. You can have a browser run by a company looking to loot the public good for their own gain, or a non-profit looking to keep the web open and free. Hold on I'm going to pick the one that's marginally faster and more ram efficient...

> Hold on I'm going to pick the one that's marginally faster and more ram efficient...

In both cases, people are choosing products because they're better. "Better" for most favors properties of the product. "Better" for you favors the politics of the product. Both are completely valid approaches.

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

#154

Post by switch007 »

behringer wrote: post #132
fishtacos wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Odd - my experience is the opposite. FF is noticeably slower than Chrome, and my Chrome installation is loaded with extensions, unlike Firefox. Phoronix's tests seem to back my experience as well. From 4 days ago: "As for the Firefox vs. Chrome performance, Google's web browser continues generally delivering better performance." https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=firefox6...

I don't know why people choose their browser based on resource usage. You can have a browser run by a company looking to loot the public good for their own gain, or a non-profit looking to keep the web open and free. Hold on I'm going to pick the one that's marginally faster and more ram efficient...

Exactly. Come on, we're engineers we understand basic tradeoffs.

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

#155

Post by rvnx »

SimeVidas wrote: post #102
rvnx wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would Firefox block Google ads or Google trackers by default ? It doesn't make sense, it's their almost only source of revenue (>500 million of USD).

Firefox has recently started blocking Google’s third-party cookies by default.

Not a problem for the Google Search ads nor YouTube Ads since both domains are whitelisted.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1582752#c1

If Firefox blocks Google search ads, then Firefox is dead ;) It's that simple.

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

#157

Post by zamalek »

tomrod wrote: post #128
me551ah wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your firefox using Webrender? Vanilla firefox is slower than chrome but WebRender is noticeably faster than chrome. Chrome on a 4K monitor slows down to a crawl, but WebRender handles it like a champ. It can be easily enabled with a flag.

If any firefox devs are reading this - Can you please make this a default? - Can you please fix text rendering on mobile? Sites like reddit render at desktop resolution on mobile screen, and there is no clear text sizing that works. With Chrome I just set my size option and move on with life.

It's basically in testing, they might break on too many machines were it made default

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

#158

Post by fencepost »

I didn't see a mention of this, but a review of the changes since the last accepted version shows 2 things: a bunch of description text changes mostly for character escaping and the hiding of one bar graph.

slow clap that's some dangerous stuff you're blocking there Google.

Are the gsuite components distributed through the CWS?

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

#159

Post by scarface74 »

Santosh83 wrote: post #135
cookie_monsta wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really how it worked pre-2010 when IE had the monopoly. And for all of Chrome (and Google's) faults, it does seem to be reasonably standards- compliant and even open to experimentation. If they want to spend some of their piles of cash developing new features that other browsers can then adopt and then standardise, I don't see the problem. If developers choose to use Chrome-only features and their pages br…

You will by definition be standards compliant if you are the main mover behind the eternally moving standard. Chrome powers the living standard. Other browser engines follow.

So, Apple follows all of Google’s standards?

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

#160

Post by cookie_monsta »

Santosh83 wrote: post #135
cookie_monsta wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really how it worked pre-2010 when IE had the monopoly. And for all of Chrome (and Google's) faults, it does seem to be reasonably standards- compliant and even open to experimentation. If they want to spend some of their piles of cash developing new features that other browsers can then adopt and then standardise, I don't see the problem. If developers choose to use Chrome-only features and their pages br…

You will by definition be standards compliant if you are the main mover behind the eternally moving standard. Chrome powers the living standard. Other browser engines follow.

So Google powers WHATWG and Apple, Microsoft and Mozilla just tag along?
Post reply on HN