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

141–150 of 215 posts

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

#141

Post by moffkalast »

heavyset_go wrote: post #62
moffkalast wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm more interested why it isn't possible to just fork the thing and maintain a version that's plugin enabled. Isn't Chromium completely open source? Especially for Brave, Vivaldi, Opera, etc.

The amount of work it would take to fork Chromium and maintain a working secure browser with MV2 hooks into the browser internals would be so large that you'd need a dedicated team whose job it is to constantly backport upstream Chromium changes and ensure they still work with the old MV2 subsystem. That would take a lot of time and money.

Well you don't need to implement every stupid thing big G thinks should be in it, just the really critical stuff. Even if you freeze all features right now you'll probably still have a better renderer than gecko for 5 years into the future.

I mean right now I bet a lot of people will simply not update to MV3 and continue using the last known MV2 build into perpetuity until certs break or something else. I sure intend to.

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

#142

Post by mastazi »

I keep seeing sentences like "MV3 is approaching", "when MV3 drops in x months", but the reality is that MV3 is already here and affecting extensions!

New extensions that use MV2 have been prevented from being added to the store since last January [1] and this has already affected some extensions which, as a result, have to be installed manually [2][3]

The time to switch to Firefox is right now.

[1] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv2/

[2] https://github.com/libredirect/libredirect/issues/45#issueco...

[3] https://libredirect.github.io/faq.html#chrome_web_store

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

#143

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

djfobbz wrote: post #65
yegor wrote: post #4

As a proxy extension developer, this is absolutely maddening. We're forced to choose between auth-less open proxies (bad), or baking in a wacky authentication scheme through a side channel (also bad). MV3 drops in 2.5 months, and will leave tens of millions of proxy extension users unable to use products they paid money for. This is all on top of the many other issues with MV3 that Google is pushing under the guise o…

I checked out both of your sites Windscribe.com and ControlD.com...I will be signing up as a paid customer! Thank you for you this.

This also breaks proxy authentication in very popular extensions like FoxyProxy.

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

#144

Post by scoopertrooper »

iLoveOncall wrote: post #13
yegor wrote: post #4

As a proxy extension developer, this is absolutely maddening. We're forced to choose between auth-less open proxies (bad), or baking in a wacky authentication scheme through a side channel (also bad). MV3 drops in 2.5 months, and will leave tens of millions of proxy extension users unable to use products they paid money for. This is all on top of the many other issues with MV3 that Google is pushing under the guise o…

If there is one group of people I will never feel bad for, it's the VPN / proxy vendors. They've been doing false advertising for years on every channel, making consumers pay for absolutely useless products.

VPNs are quite useful in the UK. A fair number of sites are blocked by ISPs for various reasons.

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

#145

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

Caspy7 wrote: post #83
aftbit wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have any of the Chromium forks committed to maintain MV2 into the future? Having functioning extensions while maintaining the other features that people like from the browser could help pull some marketshare from Google Chrome. Probably just dreaming though...

None that I'm aware of but Firefox has committed to maintaining the more powerful MV2 content blocking APIs that Google is removing.

Brave has committed to MV2 but they will need their own store first because the chrome web store is kicking out MV2 extensions. So far, they don’t have their own store.

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

#146

Post by teawrecks »

jacooper wrote: post #127
pkulak wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And every time there's a bunch of replies about how great Brave is, and everyone should just use that... Chromium wrapper.

Mozilla only has themselves to blame. I'm going to repost a previous comment here. > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32741481 > I used to refuse Chromium for the Same reason. > But honestly it already happened, Firefox is already irrelevant. > Mozilla is mis-managed organization that is funded to avoid anti-trust investigations, they dont fully push for privacy because they are afraid of google, do out of touch…

I'm out of the loop. I've been using FF for years without any issues across multiple OSes and devices. I plan to continue doing that. I simply don't understand the negative sentiment I see about it, it's served me very well.

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

#147

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

iLoveOncall wrote: post #84
_aizw wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many legitimate use cases of VPN's. Also there are many VPN companies that don't do false advertising such as Windscribe, mullvad or iVPN.

> There are many legitimate use cases of VPN's Yes of course, but that probably represents less than 10% of the customers (I'm being extremely generous on purpose, it's probably 0.1%) of your usual NordVPN and co. > don't do false advertising such as Windscribe "Stop tracking and browse privately" and "block annoying advertisers from stalking you online" proves you wrong. VPNs don't stop trackers. > don't do false ad…

> Hey looks good actually, they indeed don't claim to block trackers or anything else, just change your IP / geolocation

Add FoxyProxy to that list of no false advertising, please

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

#148

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

TheChaplain wrote: post #99
MatthiasPortzel wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is the real story here. Google pretends to be listening to real-world use-cases and user feedback and developing Chromium in the open, but at the end of the day, some manager has decided the millions of people using these extensions aren’t worth supporting, and that’s the end of the conversation.

It's not about support, it's a money issue. Adblocking doesn't generate money, so out it goes.

But we are talking about proxy extensions, not ad block extensions.

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

#150

Post by scoopertrooper »

Looks like we caught someone's attention:

> I'm temporarily restricting comments to keep comments from turning into +1s while this is trending on Hacker News. If you have additional thoughts that you'd like to share with the Chromium team regarding this issue, please return in a few days to leave a comment (and apologies for the inconvenience).

> As a Chromium contributor that shares information about our progress on extensions issues, I sincerely apologize to extensions developers affected by this issue and the broader community for not sharing an update until now. I'm currently working on a "known issues" document for Manifest V3 that touches on several outstanding issues (including this one), but given the attention on this issue now, I'll quickly share our current thinking on this issue.

> We have always intended to provide support for this functionality in Manifest V3 (for both user-installed and force-installed extensions), and have been iterating on different possible approaches. Our tentative plan (which is not yet finalized) is that the Manifest V3 version of this capability will require extensions to request a new permission scoped to intercepting authentication requests, but will otherwise allow extensions to handle these requests in a similar manner to how they do in Manifest V2.

> The permission string and end user facing warning string have not been finalized yet. Also, we have not yet finalized how this new permission will interact with other permission grants, but extensions that currently have the webRequest permission and broad host permissions will likely not require an additional grant for this permission.

> Finally, I want to note that before we can pursue this capability, we first need to resolve issue 1024211 (now formally marked as a blocker). We are actively working on 1024211 and aim to resolve both that issue and this one before January 2023.

https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=113549...

Post reply on HN