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

"Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

developer.chrome.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 490 posts

Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

#231

Post by bambax »

Sophira wrote: post #211
EasyMark wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To my knowledge the “big” chrome engine alternatives aren’t either. I know that Vivaldi and Brave plan on keeping around v2 as long as it is economically feasible

Are you certain? The last I heard about it from Vivaldi[0], they were only going to keep the MV2 code around so long as it's in the upstream codebase: > We will keep Manifest v2 for as long as it’s still available in Chromium. We expect to drop support in June 2025, but we may maintain it longer or be forced to drop support for it sooner, depending on the precise nature of the changes to the code. Note that June 2025…

But... what could possibly be the point of using a chromium based browser that is not Chrome, if not for MV2 support?

Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

#232

Post by red_admiral »

EasyMark wrote: post #139
freedomben wrote: post #17

Notably, Firefox is not removing v2 support (at least for now as of March 2024) > Firefox, however, has no plans to deprecate MV2 and will continue to support MV2 extensions for the foreseeable future. And even if we re-evaluate this decision at some point down the road, we anticipate providing a notice of at least 12 months for developers to adjust accordingly and not feel rushed. [1] [1]: https://blog.mozilla.org/a…

To my knowledge the “big” chrome engine alternatives aren’t either. I know that Vivaldi and Brave plan on keeping around v2 as long as it is economically feasible

I think the supermium chrome fork plans to keep V2 in.

Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

#233

Post by skrause »

Lukas_Skywalker wrote: post #56
varun_ch wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chrome to Firefox is a relatively easy switch, especially for those that don’t depend on Google sync. The main sources of friction for me were the lack of a good profile switching UI (solved with a browser extension that mimics the Chrome menu), and weird security requirements for homemade extensions (IIRC if you want to have the extension persist after restarting Firefox, you need to sign the extension, which is a p…

I don't know if this is what you meant, but as an alternative to profile switching, there are Multi Account Containers [1]. It allows assigning a container to each tab, and the containers are isolated from each other. If you have an MS or Google account for both work and personal, you can open them at the same time in different tabs. [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...

I'm using using multiple profiles when I want to have a different set of extensions, bookmarks and browsing history. Multi Account Containers help with none of that.

Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

#234

Post by chlorion »

bad_user wrote: post #213
Kbelicius wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's worth noting that the maintenance of the "lite" version is at some nonzero risk of burnout for its developers, ironically in part due to Mozilla being unnecessarily hostile: Why would you even use the lite version on firefox when the original works?

Security and possibly performance, which is the selling point of MV3.

Yup, the MV3 version requires zero permissions and in theory should be faster. These are real benefits that for some reason nobody will admit exist.

Saying anything positive about MV3 or the lite extension seems to get you downvoted without explanation though, which is a nice example of how absurd this site is when it comes to anything related to Google.

Sometimes I think downvoting should require leaving a comment and reason, because I can't see any reason to downvote this other than "google bad".

Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

#235

Post by kuhsaft »

tyingq wrote: post #230
kuhsaft wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That uses a different manifest permission. https://developer.chrome.com/blog/crx-scripting-api#breaking...

That's remotely hosted code...also a problem, but you can inject code that's not remotely hosted.

The point is that it’s a different permission.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41812416

If you are really privacy conscientious, ad blocking extensions should be able to exist without any access to web requests now.

Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

#236

Post by sunshowers »

kuhsaft wrote: post #228
sunshowers wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, I see how that can help. With Manifest v3, let's say I'm an ad blocker and I want to get access to metrics not to violate privacy, but just to report them to the user (X domains blocked, Y out of Z requests blocked, etc). How would I get access to those metrics?

Separate permission for debugging only available for development essentially. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web... Otherwise, you can’t really without more invasive permissions. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/74813523/chrome-extensio...

Oh wow, that's wild. Closing the loop on reporting things is such an important part of a trustworthy user experience.

Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

#237

Post by chlorion »

blakesterz wrote: post #7

Has anyone been using the v3 compatible version of uBlock Origin? Have you noticed much of a difference? From what I read there isn't supposed to be much of a difference?

I used the lite version while on chromium for some time. I noticed no difference in terms of blocking ads.

The main thing I missed was the ability to block arbitrary elements with the zapper. I use this for more than just ads, so losing it is a real loss in functionality. Otherwise it worked fine.

Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

#238

Post by tyingq »

kuhsaft wrote: post #235
tyingq wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's remotely hosted code...also a problem, but you can inject code that's not remotely hosted.

The point is that it’s a different permission. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41812416 If you are really privacy conscientious, ad blocking extensions should be able to exist without any access to web requests now.

I feel like we're losing the plot here. Removing the cancel capability of onBeforeRequest didn't improve security much. It did, though, hobble ad blockers to just dealing with static lists if they want to prevent an ad from downloading in the first place.

Removing the onBeforeRequest redirect didn't add much security either, since you can just ask for permission B instead of permission A and just inject code. Though, ad blockers don't need that anyway.

Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

#239

Post by tpm »

chlorion wrote: post #234
bad_user wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Security and possibly performance, which is the selling point of MV3.

Yup, the MV3 version requires zero permissions and in theory should be faster. These are real benefits that for some reason nobody will admit exist. Saying anything positive about MV3 or the lite extension seems to get you downvoted without explanation though, which is a nice example of how absurd this site is when it comes to anything related to Google. Sometimes I think downvoting should require leaving a comment a…

Reason: Removing user control from browsers is strictly bad.

Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

#240

Post by badwolf »

sunshowers wrote: post #199
undercut wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The widespread adoption of Chrome was largely driven by word of mouth No, it was driven by having a banner in the most privileged spot of the Internet, Google.com (the most visited site in the world with 0 ads on the homepage) saying that was faster and more secure than the alternatives. In fact Firefox benefited from some free ads on Google.com against Internet Explorer before Google developed Chromium.

The other aspect, somewhat memory-holed, was that Chrome was automatically installed as shovelware if you went to install Adobe Flash for IE or Firefox: https://www.reddit.com/r/chrome/comments/23jnmy/why_is_chrom... This kind of not-freely-given consent was key to Chrome's growth.

Chrome was bundled with so many installers. Google probably spent billions shoving Chrome into any machine they could.
Post reply on HN