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

151–160 of 215 posts

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

#151

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

e40 wrote: post #86
perryizgr8 wrote: post #66

Can someone ELI5 what are proxy extensions? What are they supposed to do?

I use a HTTP/HTTPS proxy in Chrome (and Firefox) to work remotely and access internal things from my work network. The proxy I use has very nice features to allow "auto switching", meaning based on an regex I can use the proxy or go direct. The rules are ordered any way you want them. The proxy we all use at work is SwitchyOmega. Been using it for years and it's fantastic.

FoxyProxy is another popular one with millions of users.

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

#152

Post by lmm »

progval wrote: post #50
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…

Does your extension work on Firefox? If yes, have you considered explaining the situation to your users to encourage them to move to Firefox?

Firefox has a much worse history than Chrome when it comes to breaking extensions.

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

#153

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

JohnFen wrote: post #113
ridiculous_fish wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this decision benefit advertisers? Honest question.

It greatly restricts how effective ad blockers can be.

Proxy extensions are not the same as adblockers.

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

#154

Post by heavyset_go »

moffkalast wrote: post #141
heavyset_go wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Backporting from an entity that is hostile towards MV2 makes me suspect that Google isn't going to play ball and make maintaining an MV2-compatible Chromium fork easy.

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

#155

Post by heavyset_go »

whoisthemachine wrote: post #90
josefx wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Isn't Chromium completely open source? No, especially not if you want to watch videos, the DRM plugin is a binary blob that only Google approved browsers get to run. Then there are all the Google services that will break in unexpected ways in your browser, sometimes just because your user agent isn't identical to Chromes if past reports from Firefox users are any indication. Basically expect to be shit on by the big…

Firefox supports all DRM content I have come across, clearly there are ways to implement DRM that don't involve Google.

Depends on the browser and platform. WideVine support on Firefox for Linux is limited, one of the biggest effects of this is that some video platforms refuse to serve up high definition video to Firefox users on Linux. Netflix, for example, will only allow you to watch video at 720p on Firefox for Linux. The existing WideVine support comes directly from Google.

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

#156

Post by mjrpes »

olso wrote: post #2

Chromium team has not commented on this bug with 650+ stars (within top 10 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?sort=-stars... issues) in months

Chromium team replied as of 10 minutes ago to that thread (thanks to HN exposure):

"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."

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

#157

Post by okasaki »

PostOnce wrote: post #137

Once upon a time many years ago, Chrome was marginally better than Firefox. That time has long since passed. I know, I switched from Firefox to Chrome and used it for a couple of years, but Firefox got better and Chrome got worse, so I've been back on Firefox for many years again now. If Chrome doesn't do what you want or what you like, use Firefox. It does everything Chrome does, and more.

Bizarre. To me firefox looks like it's falling apart at the seams.

Here's a new profile, just default zoom set to 150% (ublock origin installed system-wide)

https://i.imgur.com/Z3MO8sr.png

https://i.imgur.com/hgscGrb.png

https://i.imgur.com/07QI1IU.png

https://i.imgur.com/owZm12J.png

What is even going on?

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

#158

Post by yoasif_ »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #145
Caspy7 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They have explicitly not committed: https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1534905779630661633

> We could fork them back in at higher maintenance cost. No point in speculating — I don’t write checks of unknown amount and sign them, and Google looks likely to keep V2 support for a year (thanks be to “enterprise”).

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

#159

Post by yegor »

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.

Nice, thanks! If you have any question you can always email me at my HN username @ either domain.

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

#160

Post by staticassertion »

flutas wrote: post #126
staticassertion wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK that doesn't have to do with blocking Google AdSense ads nor does it have to do with proxying so I'm kind of confused.

>OK that doesn't have to do with blocking Google AdSense ads nor does it have to do with proxying so I'm kind of confused. When a website wants to load an ad, it uses javascript[0]. The website can call a function in the included javascript file and tell AdSense "hey load an ad". If you simply block the JS file the website can break due to trying to call functions that don't exist. uBlock (supposedly, I haven't verif…

Oh ok, it's just that AdSense and Google Analytics are two different things, although they can be used together.
Post reply on HN