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

351–360 of 614 posts

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

#351

Post by stuartd »

9034725985 wrote: post #319
greyfox wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is this just for windows/linux (desktop) installs of firefox? or is android included in this feature?

No support for Android (yet). Install this Facebook container [1] on the desktop. A request: I run Firefox nightly [2] as my main browser and would like to request everyone to consider using a pre-release version of Firefox if possible. It helps us make the argument that Mozilla should not run experiments in Firefox stable. [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/facebook-cont... [2] https://www.mozilla.or…

Been running nightly builds since I think 0.4 - makes web development ‘fun’ as you can never be sure if something works or not in a browser nightly build! Fortunately I don’t have to do that much any more.

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

#354

Post by zbraniecki »

tass wrote: post #216
TimTheTinker wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m really surprised no one is mentioning the new chromium-based MS Edge (still in Beta). They removed all the Google tracking and login nonsense, and it’s fast . Edge Beta on macOS has been my daily driver (and dev browser) for a month (switched to it from Firefox, actually), and my only gripe is the extension story isn’t yet complete. The MS store only has a few extensions, and you have to jump through a couple of…

I’m avoiding it because I don’t want Blink to be the only engine around.

Thank you.

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

#355

Post by catalogia »

bureaucrat wrote: post #72
ignoramous wrote: post #49

If you have to use Chromium, at this point it is clear that Brave is a better Chromium than Chrome [0][1] despite its BAT shenanigans. The UX is super nice, and adblocking just works without having to install any extensions. Hopefully Brave doesn't buy into the whole PrivacySandbox thing Google proposed [2]. For everything else, Firefox should be the default [3][4]. It'd be great if Firefox bundles a content blocker…

I’d rather trust Google than Brave.

Is that because of the opt-in BAT crypto bullshit, or because Eich is the boogieman?

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

#356

Post by lostmsu »

blacklight86 wrote: post #189

I switched to Brave a few months ago because I knew that Google would have done exactly a move like this. People should simply stop using Chrome because there's not a single good reason left to use it. Once upon a time it used to advertise its complete adherence to web standards, but nowadays it has now become the new IE when it comes to breaking them. And from now on it'll do everything not to harm Google's core bus…

It uses the same extension store though.

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

#357

Post by aninteger »

radicalbyte wrote: post #6

It's time to switch to Firefox as my main web browser. It's faster and generally more efficient than Chrome plus it has the most important extensions. The most surprising thing is that the Android version of Firefox is excellent. So good that I switched from Chrome a few months ago when this expected news first dropped. No ads on mobile is awesome.

There are some sites that don't work well in Firefox, like Cisco's WebEx. The web client will disconnect and reconnect causing everyone to constantly hear a disconnect and entry beep when your audio cuts out. On Chromium there is no problem on the same machine. This is on Xubuntu Linux.

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

#358

Post by justaj »

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?

I personally use Session Buddy on Chromium to keep tabs (no pun intended) on what windows are open and what tabs are inside. I save and restore my sessions using this extension as well. I haven't found any suitable replacement extension for Firefox that works like this.

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

#359

Post by TheMiller »

whoopdedo wrote: post #330
ravenstine wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone thinking of installing Firefox should check out the Multi-Account Containers addon. I'm pretty sure such functionality doesn't exist for Chrome, and it makes it possible to isolate different sites and logins from each other. It's one of the best reasons to switch to Firefox, in my opinion.

I don't get why this lives in an extension. It's even advertised in the options, but requires downloading a separate component. Creating an awkward experience as what looks like a core feature lives in an external module. I imagine there is a non-zero number of users who look at containers then opt not to use it because of the download requirement.

I do get it. I've been using it for several months, and I run into problems fairly often. Nothing wrong with the implementation, AFAICT, but it takes a fair amount of thought to assign sites to different containers, and you can easily end up following links that cross container boundaries and then don't work right because of the context change. I've even run into several corporate sites where federated authentication simply won't work in a container, at all.

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

#360

Post by zamadatix »

alexandercrohde wrote: post #130
koolba wrote: post #23

>> Your item did not comply with the following section of our policy: An extension should have a single purpose that is clear to users. Any speculation on what the supposed multiple purposes would be? From past experience, is that type of thing something that is automatically flagged / determined programmatically or does a human reviewer of an extension make the call?

I mean you would think their process would be smart enough to say "Hey, we just rejected upload for product X that is THE MOST POPULAR PLUGIN. We haven't rejected any of the prior versions. Maybe let's get a human review. Certainly google employees and the chrome team will be aware of this within an hour if they aren't already. You can bet it's intentional if we don't see a reversal in the next 3 days."

> I mean you would think their process would be smart enough to say "Hey, we just rejected upload for product X that is THE MOST POPULAR PLUGIN. We haven't rejected any of the prior versions. Maybe let's get a human review.

The extension in question only has 9,000 users.

Post reply on HN