141–150 of 396 posts
Wait FF is copying this too?!?
Safari had the same concept first.
https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/decla...
It will be interesting what Microsoft will do, at first glance they don't care about advertisement and allowing ad-block would bring a lot of users to their ecosystem. (they already have soft adblock out of the box)
The security argument seems pretty simple. The end goal is that legit extensions that people regularly install should not need to ask for dangerous permissions, because a) it teaches the users that it's normal and b) since the extensions can become compromised later and abuse the permissions. Adblockers are probably the most common kind of extension, and are currently granted effectively unlimited access to read and…
I, as an end user want to be able to install whatever dangerous software I want, especially as a power user. I understand the potential consequences and I don't want or need the handrails. Options and freedom are good. This is why browsers need to be split off from for profit organizations to be managed by entities that aren't concerned with the fallout if someone installs malicious software.
I miss the early days of Firefox extensions (circa 2004) where an extension could in very powerful ways completely change the layout/functionality of your browser; when they had near unlimited access to the XUL and could change anything and everything. I used a ton of very useful extensions then. Nested tabs were one of my favorites. These days I've got a password manager, a bookmark checker, and a tab manager I wrot…
Take a look at http://nyxt.atlas.engineer/ . It's written to be extensible/introspectable, and the extension language is Common Lisp.
If Google actually gave a crap about security, they would let you disable extensions. As it is, I have to routinely delete malicious extensions from every family member's Chromebook. Lord knows how they get there, but they always do. Since this new standard still lets extensions observe everything, I don't see what the point is.
I don’t understand why Firefox needs to adopt Mv3 for “cross-browser compatibility”. Is this to save extension writers time and effort or is it a mistake in the article?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it Chromium based? It might be great but for now refuse to support anything that further strengthen Googles grip on the market.
I've been using Firefox for as long as I've been on the internet, but I got really tired of using it just because "It's not chromium". Mozilla been doing really stupid and frustrating decisions that made me feel like I'm in an abusive relationship. I've been eyeballing Vivaldi for a long time, and Firefox breaking compact mode finally broke the camel's back for me earlier this year. When I switched to Vivaldi I felt…
Vivaldi also has an amazing history page.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean you can, but firefox doesn't treat you any better. We waited 2+ months to get a minor update through review, and getting it through that quickly took emailing several folks (including one from HN). During that whole process they also removed the display of your queue position, making it even more opaque. At some point they disliked something in our extension that had been live for months, and disabled every re…
At this point I am seriously wondering if Mozilla is paid to drive Firefox into the ground.
I really want to like firefox but I hate it more with every release.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What will Brave, Vivaldi, etc, do when Google makes some change that breaks the current APIs? Do they have the resources and are willing to continue to support them?
FWIW, Brave does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You realize Firefox only exists because it serves Google's interests right? And while Brave might be based on Chromium, it is distinct; in addition to not crippling nativewebrequest as chrome will, it's native adblocker is compatible with the same lists as ublock origin. So I would go with Brave :)
If Google is not able to control ad-blocking because all the Chromium clones refuse to play ball, what do you think they will do? I have no idea. Maybe just close Chromium entirely, and force all the clones to shut down since there's no way they have the engineering resources to keep up with Google. EDIT: Except for MSFT... that would be interesting for sure.