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

311–320 of 490 posts

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

#311

Post by tonightstoast »

KTibow wrote: post #258
ttt3ts wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO they are still not as good although they have improved. I just develop in chrome and use Firefox for everything else.

What makes them less good? I'm used to Firefox and while the Chrome devtools have more features they're harder to use (eg smaller touch targets, can't accept JS suggestion with enter key)

I use FF and my coworker uses Chrome. He says the thing that pisses him off the most when watching me use FF is that there is no fuzzy search when manually applying styles. I.e. you have to search "justif..." to see "justify-self". You can't just search "self". That's the only example I've really noticed between the two but I'm sure there are more. It doesn't bother me enough to change though.

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

#312

Post by Dalewyn »

r00fus wrote: post #280
ragnese wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but we saw this coming a mile away (as in, people have been saying this about Chrome for about a decade). People--especially tech nerds--didn't have to switch to the closed source, conflict-of-interest, browser. But, everyone did, and this is what we get for it. We now have proprietary DRM built in to the web standards, and all kinds of other bullshit, because a bunch of people decided to not learn any lessons…

> People--especially tech nerds--didn't have to switch to the closed source, conflict-of-interest, browser. Do you not remember all the ads promoting chrome? First was chrome-frame IE extension, then came all the ads - then tie-ins where you got Chrome in addition when you really wanted some other app. They pushed it hard because they knew they had no real competitors and could eat up marketshare.

Chrome won because it was more performant (read: only point of interest for Joe Average) and it was modern and cool (read: only point of interest for nerds).

Firefox failed because it stagnated on performance and code quality (read: memory leaks for daaaaaaaaays) and ultimately because Mozilla was corrupted by Mitchell Baker and still is to this very day driving away nerds and engineers by the truckload.

Lest we forget, Internet Explorer lost to Firefox despite bundling with Windows. Edge still loses to Chrome despite bundling with Windows. Safari despite bundling with iOS and MacOS only survives thanks to the Walls of Applestantinope holding against the SelEUk Empire's onslaught.

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

#313

Post by mastazi »

luuurker wrote: post #198
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

Aren't these v2 extensions being removed from Chrome's store? If so, are the alternatives based on Chromium running their own store?

Yeah that's the problem. I used to be on Brave but having to download v2-only extensions[1] manually from each developer's website was a pain. I am on a Firefox-based browser now and extensions are synced across all my computers and it just works.

[1] while pre-existing v2 extensions are still on the store at least for now (e.g. https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin/cjpal... ) newer ones haven't been able to be added to the store for a long time already, e.g. see https://libredirect.github.io/faq.html#chrome_web_store

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

#314

Post by Dalewyn »

mort96 wrote: post #270
ragnese wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but we saw this coming a mile away (as in, people have been saying this about Chrome for about a decade). People--especially tech nerds--didn't have to switch to the closed source, conflict-of-interest, browser. But, everyone did, and this is what we get for it. We now have proprietary DRM built in to the web standards, and all kinds of other bullshit, because a bunch of people decided to not learn any lessons…

Meh, the "slightly abrasive" stuff Mozilla is doing is stuff like buying up ad analytics companies and adding features to help ad tracking companies track users. Fuck Mozilla, and fuck Google even more. I admire your optimism by the way that a few technologists saying "stop using Chrome, Google is evil, use Firefox" is enough to overcome the market dominance of a monopoly like Google's, but I sadly don't share it. Pe…

>"stop using Chrome, Google is evil, use Firefox" is enough to overcome the market dominance of a monopoly like Google's

That is exactly how Firefox slew Internet Explorer.

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

#315

Post by neilv »

Does Mozilla have a PR blitz, to pick up a big chunk of users who have a moment of disruption, and want their full uBlock Origin?

It might've been better, had uBlock Origin Lite not happened, but is there still a migration opportunity here, and is Mozilla working it?

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

#316

Post by tech234a »

QuantumGood wrote: post #222

"browsers using the ExtensionManifestV2Availability policy will be exempt from any browser changes until June 2025" To extend ManifestV2 in Chrome, add the text below to a text file, saving and running it as a .reg will create and add a value of 2 to "ExtensionManifestV2Availability" in the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Google\Chrome key (When you open/run a .reg file, it updates your registry, usually preceed…

Note that this will also disable Chrome’s DNS Over HTTPS as Chrome disables the DoH resolver by default when the browser is managed by enterprise policies like this one. See the platform-specific links mentioned on the uBlock Origin subreddit [1], many of which also include instructions for enabling the DoH resolver while managing the browser using policies.

[1]: https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1d49ud1/manif...

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

#317

Post by aftbit »

ttt3ts wrote: post #244
bijection wrote: post #206

I've finally switched (back) to firefox today. I switched from firefox to chrome for their superior devtools a few years back, but hopefully firefox has had time to catch up. Everything old is new again!

IMO they are still not as good although they have improved. I just develop in chrome and use Firefox for everything else.

I use a little `chrome-new` script to develop (and sometimes take video calls or use buggy apps) against a totally clean fresh Chrome profile, then I use Firefox with uBlock Origin and uMatrix for daily driving.

    #!/bin/sh
    [ -z $CHROME ] && CHROME=chromium
    TMPDIR=$(mktemp -d /dev/shm/chrome-XXXXX)
    $CHROME --user-data-dir=$TMPDIR --no-first-run --no-default-browser-check "$@"
    rm -rf $TMPDIR
The first line lets me override which Chrome version I launch if I want to try instead google-chrome-stable or google-chrome-beta for example. I keep them all installed from the AUR on Arch.

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

#318

Post by aftbit »

ragnese wrote: post #259
AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google made something better than what existed with Chrome, it was obvious it would capture the market significantly especially among more technical people. I don't think the fact that Chrome is (was) better is the question, it's a question of how they got here. Google took tons of money and threw it into Chrome and therefore developed something better. It's better because Google put more money into it than anyone el…

It was only true that Chrome was significantly superior (performance-wise, anyway) for a little while. Firefox had to play catch up and it took several years. It was (mostly) called the "electrolysis" (a.k.a., "e10s") project. It was considered complete by 2018, and had already offered significant performance and stability improvements for years before then. I wouldn't be surprised if Chrome still performs better on…

The one that is the worst for me is Google Cloud console. It takes tens of seconds to update page state when trying to create or edit resources in Firefox, especially anything in Compute Engine. Chrome feels reasonably snappy, at least as good as AWS's console. I'm not sure who is to blame for that but I use `chrome-new` to log into Google Cloud when I need to.

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

#319

Post by Sophira »

tourmalinetaco wrote: post #302
Raed667 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or they just don't want to admit publicly that they're too small to maintain a fork when it diverges this much

Well Vivaldi is open source, right? Personally I would be reaching out to Brave, who already plans on maintaining V2 support, and see about a joint venture with a forked chromium.

Vivaldi is not open-source: https://vivaldi.com/blog/technology/why-isnt-vivaldi-browser...

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

#320

Post by Jach »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #304
Rebelgecko wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people may think what you're saying is outlandish, but it's worth remembering that this is pretty much what already happened to Ublock (which led to the forking of Ublock Origin and return of gorehill)

Not saying it cannot happen, but in Firefox, it is a “Recommended“ extension which gets reviewed per release. A sophisticated attack could slip through, but a ham fisted takeover is unlikely.

It's also worth mentioning that Firefox doesn't force you to auto-update add-ons, but Chrome/Chromium do. (There was a hack workaround to keep Chromium from updating, but I forgot what it was or if it still works. It wasn't a trivial option in the browser itself like it should be.)
Post reply on HN