Wouldn't it be possible to write some kind of local proxy server with MITM for HTTPS that modifies scripts and supplies the missing functionality for ublock origin?
Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension
321–330 of 480 posts
Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension
#322Wouldn't it be possible to write some kind of local proxy server with MITM for HTTPS that modifies scripts and supplies the missing functionality for ublock origin?
I thought the AdGuard folks were looking doing just that!
Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension
#323Why are people on HN still using Chrome? (or Edge, or Opera…)
Because Chrome is the better browser, lelz.
Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox and Firefox-derivative browsers have and continue to be seriously sluggish and memory and energy hogs. This should not be swept under the rug. Even today it is difficult for me to use Firefox, Mullvad, etc. When I used to use them, almost every time my machine became slow the solution was to kill Firefox. EDIT: It's true folks, I would love to be able to use Firefox as my primary browser. But all my experienc…
I use Firefox mobile pretty much exclusively. I haven't noticed any meaningful performance difference between it & Chrome. It also seems to perform fine on my Fedora laptop.
Mobile is different. I rarely even use mobile. I do however use a lot of tabs on desktop, and Firefox is found very wanting in the performance department.
I don't even think its about number of tabs. Just yesterday and today, Mullvad browser takes minutes to load a set of about 7 pinned tabs (with no other tabs) on startup, whereas Helium (which is based on Chromium) loads in a second or two close to a hundred tabs.
Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
You brought it up, you specify where it doesn't work.
Netflix doesn't serve maximum res for Linux and Firefox due to DRM related reasons. Chrome on Linux usually resolves or at least amends the issue.
Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it doesn’t work just as well, because the blocking is less dynamic and filter lists are more out of date. For simple ad blocking scenarios it’s fine, but it will actually miss some ads on some websites.
I've yet to see any ads on uBO Lite so I'll assume it's false, unless you give an example
uBO lite struggles with dynamically inserted ads. I’m not sure if it works with YouTube midrolls, I haven’t tried it. I did try paramount plus months ago though, which uBlock handles but Lite doesn’t. That’s not really an intended use case for an adblocker though, IMO, so maybe it’s fine. And, maybe it’s improved by now.
Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension
#327Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
Edge user here. For one, chromium is faster than firefox, any given page will load about 20% faster, another reason is edge workspaces feature, I've grown to like it, which seems to be some sort of chromium feature that everyone bakes in weird ways if at all, and I'm still running ublock origin on edge without any funky bypasses. Then there's a fact that a bunch of sites/webapps straight up refuse to work on firefox…
> Edge user here. For one, chromium is faster than firefox, any given page will load about 20% faster, I'm skeptical; You're probably measuring Chromium + ads against FF + ads. The only fair test is testing agains FF + uBlockOrigin. And there, FF wins hands down.
I'm hardcore FF, and it used to be a bit slower than Chrome, but nowadays the difference is barely noticeable. And on very large pages (e.g. big tables), Chrome is a lot slower than FF.
Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension
#329Wouldn't it be possible to write some kind of local proxy server with MITM for HTTPS that modifies scripts and supplies the missing functionality for ublock origin?
[deleted]