111–120 of 250 posts
Much discussed last few days https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38369820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38361758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38361758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38301801 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38298502
in wake of the EU ruling that youtube isn't allowed to block adblockers, i can understand this move. imo the eu needs to stay out of this. its a competition between people trying to block ads and trying to force you to see them, which i see nothing wrong with.
I used to agree, but now that ads have become a prolific malware vector, the balance has changed and ad-blocking is a security issue.
What do you mean "now"? They've been prolific malware vectors for over 20 years!
Two questions I haven't seen addressed by any coverage of this change: 1. Will the ultimate removal of Manifest V2 support affect other Chromium-based browsers, or only Chrome itself? If the support for Manifest V2 isn't removed upstream in Chromium, but only disabled in Chrome, then I would expect that we will end up in a world where other browsers (e.g. Edge, Brave, Opera) continue to allow the installation of Mani…
1. Brave, Vivaldi, and Opera have all announced they'd maintain support for Mv2 past Google's deprecation date [1].
2. Your guess is correct - one of Google's stated motivations is to make the extension review process easier and less error-prone; having a way to opt-out would be counterproductive in that regard. I strongly doubt they'd accept the PR upstream; there is a chance other players could maintain patches to modify Mv3 but the effort of designing and implementing a new spec around the Mv3 spec and convincing extensions to maintain yet another platform means this is unlikely to happen in practice. Keeping Mv2 around is a more reasonable approach (and one that is compatible with Firefox, as well).
[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/opera-brave-vivaldi-to-ignore-...
I like Firefox a lot (with Privacy Badger and uBlock) but sometimes the browser slows to a crawl. New tabs are slow to open, takes way too long to select and activate a text input field, and so on. A restart fixes this, but it's still annoying. I think I might go back to Safari. I like the way it looks and it feels snappier all the way around.
Can someone give an example of what a good number would be? How many dynamic rules are currently used?
> Also, extension developers are limited in what regular expressions they can use, along with other technical limitations.
Does this meaningfully impact rules? Just curious.
> According to Firefox’s Add-on Operations Manager, most malicious extension that manage to get through the security review process, are usually interested in simply observing the conversation between your browser and whatever websites you visit. The malicious activity happens elsewhere, after the data has already been read. So in their mind, what would really help security is a more thorough review process, but that’s not something Google says it has plans for.
I don't see how one follows from the other. Attackers are using malicious extensions to eavesdrop on networks... therefore we need better reviews and not restricted APIs? I get why you might want to advocate for the latter over the former, but certainly it seems like restricting APIs also has positive impact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 2. Would it be possible for some random developer to put in a PR to the upstream Chromium project, to introduce one or more Manifest V3 capabilities I don't see why Google would ever allow it, unless some new regulation from EU or other gov. bodies mandate it.
Does Google have veto power over what goes into Chromium? I had always assumed the relationship between Chromium and Google was akin to the relationship between Webkit and Apple, or between any ASF-donated project and its corporate originator: a community-owned (and several-major-corporate-stakeholders sponsored) open-source project upstream, with a corporate closed-source "living patchset" project sitting downstream…
> But Google has decided that block and allow are not that easily abused so it will allow up to 30,000 rules to be added dynamically. Can someone give an example of what a good number would be? How many dynamic rules are currently used? > Also, extension developers are limited in what regular expressions they can use, along with other technical limitations. Does this meaningfully impact rules? Just curious. > Accordi…
uBlock's built in list has 47,000
EasyList has 75,000
EasyPrivacy has 31,000
Fanboy's List is 78,000
Basically none of the major lists fit inside this quantity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So switch then instead of just talking about it. It's not a big deal, it takes like 1 minute, and no one can seriously tell me you have a significantly different browser experience on Chrome vs FF.
It's very subjective, but I won't try switching again before certain things I value in Chrome are available or work similar well on Firefox. You can switch based on ideology alone but I want convenience more than that.
I like Firefox a lot (with Privacy Badger and uBlock) but sometimes the browser slows to a crawl. New tabs are slow to open, takes way too long to select and activate a text input field, and so on. A restart fixes this, but it's still annoying. I think I might go back to Safari. I like the way it looks and it feels snappier all the way around.
> But Google has decided that block and allow are not that easily abused so it will allow up to 30,000 rules to be added dynamically. Can someone give an example of what a good number would be? How many dynamic rules are currently used? > Also, extension developers are limited in what regular expressions they can use, along with other technical limitations. Does this meaningfully impact rules? Just curious. > Accordi…
> Can someone give an example of what a good number would be? How many dynamic rules are currently used? uBlock's built in list has 47,000 EasyList has 75,000 EasyPrivacy has 31,000 Fanboy's List is 78,000 Basically none of the major lists fit inside this quantity.