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

541–550 of 614 posts

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

#541

Post by BuckRogers »

gpm wrote: post #536
BuckRogers wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not out of date, source on that claim? It's 1.22.4 just as it is in the Chrome store. https://i.imgur.com/c2voeqg.png

Oh, curious, I just assumed that since this issue was still open nothing had changed https://github.com/nikrolls/uBlock-Edge/issues/122

I think that's for the one in the legacy Edge store[0]. The Edge Insider store[1] is different. I'm sure the legacy extension is abandoned.

[0]https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/ublock-origin/9nblggh444l4...

[1]https://microsoftedge.microsoft.com/insider-addons/detail/od...

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

#543

Post by curben »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #386
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.

Thank you for posting this, never realized such a thing existed. Makes it easy to maintain different identities. It's made by Mozilla too. Wonder why it isn't a core feature of Firefox.

It has been a core feature since v50, albeit with less feature than the addon. It's still disabled by default, just need to toggle the following configs to enable it:

  privacy.userContext.enabled;true
  privacy.userContext.ui.enabled;true
  privacy.userContext.longPressBehavior;2
The last config is so that you can open a new container tab by long-pressing the new tab button.

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

#544

Post by taurath »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #470
matheusmoreira wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same experience here. Browsing with Firefox increases my CPU temperature by 10 degrees.

This is macOS specific & apparently actively being investigated, not present here on Linux.

Sadly it’s been 5 years. I’ve reported it many times with lots of logs.

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

#545

Post by unnouinceput »

Quote: "Since the next uBO release will essentially be what 1.22.5rc2 is, consider that uBO is probably coming to an end of life in the Chrome Web Store -- there is no good reason to believe uBO 1.22.5rc2 would no longer be rejected with only changing the version number to 1.23.0.

Those who still want to use uBO will have to find another browser for which uBO will still be available."

Hell yeah, Brave or Firefox. I dumped Chrome half a year ago, switched to Firefox and DuckDuckGo. I love my uBO + NoScript + PrivacyBadger extensions on Firefox.

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

#546

Post by Pxtl »

lightedman wrote: post #390
Glyptodon wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a link about this?

No, I'm a BGA repair tech that has had to deal with the bad RAM chips on that model of phone, among others. The RAM will appear to pass hardware checking in our testers, but you hit it hard and suddenly the frequency becomes unstable, often dropping down to DDR1 speeds. Plenty of room for error, there.

Ugh, I'd suspected something like that because it behaves very badly sometimes, but it's intermittent. Is there any recommended test for this? Or is it too ephemeral to test for?

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

#547

Post by Pxtl »

somebehemoth wrote: post #70
Pxtl wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately the Android version of Firefox is unusably crashy on my phone (moto z play) and noticeably slower. I gave it a hard try, but it just wasn't workable. Still using Firefox on all desktop/laptop devices, though.

I see this all the time and I think it is unhelpful to make these kinds of statements. I can make a counterpoint that I've used FF on Android for years and never experienced any issues whatsoever. I am not trying invalidate your experience, but want to point out anecdotes don't really paint a fair picture for either side of the argument. For example, how do we know my good experience and your bad experience are not e…

I sent crashlogs with information on what I'm doing. This, not being the Firefox bug tracker, is not the place I'm going to post stacktraces and detailed discussion of the difficulty in reproducing the bug.

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

#548

Post by mav3rick »

catalogia wrote: post #483
lend000 wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, blindly accepting browser extension upgrades is a huge security vulnerability. There was a post some time ago about how popular extension projects often get bought by adware/spyware companies and they were able to publish malicious changes directly to user's browsers without any validation.

This is the same company that operates the android 'Play Store', host to half a million spyware "flashlight" apps. I find it hard to take their expressed concern for my security seriously.

Right, if they don't try you blame them, if they do try you blame them. You clearly have a grudge to bury.

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

#549

Post by roca »

nullc wrote: post #515
a-nikolaev wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is famous for this type of attrition damage tactic. Read this: https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871231792455686 It goes like this: Google bans or disables something, then they pretend they made a mistake, but still delay fixing it for days or weeks while giving amateurish explanations for these delays. In the end what this tactic achieves, is hampering a software Google disapproves (or competes against).…

This sort of evil behavior doesn't require intent or actual malice to form. All it requires is that panic efforts to fix things be primarily allocated to problems that hurt google and not primarily allocated to things that hurt google's opponents. Or for infrastructure that has a history of hurting google to get disabled while infrastructure that has a history of hurting others gets ignored in favor of spending more…

As a former Mozilla distinguished engineer --- this is exactly right.

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

#550

Post by roca »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #487
ripdog wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you could cease contributing to the Blink monopoly on the web and join us of Firefox. Microsoft is no longer challenging Google in this space.

You mean the browser developed by Mozilla which is basically bankrolled by Google?

Regardless of where Mozilla's money comes from, Chromium market share drives Google's control over the Web a lot more than Gecko does.
Post reply on HN