Live data from Hacker News

Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow

theregister.com

61–70 of 394 posts

Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow

#61
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if it's not against TOS I would imagine most ad network just refusing to serve ads that encourage people to install ad blockers.

you don't have to mention adblockers in the ad. The ad could imply a cleaner browsing experience, faster, and your activities won't be tracked!

yeah, people really trust those sites that offer to install something to improve your browser performance and keep you from being tracked.

Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow

#63

This will not cause Chrome to lose market share, it is in fact the exact opposite. The move is _required_ for market share. Castrating extensions prevents average Joe from shooting himself in the foot. It is easy for us to forget how bad most non IT people are with these things. It's OK to have browsers aimed at different markets. I will continue to use Firefox but will not push it to my aging parents for example. I…

It's the opposite, only power users can use Windows, everyone else don't know hygiene and quickly get stuffed with viruses.

Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow

#64
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla annoys me. Truly it does. However, it's the organisation. Firefox as a browser, especially dev tools, seems better in every day use than Chrome does. I am really not sure why they keep losing users. I do remember being massive performance issues in the past, but that's really not the case today (at least in my experience)

"Firefox as a browser, especially dev tools, seems better in every day use than Chrome does. " Cannot confirm at all. I do not know any feature in ff dev tools I am missing in chrome, but the other way around lots of it. Mainly: editing and saving directly in the debugger! Could also be my ignorance, but I regulary do debugging in FF and it works, but way less efficient. Meaning I browse with FF, but work with chrome…

I mostly agree, but one really nice feature FF has is the ability to see a diff of the CSS properties you've changed in the inspector:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Tools/Page_Inspecto...

Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I am really not sure why they keep losing users. Because, number one, they keep constantly making radical UI/UX changes that frustrate and alienate their long term users who would rather they keep the "older look" which they got used to and works just fine for them, and number two, most websites are lazy so their devs only optimize for Chrome, even going the extra mile to explicitly state that "For best experience u…

> Because they keep making stupid UI)UX choices than alienate their users Cannot overstate this enough. They keep randomly changing their UI constantly , and it's especially frustrating when you have a bunch of custom CSS. I'm a bunch of versions behind & dreading updating because I don't want to spend the hours it'll take to fix my shit for their new version. I honestly hate this browser so much at this point, but e…

I don't want to update, when the update is to something that looks horrible. (Last update I spent hours googling for scripts to reverse the appearance changes. Seems there were 1000s of people looking for the same thing!) But in FF preferences there are only 2 choices.

1. Automatically install updates (recommended)

2. Check for updates but let you choose to install them

You would think I'd choose option 2, since I don't want updates, but I tried that, and I got a popup several times a day saying INSTALL UPDATE NOW OR LATER—no way to say "No I don't !%$@ want to update!" ... so after putting up with that for a while I changed to option 1 to avoid the neverending update popups. Not at all what I want though. Talk about a dark pattern. "let you choose to install them" indeed! Not "choose whether to install" but "bombard you with update popups until you crack and choose to install".

Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow

#66
post #2

It's time for mass-migration to Firefox. Only losing users is going to tell Google that this is a horrible solution to enforce.

What... Is the appeal of brave ? I hear it has crypto and shit but why not install Firefox with ubo and be done with it? I feel the "cool" factor of brave is silly as they are just fueling chromium. Why don't these chromium forks base on Firefox instead and do some leg work with the benefit of helping the internet as a whole ? I hear someone said on hn a long time ago, building on ff is a pita. Well guess what, Firef…

As someone who wouldn't mind if Mozilla post Eich can die under a metadata drone strike (doubly so for google) and will still use my FF fork and avoid chrome/chromium based browsers like the plague, brave, seems like they are willing to build in support for decentralized (to me at least) and p2p web directly into the browser (rather than leave it up to potentially less performant 3rd party extensions which may be ok, but not ideal in ff) than all the crap I have to compile out of ff occasionally.

Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow

#67

if you haven't already use Firefox and recognize that this is a fundamental question of freedom and whether you want the internet to be controlled by dystopian corporate advertisement monoliths or institutions that care about your rights. Every time this comes up and 80% of discussions is about whether the tab bar in firefox is flat or three pixels wide instead of five makes me more depressed

Fair criticism of Firefox is that it is dependent on Mozilla 'the org' which is a pretty shaky foundation to base such a critical component on. Witness the exodus of even die hard supporters over the last couple of years. That has nothing to do with minor UI details.

I’d prefer Firefox, but some functionality works inarguably better in chrome. One example is YouTube, which slams my processor due to the lack of hardware decoding.

Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow

#68
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why. It's not like Firefox is a bad browser.

> It's not like Firefox is a bad browser. compared to chrome, firefox no longer has an edge. Chrome's restrictive addons is what made firefox stronger. But ever since firefox removed the old XUL style addons, their utility has drastically dropped against chrome. I was very angry at their poor choice, as some really excellent, but unmaintained addons no longer work. I put up with firefox, just so i can give them some…

Yes this is true. Mozilla neutered extensions on Android.

I'm using Firefox nightly and I have to jump through hoops to get the extensions I want. Far too complicated for most users I'm sure.

Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow

#70
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why. It's not like Firefox is a bad browser.

> It's not like Firefox is a bad browser. compared to chrome, firefox no longer has an edge. Chrome's restrictive addons is what made firefox stronger. But ever since firefox removed the old XUL style addons, their utility has drastically dropped against chrome. I was very angry at their poor choice, as some really excellent, but unmaintained addons no longer work. I put up with firefox, just so i can give them some…

I also hate they had to kill XUL addons, but they had good reasons to do so: https://yoric.github.io/post/why-did-mozilla-remove-xul-addo...
Post reply on HN