371–380 of 394 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't Chrome making opinionated decisions (like this one), pushing a political agenda (anti-privacy, pro-corporatism, pro-monopoly etc) and abusing the standardisation process?
Why jump to the assumption I would want Chrome?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
On mobile it is really good because of the builtin adblocker + chromium engine makes it very fast. It also has background play on Youtube. On desktop it is less useful. But probably still better privacy vise than Edge or Chrome.
Brave's browser ID is more ephemeral, it's not hardware based and doesn't persist across restarts, search suggestions are off by default and the default engine is DDG/Brave, and their sync service is end to end encrypted.
Edge is a good product, but not if you like wearing tinfoil hats. If privacy is no object, Edge is probably the best.
It's time for mass-migration to Firefox. Only losing users is going to tell Google that this is a horrible solution to enforce.
The day that adblockers stop working on Chrome is the day we'll see that mass-migration.
A depressing number of users use the web via the Chrome search bar on their phone, and even if they use a browser they go even to familiar sites by googing them.
Removing webRequest's blocking will completely destroy my web extension. It helps people get work done by blocking website's they're addicted to. I've just started out on a new version, not sure what to do.
Is there a reason you can't use the declarative API to block these websites? Isn't that what you're doing on Safari? https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/decla... (Disclosure: I work at Google, speaking only for myself)
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…
1. Actual features like tab groups which Firefox killed.
2. Likelihood to actually add features. Firefox used to have unique features I liked a lot, like keyword searches synced via bookmarks, but this is set for deprecation and was removed from mobile. I don't remember when Firefox last gave me a new feature.
3. Adblocking on mobile while not being Firefox, which is interestingly rare.
4. Not being developed by Mozilla. Mozilla's increasingly vehement about woke political activism, and after the tech companies booted Orange Man out of the Internet, Mozilla came out in no uncertain terms saying that they'd like politically partisan platforms to decide what I see on the net. I'd used them for years and promptly noped the fuck out. The organization may be for privacy, but they don't seem to care about other important things, or rather care about them the wrong way. I want my browser maker to make a good tool, not to tell me what to think. Mozilla feels more interested in the latter than the former.
5. Brave focuses on building an alternative foothold on the web, not just providing a browser. A lot of the other browsers' footprint comes from associated web and hardware platforms and the resulting integration conveniences. Brave has a big focus on independent revenue streams, which I like a lot even if I'm not really a fan of the crypto stuff.
Firefox lacks that to a large degree. They do have Pocket, which is good, but their userbase is essentially hostile to Pocket because they have some idiotic pipe dream about a donation-funded, pure and moral FOSS project. Meanwhile Firefox the company is moralistic, not moral, and funded by Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not true re the Safari ad blocker ecosystem. We develop a Safari ad blocker [1] that works on iOS and macOS which provides performant and private ad blocking. Unlike previous ad blockers using other extension mechanisms, it also can’t see which web pages you visit. We recently released best in class YouTube ad blocking features too. The mechanisms for doing this is different, but the ad blocking results are as…
did you ever notice how the only people who ever say anything positive about Safari's adblock ecosystem are those who literally sell adblocker software? It is like clockwork. Despite the fact that most of your posts on HN are ads for magiclasso, the fact remains that even most basic features (like whitelisting or blocking cookie banners) require payment. Furthermore, you do not even come close to uBlock origin. Of co…
Does uBlock Origin also use a slow, memory and performance inefficient means of blocking ads? Yes.
Does uBlock Origin also use ad blocking ruleset that have thousands of obsolete rules that are rarely pruned, leading to the complaints that Safari only supported 50,000 rules in a single extension? Yes.
There's a lot of Pros and Cons with different products. uBlock Origin has a lot of Pros for certain types of users and it's a fantastic tool – but it's approach to ad blocking is becoming legacy at this stage. They should be planning to re-architect their approach to suit a more modern, privacy focused API that is supported by the two biggest browser makers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
did you ever notice how the only people who ever say anything positive about Safari's adblock ecosystem are those who literally sell adblocker software? It is like clockwork. Despite the fact that most of your posts on HN are ads for magiclasso, the fact remains that even most basic features (like whitelisting or blocking cookie banners) require payment. Furthermore, you do not even come close to uBlock origin. Of co…
Does uBlock Origin have a lot more customisable power user features? Yes. Are they relevant to the majority of users who want to be able to enable an ad blocker and get great results without a lot of fuss? Probably not. Does uBlock Origin also use a slow, memory and performance inefficient means of blocking ads? Yes. Does uBlock Origin also use ad blocking ruleset that have thousands of obsolete rules that are rarely…
Is this true? It's been a little while but last time I looked over things it seemed like gorhill implemented a rather efficient machine. I'd appreciate if you could expand on this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Use a plug-in from an AppStore where plugins are regularly bought and replaced with malware? No thanks.
h264ify is free and open source. You can inspect the source code and also compile/package it yourself, if you do not want to trust addons.mozilla.org: https://github.com/erkserkserks/h264ify
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Mozilla's main source of revenue has always been the money Google There was a few years there they got off google in favor of Yahoo Money. Then Yahoo mismanagement imploded that company and back to google they went
There's a possibility that they're going to Bing, in which case they'd truly be a non-Google player. Not a non-Big Tech one, but a real anti-Google system.
Even if I am looking for Microsoft's own documentation on some library or class google returns a better result for MS Docs than Bing does....