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

Proxy Chrome extensions are not going to be usable in MV3

bugs.chromium.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 215 posts

Re: Proxy Chrome extensions are not going to be usable in MV3

#111

Post by alcover »

TremendousJudge wrote: post #96
alcover wrote: post #89

So.. Chrome is too big to fork. Then why don't we make a bare-bones OSS no-DRM browser with only a subset of JS and CSS and promote at the same time an old-school webring of 'virtous' websites. If it catches on (and it could since it'd be free and fast ), maybe some big sites would evolve to advertise themselves as 'virtous'.

I don't get it, Firefox already exists and is a complete OSS reimplementation of everything Chrome does (and works better imo). Only thing to do is convince sites to test more on Firefox. This strategy worked last time around.

I've been using Firefox forever but the problem is - it's now too big. Because it's - like you mention - following Chrome. To stay relevant, FF implements all the bloat Chrome churns out. Even worse, it's tempted to follow Chromes' extension manifest to stay compatible.

So I meant it looks like a lost battle. And it may be better to reboot to a smaller, nifter browser that a small team/community can handle.

edit: and of course cut all ties with Google financing.

Re: Proxy Chrome extensions are not going to be usable in MV3

#112

Post by JohnFen »

TremendousJudge wrote: post #96
alcover wrote: post #89

So.. Chrome is too big to fork. Then why don't we make a bare-bones OSS no-DRM browser with only a subset of JS and CSS and promote at the same time an old-school webring of 'virtous' websites. If it catches on (and it could since it'd be free and fast ), maybe some big sites would evolve to advertise themselves as 'virtous'.

I don't get it, Firefox already exists and is a complete OSS reimplementation of everything Chrome does (and works better imo). Only thing to do is convince sites to test more on Firefox. This strategy worked last time around.

Firefox may work great for many people, but it certainly doesn't for me. I finally gave up completely on it late last year.

Re: Proxy Chrome extensions are not going to be usable in MV3

#113

Post by JohnFen »

ridiculous_fish wrote: post #101
nitrixion wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This type of decision has fully cemented that Google is an advertising company. Every decision they make is to benefit advertisers regardless of how it affects users and developers.

How does this decision benefit advertisers? Honest question.

It greatly restricts how effective ad blockers can be.

Re: Proxy Chrome extensions are not going to be usable in MV3

#114

Post by yoasif_ »

imbnwa wrote: post #78
Caspy7 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1534893414579249152 > Brave will support uBO and uMatrix so long as Google doesn’t remove underlying V2 code paths (which seem to be needed for Chrome for enterprise support, so should stay in the Chromium open source). Will Google Chrome Web Store really kick them out over V2? We will host if needed. https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1534905779630661633 > > I’d be interest…

I see my misunderstanding, they're specifically maintaining the webRequest interface

> I see my misunderstanding, they're specifically maintaining the webRequest interface

They aren't specifically maintaining anything. Brave's CEO doesn't "write checks of unknown amount[s] and sign them".

Re: Proxy Chrome extensions are not going to be usable in MV3

#115

Post by [deleted] »

LegitShady wrote: post #76
pkulak wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The stupid prize is that by the time you decide it's time to use a different browser, Firefox and Safari have been rendered totally unusable by developers only targeting Chrome because that's all they have to do.

I use firefox every day without issue.

[deleted]

Re: Proxy Chrome extensions are not going to be usable in MV3

#117

Post by JohnFen »

vlunkr wrote: post #28
superkuh wrote: post #7

I don't want to pile on here but everyone who used Chromium while pretending they weren't supporting google's Chrome monopoly, pretending Chromium was something else, are getting the only outcome that was possible. It was entirely predictable from the start and if you play stupid games you win stupid prizes.

And the stupid prize is what? You might have to use a different browser? Doesn't seem that serious to me.

And what would that different browser be? Aside from Firefox, which has become essentially unusable to me.

Re: Proxy Chrome extensions are not going to be usable in MV3

#118

Post by reciprocity »

jeffbee wrote: post #109
TremendousJudge wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get it, Firefox already exists and is a complete OSS reimplementation of everything Chrome does (and works better imo). Only thing to do is convince sites to test more on Firefox. This strategy worked last time around.

Firefox gives up 40-60% of the performance of Chrome on my platform, using common browser benchmarks. I don't see Firefox as a substitute good for Chrome. It has much worse performance, worse security, and lacks features I want. Its performance is equivalent to using Chrome on an 8-year-old CPU. The only thing it has going for it is being perceived as counter-cultural, despite the fact that it is 100% funded by Googl…

Your claim is that you suffer a _40 to 60_% performance impact by using Firefox from Chrome? Would you like to try that again? I see egregious comments like this of Firefox every so often and I always have to wonder if the last time people making these remarks actually used Firefox was in the pre-Quantum era (assuming one charitable interpretation). To claim that its performance is equivalent to using Chrome on a CPU from 2013 is disingenuous at best.

Firefox is not just perceived as 'counter-cultural', its importance lies in the fact that not using Chrome and similar browsers is also a vote not to support a browser monoculture online.

Re: Proxy Chrome extensions are not going to be usable in MV3

#119

Post by jeffbee »

reciprocity wrote: post #118
jeffbee wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox gives up 40-60% of the performance of Chrome on my platform, using common browser benchmarks. I don't see Firefox as a substitute good for Chrome. It has much worse performance, worse security, and lacks features I want. Its performance is equivalent to using Chrome on an 8-year-old CPU. The only thing it has going for it is being perceived as counter-cultural, despite the fact that it is 100% funded by Googl…

Your claim is that you suffer a _40 to 60_% performance impact by using Firefox from Chrome? Would you like to try that again? I see egregious comments like this of Firefox every so often and I always have to wonder if the last time people making these remarks actually used Firefox was in the pre-Quantum era (assuming one charitable interpretation). To claim that its performance is equivalent to using Chrome on a CPU…

I invite you to try Safari, Chrome, and Firefox on an Apple Silicon CPU right now. Firefox is the slowest of these by a HUGE margin.

Re: Proxy Chrome extensions are not going to be usable in MV3

#120

Post by 3np »

alcover wrote: post #89

So.. Chrome is too big to fork. Then why don't we make a bare-bones OSS no-DRM browser with only a subset of JS and CSS and promote at the same time an old-school webring of 'virtous' websites. If it catches on (and it could since it'd be free and fast ), maybe some big sites would evolve to advertise themselves as 'virtous'.

dillo.org

More recently, Ladybird, which was discussed last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32809126

Post reply on HN