Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 394 posts

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

#91

Post by irthomasthomas »

yesenadam wrote: post #65
RheingoldRiver wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 do…

Sniff your browser traffic to figure out which url they use to poll for updates and block that on your router or firewall. If that doesn't work, maybe you can redirect it in hosts file, and spoof the response to say there's no new updates.

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

#92

Post by yfkar »

hutzlibu wrote: post #45
erklik wrote: 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…

One thing where I've used Firefox devtools instead of Chrome is when debugging font usage (which is not very often).

Chrome tells you the used font for a single element on a pretty generic level, e.g. "Lato — Local file" or "Lato — Network resource".

Firefox Inspector has a Fonts tab that lets you list all the fonts used on a page. It tells you a more specific font name, e.g. "Lato Regular", the relevant @font-face rule and also the font URL if it's a network resource.

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

#93

Post by moonchrome »

Barrin92 wrote: post #21

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

Didn't Mozilla fire their devtools team ? FF devtools weren't up to Chrome as-is, and doesn't sound like they ever will be. FF seems like a sinking ship, not worth investing time in.

TBH I'm perfectly happy with Chrome and using Google accounts. The benefits of my data following me around seamlessly far outweighs the downsides of Google having access to it.

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

#94

Post by readflaggedcomm »

yesenadam wrote: post #65
RheingoldRiver wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 do…

FWIW forums like reddit's r/FirefoxCSS usually have solutions as soon as changes roll out on Developer Edition, which is months ahead of the release. It was like that for the ugly new tabs, for instance, which I never had to deal with.

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

#96

Post by vadfa »

hnlmorg wrote: post #88
jacquesm wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Firefox open source. If the Mozilla foundation is as questionable as some like to claim then why isn't there any effort to fork Gecko. We have more than enough Blink/Chromium based browsers already.

Blink is better than Gecko. Why would someone who intends to create a new browser do so using Gecko?

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

#97

Post by Mirioron »

tjpnz wrote: post #78
matheusmoreira wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

On Android it's freaking fantastic. Everything feels snappier and I can utilise uBlock Origin to block all of the BS. I've set this up for family, friends etc and none have gone back to Chrome. I think the biggest issue is marketing.

Have they fixed the scrolling? For years the scrolling in mobile Firefox felt bad/off. At one point I just gave up on trying to make it work.

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

#99

Post by krageon »

smaddock wrote: post #19

As someone who is intimately familiar with the Chrome extensions internals and is not employed by a big tech company, I believe most of the changes seem like a step in the right direction.* I've been working towards implementing greater support for Chrome extensions in Electron which has involved reading and interacting with Chromium code [0]. - Using service workers instead of a hidden background webpage is more idi…

You think it is a step in the right direction while acknowledging it breaks adblockers. You're going to have to explain why you're cool with that, because as it stands your post just isn't cohesive at all (as far as I can tell).

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

#100

Post by hnlmorg »

vadfa wrote: post #96
hnlmorg wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox open source. If the Mozilla foundation is as questionable as some like to claim then why isn't there any effort to fork Gecko. We have more than enough Blink/Chromium based browsers already.

Blink is better than Gecko. Why would someone who intends to create a new browser do so using Gecko?

For literally the reasons we're already discussing: to offer an alternative to Chrome.

If every browser is based on Chromium then you're not really offering an alternative to Google Chrome because Google still own the supply chain. Not only in terms of your new browser's rendering engine but also in terms of website owners being vindicated in targeting Chrome.

The only way to offer a legitimate counterargument to Chrome is not to use Blink.

Post reply on HN