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

281–290 of 614 posts

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

#281

Post by somehnguy »

Ygg2 wrote: post #251
peterangular wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even simple stuff like finding text on a page... I use the highlighting of occurrences in the scrollbar WAY more than I ever realized. The breaking point for me to go back to Chrome a few months back was Mapbox was chewing up SO MUCH MORE resources in FF. As someone who does a lot of GIS dev in Mapbox that was a no-go =/

So, if you had piece of software that worked fine on Windows and ran like crap on Linux, you would blame Linux?

I think this is missing the point. Assigning blame doesn't really matter - one works for his use case and one doesn't. When you're trying to get work done the path of least resistance is more preferable than using software that performs poorly because of your ideals.

But to answer your question: If they are based on the same code, yes. I don't see why you wouldn't.

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

#282

Post by 0-_-0 »

jetrink wrote: post #234
jokoon wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what was painful?

Having switched to Firefox three months ago, the three things that I miss most are, 1. The integration with Google Translate, which I understand would be difficult for Firefox to replicate 2. The ability to right-click on an image to search by image, which is probably similarly difficult to add to Firefox. [Edit: Thanks, vatueil, I will give that a try.] 3. How Chrome is less picky about what text it identifies as a…

You can drag and drop any text to the tab bar, it's the same as typing it into the address bar

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

#283

Post by tgv »

diimdeep wrote: post #88

Have been using Firefox Nightly for few weeks as only browser. Rock solid. Can recommend few extensions - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/auto-tab-disc... - http://www.one-tab.com - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/multi-touch-z...

Why Nightly? It's not guaranteed to be rock solid.

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

#284

Post by SomeOtherThrow »

codehalo wrote: post #217
SomeOtherThrow wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't understand that logic. It's a fork. Is Webkit tied to KHTML? Is gcc tied to egcs?

Chromium is not a fork of chrome. AFAIK brave has not forked chromium.

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

#285

Post by moulei »

diimdeep wrote: post #88

Have been using Firefox Nightly for few weeks as only browser. Rock solid. Can recommend few extensions - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/auto-tab-disc... - http://www.one-tab.com - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/multi-touch-z...

Try Stash,I think it's more helpful than onetab. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/stash/cacanmllkmin... It's a chrome extension but you can install it by Chrome Store Foxified.

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

#286

Post by cookie_monsta »

scarface74 wrote: post #259
cookie_monsta wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were definitely a lot of flash sites around back in the day. But anyway, flash support/popularity had nothing to do with IE losing control of setting browser standards because IE never set browser standards in the first place - in fact it quite often flouted them.

I’m saying that IE and Flash’s popularity didn’t decline because of government intervention - the tool that seems to be the go to of HN posters anytime there is something that they don’t like - even though what ended IE and Flash’s popularity on the web wasn’t the government.

Oh, I'm sorry - I thought you were talking to me. You appear to be having a conversation with somebody else about government intervention.

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

#287

Post by _eht »

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...

I think you should look more in to FF financials. They are not exactly as liberated as you are thinking.

There is the Mozilla Foundation which holds all the IP, governs development, and provides supporting infrastructure.

Then there is the Mozilla Corporation-- the profit seeking portion of the conglomerate. They are guiding product development and contracts which will either bring profit now, or in the future. Think about their big forced Pocket feature. This is a future profit driver, if it is not already.

Source where FF gets the lions share of their funds.

I'm not saying they are bad, but use some critical thinking and stop making corporations heros, generally. Hold them accountable.

Be aware, use your voice, vote with your patronage.

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

#288

Post by kettlecorn »

angrygoat wrote: post #264
kettlecorn wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used Firefox before Chrome and have tried to swap numerous times in the past (and have been using it for the last few weeks). Advocates for Firefox often say "Firefox is better, just try switching!" yet when people point out reasons it's not better the response is "Oh those don't matter, you're just being nitpicky!" But it's not a very gentle push back, it's forceful. In this thread someone says "I don't like how m…

When I switched to Firefox from Chrome I certainly encountered some bumps in the road which almost caused me to go back. A few functionality gaps (I really the double-tap to zoom to a 'block' of content), but I think the biggest thing was that some of my day-to-day workflows couldn't be exactly replicated in Firefox. Of course, now I'm used to Firefox, and my routine is centred on it - so now when I fire up Chrome, I…

Clearly a lot of people like Firefox and enjoy Firefox.

The point of my comment is a lot of people have various real issues with Firefox that make them prefer Chrome and those people should be listened to rather than dismissed. The tone of Firefox advocates responding to critics is often aggressive and dismissive.

Even my comment, which says "Don't dismiss the critics!" is presently in the negative.

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

#289

Post by scarface74 »

cookie_monsta wrote: post #286
scarface74 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m saying that IE and Flash’s popularity didn’t decline because of government intervention - the tool that seems to be the go to of HN posters anytime there is something that they don’t like - even though what ended IE and Flash’s popularity on the web wasn’t the government.

Oh, I'm sorry - I thought you were talking to me. You appear to be having a conversation with somebody else about government intervention.

Since “monopoly” has a legal meaning, what do you think the next step is when people on HN start talking about it?

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

#290

Post by blibble »

starbugs wrote: post #17
rahuldottech wrote: post #5

Is anyone really surprised? Google makes all its revenue from ads. A couple months ago there was an incident where if I recall correctly, someone published a browser on the play store which allowed users to install desktop browser extensions, one of which was an adblocker for YouTube, and it was removed with vague reasons? Google has been taking steps for a long time to make it harder for adblockers to work on Chrome…

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…

> Not surprised, but a bit baffled why they allowed for uBO for such a long time in the first place?

because they weren't dominant in the market, and it was a feature the market leading browers supported

now they are dominant they can throw their weight around

Post reply on HN