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

A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 614 posts

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#171

Post by Santosh83 »

cookie_monsta wrote: post #160
Santosh83 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You will by definition be standards compliant if you are the main mover behind the eternally moving standard. Chrome powers the living standard. Other browser engines follow.

So Google powers WHATWG and Apple, Microsoft and Mozilla just tag along?

They cooperate for now, but the balance of power and momentum is heavily in favour of Google as it stands. This will only matter when one of the others wants to hold out on some critical feature and find that they effectively can't if they don't want to see their already minor market share plummet. Apple though do have some clout since they own the entire vertical...

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#172

Post by opencl »

Ayesh wrote: post #152
tomrod wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If any firefox devs are reading this - Can you please make this a default? - Can you please fix text rendering on mobile? Sites like reddit render at desktop resolution on mobile screen, and there is no clear text sizing that works. With Chrome I just set my size option and move on with life.

I could be wrong, but AFAIK, webrender is the default on latest versions.

It is enabled by default for a small subset of system configurations (Windows desktop machines with AMD or NVIDIA GPU).

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#173

Post by scarface74 »

gtirloni wrote: post #169
scarface74 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, “de facto” monopoly doesn’t mean anything in the eyes of the law. That’s what de jure means Despite what HN posters believe, the definition of a monopoly isn’t “a company that is big and does things I don’t like”. Also according to your own citation. Under the Sherman Act monopoly power is considered the ability of a business to control a price within its relevant product market or its geographic market or to e…

De facto means something in the eyes of the law. Where did you get it from that it doesn't? > Are we going to say that the government can tell businesses what is allowed in its own store? Yes, we definitely are. If there's a monopoly and the monopolist is blocking people from participating, of course we can get the courts involved. Just google all the antitrust cases about Microsoft, Google and Apple, among others. R…

Is Google “blocking” anyone from using Firefox, or IE?

So now are we just going to make commonly understood words like “price” mean completely random things?

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#174

Post by hrudham »

alexfromapex wrote: post #129

Someone needs to create a rival search engine to Google. I have tried switching but Bing and DuckDuckGo aren't anywhere near as good.

I've been using DuckDuckGo as my default search engine for the last year or so; it's certainly improved a lot. Something that can help this transition is the bang support [0], with `!g` prefixed to your query. This redirects you to google with same query if you find that the results are not satisfactory. I used to use it a lot, but I've found I've needed it a lot less lately.

[0]: https://duckduckgo.com/bang

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#175

Post by 1f60c »

dev_dull wrote: post #165
jokoon wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what was painful?

Google hangouts video uses about 50% of CPU. For many people hangouts is part of everyday work life.

That reminds me of this story: https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871238922776576

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#176

Post by gtirloni »

jacquesm wrote: post #39
gtirloni wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a pretty good idea for Google and, judging by the adoption, it serves users very well too. I think it's up to other browsers to offer better solutions.

The internet wasn't made for Google. And if you think it serves users very well too then I suggest you read TFA, it is clear that what is good for Google and what is good for users are not aligned.

I'm not talking from an idealist/paternalist point of view about what I think is good for users. I'm talking about letting users decide. And they seem to have decided, according to market share, that they like Chrome.

Yes, users could be clueless and be trading personal privacy unwittingly but that's not what I mean about "serves users very well". I meant users look at Chrome, Firefox and others and stick to Chrome. If they didn't like Chrome, they would switch.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#177

Post by Glyptodon »

somebehemoth wrote: post #70
Pxtl wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately the Android version of Firefox is unusably crashy on my phone (moto z play) and noticeably slower. I gave it a hard try, but it just wasn't workable. Still using Firefox on all desktop/laptop devices, though.

I see this all the time and I think it is unhelpful to make these kinds of statements. I can make a counterpoint that I've used FF on Android for years and never experienced any issues whatsoever. I am not trying invalidate your experience, but want to point out anecdotes don't really paint a fair picture for either side of the argument. For example, how do we know my good experience and your bad experience are not e…

I've been a mostly FF user on Android for years and it does crash routinely for me, and also will do a thing where it doesn't crash but every page renders blank until I restart it. I've always assumed both items might be related to memory management either for graphics or in general.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#178

Post by Glyptodon »

lightedman wrote: post #66
Pxtl wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately the Android version of Firefox is unusably crashy on my phone (moto z play) and noticeably slower. I gave it a hard try, but it just wasn't workable. Still using Firefox on all desktop/laptop devices, though.

Your phone is probably one of the ones that came out with bad RAM and is defective, it works great on both my Moto Z Play and Moto G6 Play.

Do you have a link about this?

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#179

Post by oneplane »

SomeOtherThrow wrote: post #164
torben-friis wrote: post #18

I wonder if it's been on purpose or just, as always, their automatic algorithms being imposible to contest when they're wrong. Honestly, Google's (and general tech giants') willingness to let people's lives be caught in the cracks of their algorithms in their pursue for scalability scares me more than any ideology they could push. More and more, we're seeing developers and content creators being banned or demonetised…

Or we could just prosecute App Store monopolies. Nobody should ever have to go through google, or apple, or Microsoft, or Facebook, or amazon to publish software. The point of software is to be portable. I’m sick of buying artificially crippled crap.

The problem is that you don't. You can earn big money maintaining COBOL software on mainframes, no FAANG there. As long as it is a choice it will be really hard to do something about it.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#180

Post by k1e »

thinkloop wrote: post #150

Why this constant painful guessing game? Why don't they just tell you what they detected you did wrong? What portion of our society is broken that does not allow for this?

It can be automated response. They use automated testing for extensions and they want to make it harder to guess how it works.
Post reply on HN