I don't understand why this (and all the rest) is not driving people back to Firefox. Are we really going to wait for Mozilla to die, and then lament that Google has taken over the web?
It did for me. I went back to firefox a year ago.
Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow
151–160 of 394 posts
Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Not wanting to install browser updates is no different to asking "how do I turn this yellow light in my car's dashboard? I know! I'll put tape over it!". Granted, the update might come with UI changes. Changing oil in your car won't do that. That can be annoying, but whether something looks "horrible" is completely subjective. That's fine. You can rely on userChrome.css[1] to customize things more in Firefox than in…
[deleted]
Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
This isn't a single, monolithic change, there's plenty of changes between manifest V2 and V3. GP said he thought most of these changes are a step in the right direction, while expressing concern about one of the others. That seems like a cohesive and nuanced opinion to me.
It sounds like deflection and rationalization to me.
Not all features are equally important, the one seeing a regression is much more important, it's also the feature with a conflict of interest, and the conflict of interest lies in the direction of Google pushing this through over everyone else's objections.
Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow
#154Brave has ad blocking built in - you don't need extensions.
Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the sake of fighting browser engines monoculture, I'd recommend you NOT using Brave, even for all the goodies and niceties in the world.
What's wrong with a browser engine monoculture? It'd make development simpler as you could just test against that one engine.
We have been down this road before in 2000, so we know it leads to the total opposite of "make development simpler".
When IE6 became the engine mono culture, it was the best.
But then it stopped innovating, because it didn't need to. It also pushed moves that were only for the good of Micorosoft, since they had monopoly, trying to make the web a less open place.
It was a pain to develop for, a pain to debug, and a capricious master.
Google has shown they can be very naughty as soon as they got power over something.
Learn from history. Do not give them that power.
Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow
#156As 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…
I remember some people saying Safari's extension changes and specific content blocker API would be a good thing because ad blockers would use less resources. The change happened, uBlock Origin broke for Safari and here we are several years later and the Safari ad blocker ecosystem is an absolute joke and most of it barely works or demands subscription fees (and the ones that do are certainly not worth paying for beca…
> and the ones that do are certainly not worth paying for because they don't even block YT ads
AdGuard can[1] but it’s a cumbersome process.
1Blocker had to develop a bespoke solution but it works seamlessly[2].
[1]: https://adguard.com/en/article/how-to-block-ads-on-youtube.h...
[2]: https://backstage.1blocker.com/how-to-block-youtube-ads-in-s...
Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Not wanting to install browser updates is no different to asking "how do I turn this yellow light in my car's dashboard? I know! I'll put tape over it!". Granted, the update might come with UI changes. Changing oil in your car won't do that. That can be annoying, but whether something looks "horrible" is completely subjective. That's fine. You can rely on userChrome.css[1] to customize things more in Firefox than in…
I take issue with almost everything you said. Sorry my reply is too brief. It's "no different to"..what?! I don't agree that whether something looks "horrible" is completely subjective. I've never tried to customize things for customization's sake, if you're implying I do? Not sure. I used userChrome.css once I think, and as I didn't know about its existence beforehand, it took me hours to fix FF.
Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow
#158I don't understand why this (and all the rest) is not driving people back to Firefox. Are we really going to wait for Mozilla to die, and then lament that Google has taken over the web?
It did for me. I went back to firefox a year ago.
I never left. But then I again, I replaced everything Google with paid or self-hosted alternatives about 10 years ago. From what I hear, the Google ecosystem itself can be pain on Firefox. Although I check my old Gmail once every couple of weeks and I find it to work well enough. Maybe if you live in things like Google Docs, you start getting annoyed by accumulating papercuts? No idea..
Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
It did for me. I went back to firefox a year ago.
I never left. But then I again, I replaced everything Google with paid or self-hosted alternatives about 10 years ago. From what I hear, the Google ecosystem itself can be pain on Firefox. Although I check my old Gmail once every couple of weeks and I find it to work well enough. Maybe if you live in things like Google Docs, you start getting annoyed by accumulating papercuts? No idea..
The nuisances are minor. They're enough that if you're just thinking of switching, you might notice them and not do it. But after a while, you forget about them. I couldn't tell you what they were anymore.
And there are advantages as well, such as better autoplay avoidance.
Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow
#160if 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
I don't really find Google to be that dystopian. Chrome, gmail and google photos and search are all quite nice. Sure I can change if they get annoying.