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

Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

neowin.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 480 posts

Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

#281

Post by yumraj »

packetlost wrote: post #275
lelanthran wrote: post #184

Good! Give everyone the push they need to break the web homogeny of Chrome everywhere. I'm tired of all the (mostly technical) people whining that they need Chrome, and only Chrome can browse the internet. Then you ask them for a site that doesn't work and conveniently "it was some time back and I don't remember the details". I've been using FF since before it was called Firefox. In the last 10 years I've not come ac…

I switched to FireFox like 8 years ago, but to be completely honest there are maybe 2-3 very important sites that straight up do not work for me at all with FireFox. Like, completely unusable, not just weird graphical issues.

Such as?

Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

#282

Post by [deleted] »

nishanmiranda wrote: post #36
HerbManic wrote: post #28

Just remember that Google is essentially an advertising company and that they were always going to squeeze this opening closed as soon as they could get away with it. I do fear for a future were even Firefox ends up caving in. Ladybird browser might be our only hope until something legal comes along to block functionality.

Firefox haven't caved in so far. Why do u think it might in future?

[deleted]

Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

#283

Post by qweqwe14 »

esseph wrote: post #261
preg_match wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chromium is technically faster but in practice it doesn’t matter if you don’t have an adblocker. Adblocking significantly lowers render and JS load and lessens memory pressure. It varies site to site, but keep in mind that ads have to be fetched and then displayed. That’s not free. Firefox with uBlock origin is basically as fast as a web browser can get.

> It varies site to site, but keep in mind that ads have to be fetched and then displayed. That’s not free. Move your ad blocking to a different layer. Like say, network level.

You could, but at the very least you'd need to MITM all HTTPS, and that means installing your own CA on all devices

Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

#284

Post by darksim905 »

subscribed wrote: post #254
lelanthran wrote: post #184

Good! Give everyone the push they need to break the web homogeny of Chrome everywhere. I'm tired of all the (mostly technical) people whining that they need Chrome, and only Chrome can browse the internet. Then you ask them for a site that doesn't work and conveniently "it was some time back and I don't remember the details". I've been using FF since before it was called Firefox. In the last 10 years I've not come ac…

> whining - Chrome is safer due to the proper sandboxing of tabs. - Try watching anything on YouTube on Firefox - for me even 360p stream (on 12c, mostly idle Linux PC) stutters to the point of being unwatchable. None of the is/browser settings work. Yeah, I realise YouTube is owned by Google That's just my first two (just look it up, don't take my word for it), to show your "whining" claim is just an uneducated host…

this sounds like a weird driver issue. in 30 years of watching content on YouTube, I've never seen it stutter unless I was using some weird low power PC.

Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

#285

Post by qweqwe14 »

lelanthran wrote: post #239
qweqwe14 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. You do realize that people have stuff to do and want their browser to be both 1) fast and 2) compatible with all websites? Firefox is slower than Chromium, and always will have some compatibility issues, because all websites are made with Chromium in mind. You can pretend all you want that "well ackshually standards exist and all website makers should use things from the standard", but it's not realistic, everyon…

> Firefox is slower than Chromium, IME, ads introduce a 30% or more performance penalty, the only way Chrome is "faster" is if you view ads on FF. So, sure, if you don't want to block ads, Chrome just might be slightly faster. But the browser that never fetches ads in the first place is always going to be faster.

For some bizarre reason you think that you can't block ads on Chromium. uBO Lite exists and blocks ads just as well as uBO.

Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

#286

Post by qweqwe14 »

preg_match wrote: post #252
qweqwe14 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. You do realize that people have stuff to do and want their browser to be both 1) fast and 2) compatible with all websites? Firefox is slower than Chromium, and always will have some compatibility issues, because all websites are made with Chromium in mind. You can pretend all you want that "well ackshually standards exist and all website makers should use things from the standard", but it's not realistic, everyon…

Chromium is technically faster but in practice it doesn’t matter if you don’t have an adblocker. Adblocking significantly lowers render and JS load and lessens memory pressure. It varies site to site, but keep in mind that ads have to be fetched and then displayed. That’s not free. Firefox with uBlock origin is basically as fast as a web browser can get.

uBO Lite exists and blocks ads just as well as uBO. Why do people pretend it doesn't exist?

Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

#287

Post by qweqwe14 »

account42 wrote: post #220
qweqwe14 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. You do realize that people have stuff to do and want their browser to be both 1) fast and 2) compatible with all websites? Firefox is slower than Chromium, and always will have some compatibility issues, because all websites are made with Chromium in mind. You can pretend all you want that "well ackshually standards exist and all website makers should use things from the standard", but it's not realistic, everyon…

People are also too lazy to go vote and then cry when someone gets elected that they didn't want to. Sometimes participating in society means not always taking the easiest path.

It won't matter if dozens of nerds use Firefox, Chromium is just better in every way and that's the reason for it's popularity. No amount of "voting" will change that.

Manifest V3 doesn't prevent anyone from blocking ads, as proven by uBO Lite. And yet misinformation about MV3 takes place in every Chromium vs Firefox debate.

Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

#288

Post by packetlost »

yumraj wrote: post #281
packetlost wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I switched to FireFox like 8 years ago, but to be completely honest there are maybe 2-3 very important sites that straight up do not work for me at all with FireFox. Like, completely unusable, not just weird graphical issues.

Such as?

accuweather.com was the biggest one, though it looks like they fixed it sometime in the last month.

Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

#289

Post by gonzalohm »

esseph wrote: post #258
gonzalohm wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I also use Firefox and Nebula works fine for me. Do you have any extensions that may be causing that?

I keep firefox as a backup browser after more than 25y of on again off again use. It simply does not work well on a lot of sites including government or bank websites. Wish it did.

But I'm wondering if you are doing something wrong. I just tried nebula in Firefox 151.0.3 and it works flawlessly. Full screen works, all buttons in the player work. I also tried it on Firefox for Android and it works.

Do you have any other websites that don't work?

Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

#290

Post by preg_match »

qweqwe14 wrote: post #286
preg_match wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chromium is technically faster but in practice it doesn’t matter if you don’t have an adblocker. Adblocking significantly lowers render and JS load and lessens memory pressure. It varies site to site, but keep in mind that ads have to be fetched and then displayed. That’s not free. Firefox with uBlock origin is basically as fast as a web browser can get.

uBO Lite exists and blocks ads just as well as uBO. Why do people pretend it doesn't exist?

Because it doesn’t work just as well, because the blocking is less dynamic and filter lists are more out of date. For simple ad blocking scenarios it’s fine, but it will actually miss some ads on some websites.
Post reply on HN