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

Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

neowin.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 480 posts

Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

#361

Post by dijit »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #342
dijit wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since it underpins so much of the modern browser ecosystem it becomes a primary target for webapps to work. As such, if you want to be sure a website will work you use chrome. Since chrome has such a market share, developers feel justified testing primarily for chrome. Self-fulfilling cycle.

This isn't the 90's anymore where browsers behave wildly differently for the same page content. If you're not using absolute, bleeding age web APIs, Firefox and Chrome work identically. In my experience, there are exactly 3 types of websites that work differently between Firefox and Chrome: The Toy Hobby Experiments (who are just demoing some bleeding-edge API feature), The Monopoly-Bootlicking Liars (who reject my r…

Weird how vmware console and my bank don’t support firefox.

Oh, and Microsoft Teams for a super long time (haven’t checked in a little while).

Theres dozens of examples tbh.

Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

#362

Post by pseudalopex »

qweqwe14 wrote: post #292
preg_match wrote: post #290

Earlier 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Because it doesn’t work just as well, because the blocking is less dynamic and filter lists are more out of date.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

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48474710

Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

#363

Post by raffael_de »

bigyabai wrote: post #353
raffael_de wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but: "This add-on is not actively monitored for security by Mozilla. Make sure you trust it before installing."

Most of the extensions for Firefox say that. For some reason even 7TV has that badge.

for good reason. it's a serious security risk.

Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

#364

Post by pseudalopex »

preg_match wrote: post #326
qweqwe14 wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

What was not an intended use case for an ad blocker in your opinion? To block ads in video? Why?

Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

#365

Post by vintagedave »

moebrowne wrote: post #196
vintagedave wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me it's speed. I used FireFox for the same reasons, for years. Every time I started Chrome, it was a breath of fresh air. Everything was just slightly faster to react, to switch tabs, to scroll, to interact. I kept reading posts about how the FireFox team was increasing performance, yet it never seemed to really impact it. Maybe because I often have several windows with a dozen tabs each (yes, one of those people…

> Every time I started Chrome, it was a breath of fresh air. Everything was just slightly faster to react Are you opening "several windows with a dozen tabs each" in Chrome? If not, then it's hardly a fair comparison.

Absolutely. In fact I find I can use Chrome more heavily.

Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

#366

Post by bluebarbet »

prmph wrote: post #319
alphabeta3r56 wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox is only sluggish because Chrome uses your data to prefetch pages.

This does not make sense. Firefox would be taking minutes to open a page that Chrome opens within a second or two. And if Chrome was doing aggressive pre-fetching, then it should be using more memory, no? And yet the opposite is the case.

Not denying your experience but if it is taking "minutes" then that sounds like a highly specific glitch that you should try to debug.

Speaking personally I have used Firefox pretty much exclusively for 20+ years, always on low-end hardware. It's been years since I last had any performance issues.

Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

#367

Post by OkayPhysicist »

dijit wrote: post #361
OkayPhysicist wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't the 90's anymore where browsers behave wildly differently for the same page content. If you're not using absolute, bleeding age web APIs, Firefox and Chrome work identically. In my experience, there are exactly 3 types of websites that work differently between Firefox and Chrome: The Toy Hobby Experiments (who are just demoing some bleeding-edge API feature), The Monopoly-Bootlicking Liars (who reject my r…

Weird how vmware console and my bank don’t support firefox. Oh, and Microsoft Teams for a super long time (haven’t checked in a little while). Theres dozens of examples tbh.

Teams has worked on Firefox (on Windows at least, haven't tried on Linux) since at least the beginning of the pandemic.

Can't speak to the other two. What does the console start screaming about when you try?

Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

#368

Post by throwaway270925 »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #190
lelanthran wrote: post #184

Good! Give everyone the push they need to break the web homogeny of Chrome everywhere. I'm tired of all the (mostly technical) people whining that they need Chrome, and only Chrome can browse the internet. Then you ask them for a site that doesn't work and conveniently "it was some time back and I don't remember the details". I've been using FF since before it was called Firefox. In the last 10 years I've not come ac…

> In the last 10 years I've not come across any site that doesn't work with Firefox I have. The dominos pizza website (at least in Ireland) basically never works with Firefox. I normally end up using Safari for that particular site. Additionally, lots of stuff doesn't work when Advanced Tracking Protection is on, enough that if I have any issues my first step is disabling that.

> The dominos pizza website (at least in Ireland) basically never works with Firefox.

Sounds more like a feature than a bug /s

Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

#369

Post by olyjohn »

pjc50 wrote: post #112
Freak_NL wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The classic 'those guys did something bad, so I am going to go with the guys who are absolute assholes doing several orders of magnitude more bad things now instead' response. That usually means that whoever utters it was just looking for a sycophantic excuse to go with the bigger threat because it is more convenient to them (for now).

It's remarkable how often this happens, isn't it? One incident of someone not living up to standards is suddenly an opportunity to abandon standards and go with known bad actors. It's like people giving up on the MSM and immediately latching onto propaganda Youtubers instead.

Let's be real. People love their shiny big brands, and will find any tiny excuse to keep using them.

Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

#370

Post by subscribed »

darksim905 wrote: post #284
subscribed wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> whining - Chrome is safer due to the proper sandboxing of tabs. - Try watching anything on YouTube on Firefox - for me even 360p stream (on 12c, mostly idle Linux PC) stutters to the point of being unwatchable. None of the is/browser settings work. Yeah, I realise YouTube is owned by Google That's just my first two (just look it up, don't take my word for it), to show your "whining" claim is just an uneducated host…

this sounds like a weird driver issue. in 30 years of watching content on YouTube, I've never seen it stutter unless I was using some weird low power PC.

That's pretty okay spec laptop, stuttering happens only in YT on Firefox (even at 360p), never in chrome (even at 4k), or on any other site. Up to date Fedora, always recent kernels (happens on all), everything pretty much latest, symmetric 1Gbit Ethernet + fibre uplink, etc, etc.

If you'd look it up you could see its not a single person problem, it's seemingly random.

Post reply on HN