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

AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

adguard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 371 posts

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#281

Post by Melatonic »

moonchrome wrote: post #137
avhception wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just wanted to say that you (content blocker devs) have been heard, maybe not by the majority of browser users but at least people like me are championing Firefox over webkit-based browsers precisely because to do otherwise would be to loose control of the web to FAANG, especially Google. I've been telling everyone who would listen about how Google leverages Chrom(e/ium) against user interests and have deployed Fir…

I wonder why not create a ad-free/privacy fork of Chromium. Especially on Mobile, I'd use that for sure. Existing ones have huge strings attached. Mozilla is basically FUBAR at this point.

Firefox on mobile works great for me and has for years?

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#282

Post by Melatonic »

jacooper wrote: post #212
Havoc wrote: post #176

Firefox seems pretty much on par with chrome these days and FF seems to win out on detection rates anyway so not sure why I'd want this combo? https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b... Does anyone has stats of adguard vs ublock by chance?

Firefox on android is horrible. Full of bugs and slow downs.

How recently have you used it? It works great for me

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#283

Post by kelnos »

encryptluks2 wrote: post #197
ameshkov wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No plans were announced so these are purely my speculations but to me it seems logical. The only piece of reliable information is this: I once asked Google engineer whether they plan to support declarative cosmetic rules (that's what we do ourselves in MV3 and that's why the extension still requires wide permissions) and the answer was that they definitely do plan to do that in the future.

> No plans were announced so these are purely my speculations but to me it seems logical. And then people use and rely on information like this to further ignite their cognitive biases. Seems more like promoting misinformation than anything.

Misinformation is presenting falsehoods as truth. Speculating based on past behavior is something else.

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#284

Post by HWR_14 »

NeverFade wrote: post #279
HWR_14 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Removing whatever misfeatures Google adds to Chrome is fairly straightforward. Yes. But adding back in Manifest v2 isn't. Even MSFT claims that it's too much work for them.

IIUC, the only problem with Mv3 is that they disabled the WebRequest API. A fork of Chromium that solves this problem will just have to re-enable the WebRequest API, which seems doable.

Isn't the lack of a WebRequest API one of the primary changes in Manifest v3?

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#285

Post by phunehehe0 »

conschy wrote: post #261

Correction: Analytics & Ad Blocker by Globemallow.io https://globemallow.io/ was the first Manifest v3 Ad Block extension. I first published on 06/22/2022. Last night actually I asked if AdGuard would want to license the software, and sent them a link to my extension. They are aware they weren't the first, and made this post after knowing it.

This is interesting if true. How can people verify that your extension is compatible with Manifest V3? I can see on the Chrome Web Store that the latest version of your extension was published before the latest version of AdGuard (August 23, 2022 vs August 30, 2022) so there's that.

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#286

Post by Arnavion »

lapinot wrote: post #260
411111111111111 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its functionality is equivalent, its ease of use isn't (at least in my opinion) with uBlock origins UI you can block by content type and then whitelist the domains which are still allowed and that feels less granular then the uMatrix configuration dialog. But if you check the generated dynamic rules in the settings you'll see that it supports the same granular controls as uMatrix

GP is correct afaik: the request categories for dynamic rules in ublock are image, 3p, inline-script, 1p-script, 3p-script, 3p-frame. The 3p vs 1p vs inline is kinda weird in itself since it's contextual and not relating to the content-type of the request, and we are missing css and xhr. Thing is, i realized i most of my dynamic rules are by domain anyway. Maybe if i find a real use case i'll try to look into the cod…

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26284124

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#287

Post by conschy »

phunehehe0 wrote: post #285
conschy wrote: post #261

Correction: Analytics & Ad Blocker by Globemallow.io https://globemallow.io/ was the first Manifest v3 Ad Block extension. I first published on 06/22/2022. Last night actually I asked if AdGuard would want to license the software, and sent them a link to my extension. They are aware they weren't the first, and made this post after knowing it.

This is interesting if true. How can people verify that your extension is compatible with Manifest V3? I can see on the Chrome Web Store that the latest version of your extension was published before the latest version of AdGuard (August 23, 2022 vs August 30, 2022) so there's that.

You can add a Chrome Source Code Viewer. I like this one. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chrome-extension-s...

Then look in the Manifest.json for manifest_version.

Here's the Twitter showing the timeline: https://twitter.com/GlobeMallow_io

The best part is AdGuard is still running manifest v2.

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#288

Post by Ygg2 »

encryptluks2 wrote: post #203
Ygg2 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox did it because of security/performance concerns. Being able to customize UI doesn't lend itself to easy refactoring. In order to compete with Chrome most of XUL extensions had to go. Hyrum's law in practice.

> Firefox did it because of security/performance concerns Isn't that the same concerns used in pushing Mv3?

XUL was a legacy system and it was blocking many optimization/refactors.

Does Mv2 really hold Chrome back?

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#289

Post by maskros »

jacooper wrote: post #206
jefftk wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Vivaldi? Killed, Chrome clone. ... Brave? Killed, Chrome clone. Brave and Vivaldi have always been built on Chromium, because that was the easiest way for them to get started as new browsers. There wasn't some pre-Chromium version of either that was killed.*

Also its just simply the best engine on the market.

Not true.

Firefox is vastly better in terms of rendering quality for scaled and/or transformed raster images. Chrome always sacrifices quality for performance, with no way to choose.

Firefox's SVG support is also miles ahead, both in rendering quality and features.

Re: AdGuard publishes the first ad blocker built on Manifest V3

#290

Post by jefftk »

maskros wrote: post #289
jacooper wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also its just simply the best engine on the market.

Not true. Firefox is vastly better in terms of rendering quality for scaled and/or transformed raster images. Chrome always sacrifices quality for performance, with no way to choose. Firefox's SVG support is also miles ahead, both in rendering quality and features.

It's the best engine for building your own browser on top of, which is the main thing someone building a browser cares about. This is something the Chrome team has prioritized, and Firefox has not.
Post reply on HN