141–150 of 490 posts
Darn, ublock also no longer works on Firefox for YouTube. At the beginning of each video there is one forced ad and sometimes the video stops for no reason. I suppose they want everyone to stop using the Internet and read books.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chrome to Firefox is a relatively easy switch, especially for those that don’t depend on Google sync. The main sources of friction for me were the lack of a good profile switching UI (solved with a browser extension that mimics the Chrome menu), and weird security requirements for homemade extensions (IIRC if you want to have the extension persist after restarting Firefox, you need to sign the extension, which is a p…
Profile is already available in Firefox(before chrome implemented it). Details on how to use it: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-... Also in chrome, multiple profiles need multiple google account(If I understand the UI correctly)connected, but in Firefox no account is needed.
You can use Chrome with multiple profiles by disabling the "Allow Chrome sign-in" option so that none of your browser profiles are tied to a Google account. I don't know if that option can be toggled on a per-profile basis, because I happen to prefer it off for all of my browser profiles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They said "we have started disabling Manifest V2 extensions on pre-stable channels", and the "Chrome canary" referenced in the submission title is a pre-stable channel. The submission title is accurate, but narrowly highlighting only one facet of Google's update statement.
That's old news, as noted in my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41810420 The change here is actually about the stable channel. Also, the title makes it sound like MV2 code has been removed from the source, but that's not the case.
Hopefully this is the inflection point for Chrome. Despite all their made-up "security" reasons, everyone knows this is solely about making adblock less effective. For many users, adblock is what makes chrome bearable - and if they make it unbearable, then those users will leave. Slowly but surely. Google seems much too sure of itself making this change. I hope their arrogance pays off just the same as Microsoft's di…
> everyone knows this is solely about making adblock less effective I thought I knew that. Then I switched from uBlock Origin to uBlock Origin Lite in Chrome, which is compatible with Manifest v3. I was prepared for the horrible onslaught of ads, expecting at least a quarter would start getting through, ready to switch to Firefox... ...and didn't notice a single change. Not a single ad gets through. And at the same t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> extensions have to predefine the rules for blockin And there's a limit of 5000 such rules.
The limit is 330000 rules: "Based on input from the extension community, we also increased the number of rulesets for declarativeNetRequest, allowing extensions to bundle up to 330,000 static rules and dynamically add a further 30,000." https://blog.chromium.org/2024/05/manifest-v2-phase-out-begi... .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed on hoping this is the inflection point, but only partial agreement that it's about adblock. For sure Google wants adblock to die, but I think it goes even deeper than that. I think it's part of a much bigger trend in tech in general but also in Google: Removing user control. When you look at the "security" things they are doing, many of them have a common philosophy underpinning them that the user (aka device…
The technologies themselves are mostly a good idea. The problem is that the companies designing them also like to abuse them. Take, for example, hardware attestation on android. There's not really any serious issue with this feature, it can be used to ensure your device is not compromised. This is for example how GrapheneOS enables its use with the auditor application. But, on the other hand, Google abuses the featur…
When the OS is fundamentally in the user's control, they are limited in what they can do, but when the OS disregards it's owners preferences/desires and enforces it's creators desires.
Minor thing actually:
> If APIs were exposed to allow you to bless your own applications with the right permissions, you would probably not care so much about root restrictions.
I absolutely agree with this in theory, but in practice I'm not sure it would ever work because they just aren't going to put in the work to build and maintain APIs for things they don't care about, and there would be a very long tail of things to do (and sometimes those things are legitimately a lot of work). Call recording being a classic example.
But all in all, I very much agree. I love those features when they are in my control on my devices. Biggest issue is, they virtually never are and the number of occurences is trending down.
Anyway,
Darn, ublock also no longer works on Firefox for YouTube. At the beginning of each video there is one forced ad and sometimes the video stops for no reason. I suppose they want everyone to stop using the Internet and read books.
Edit: Seems Google/Youtube are experimenting/testing with injecting ads directly into the video streams:
https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1de9kv5/youtu...
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/
I love Mozilla, but I’m concerned about its future. Since 80% of its income reportedly comes from the Google search deal, do they have a plan to replace it after the recent ruling? And can they maintain their current level of autonomy while doing so?
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/
Chrome to Firefox is a relatively easy switch, especially for those that don’t depend on Google sync. The main sources of friction for me were the lack of a good profile switching UI (solved with a browser extension that mimics the Chrome menu), and weird security requirements for homemade extensions (IIRC if you want to have the extension persist after restarting Firefox, you need to sign the extension, which is a p…
The main one is the behaviour of pinned tabs. Pinning in Firefox turns it into an icon that is harder to hit and doesn't even protect it from closing. This makes them essentially useless, they should be moved to the front of the tab bar and be protected from closing.
The second is that when you use vertical tabs the tab bar acts like a title bar instead of a separate entity. This means you can't double click to create a new tab, and trying to drag a tab often results in the entire window moving. I have to use Tree style tabs and disable the normal tab bar completely to prevent this.
There are also things that I don't like such as how downloads are handled and I've has issues with my session tabs being saved properly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is important, I think, to understand that personal computing is just one part of the picture. "Enterprise" environments (governments, businesses, large organizations, etc.) have demanded many of these "features" even before Google started implementing them. Your workplace, by and large, does not want you, the replaceable person who happens to be sitting at the keyboard, to be in full control of the device that the…
Then they could have made Mv3 an option to turn on by sysadmins who lock down their browsers. If you aren’t locking down your users browsers then that’s on you. I mean at worst they could have made mv2 opt-in and most people would have highly curtailed their complaints of “I’ll jump ship to _____________” . People don’t like it when features are removed especially when there are viable alternatives like, adding a spe…
There's another problem with Chrome, which is that nobody is actually paying for it. So the big corps move features along there only in the sense that they won't adopt it or will drop it otherwise. I don't think the big corps are pushing for Mv3 but they also probably don't care that it arrives either. Conversely, I wager Google estimates nearly nobody will revolt and leave Chrome over the loss of Mv2. It hurts ad-blocker developers and it hurts the most conscious users, but Chrome is a marketing product targeted at mass adoption first and foremost. I personally hope their estimation is wrong and the current browser monopoly breaks, but this may not yet be the breaking point.
Even if that happens, Chrome eagerly adopting enterprise policy support may keep it on life support in that environment, though.