381–390 of 779 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if someone would create a pull request to implement unlock origin natively inside chromium, instead of an extension. If such a PR met all technical criteria, would Chromium project accept it?
No. Google would not include, as a built-in part of Chromium that is installed by default, a feature to lower their ad revenue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Google would not include, as a built-in part of Chromium that is installed by default, a feature to lower their ad revenue.
Doesn't Chromium already lower their revenue from other lacks of integration that are included in Chrome?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not the person you're responding to, but no. Until uMatrix actually breaks for me, I'm not switching to Firefox. Switching is a pain, and I don't like Firefox's UI/UX. I'd switch if they did this because I value the extension very highly, but I wouldn't be happy about it.
I'm in the same boat. I'm not a fan of Firefox at all. Leadership, code, marketing, UI, etc. I'll probably move to Safari
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't threaten, don't wait, do it now.
Not the person you're responding to, but no. Until uMatrix actually breaks for me, I'm not switching to Firefox. Switching is a pain, and I don't like Firefox's UI/UX. I'd switch if they did this because I value the extension very highly, but I wouldn't be happy about it.
I found that I actually like the UI in firefox after customizing it. For me it may have been easy because I use sway (i3 clone on wayland -- clone is the best, it is actually more / better than i3). But it really ended up looking nice[0]. I found I could customize more things that I could on chrome, including the start page.
In any case, if you don't switch, I urge you to give it 15 mins and tinker with the ui config and a home page config. You can rid your self of alot of weird chrome bits that I think most find ugly and make it look smooth.
Further more, you can set up your own sync server and sync all your stuff to a safe spot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm in the same boat. I'm not a fan of Firefox at all. Leadership, code, marketing, UI, etc. I'll probably move to Safari
Isn't Firefox like much better in terms of the technical side of things i.e. faster, uses fewer resources, has better code inspection tools etc?
One annoying thing is that current versions of Firefox seem to rely on disk I/O too much, so if it's busy, you can't really do anything (switching or creating new tabs is greeted by spinning loading circle that takes a long time to happen).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have examples which aren't Google sites?
I get issues almost daily with well respected sites not working in Firefox. Today I'm browsing the Adidas website, and the images don't load for any of the products in Firefox. https://www.adidas.com/us/ultraboost-all-terrain-ltd-shoes/B... Apparently they're WEBP images and my version of Firefox (version 64) doesn't support them, but searching online I read that the upcoming Firefox version 65 is suppose to fix that…
I loaded the page with Firefox 65 beta and all the images worked for me. The site doesn't seem to be serving WebP images to Firefox. When I checked all the image types via Page Info they were mostly JPEGs with some PNGs and one SVG image.
There's probably some other reason why the site is broken for you. Have you perhaps changed your browser's user agent string and so the site is giving you WebP images because it thinks they will work?
So we have a browser with nearly 70% market share, made by an advertising company that's arguably the most powerful business on the internet, interfering with ad blocking. And of course there is no regulatory body that is able or willing to step in. Great.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm in the same boat. I'm not a fan of Firefox at all. Leadership, code, marketing, UI, etc. I'll probably move to Safari
Isn't Firefox like much better in terms of the technical side of things i.e. faster, uses fewer resources, has better code inspection tools etc?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Relying on Internet ads for their livelihood is a tenuous position to start with, and always has been. The (bad actors within the) advertising industry are the enemy of people whose livelihoods depend on Internet advertising because they're the ones making ads either bandwidth-hogging, epilepsy-inducing, website-avoidingly annoying, privacy-invasive, or an actual virus/malware vector. This is, directly, what has caus…
Then you should aim regulators at the advertising industry. Chrome has a responsibility not just to the end user but also to the website. The cost of the getting the web page's info was viewing the ads. Why should the browser help the user to commit virtual theft? Simply blanket dismissing ads as "tenuous position" is nonsense. Lots of people make a living via web ads. Google makes billions on ads. It's a real source…
Yes, yes, yes, and more yes. That's the cause that needs treating. Apologies if I wasn't clear, that's definitely where I think the regulation should be looking towards.