41–50 of 169 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Playing devils advocate here, why a different engine is needed? Chrome clone can add webrequest feature too, and it would be much easier to maintain.
The problem with forks is having to chase upstream. The dominant browser can keep making changes with reckless abandon. And the fork has to keep up with those, even if it breaks their own features, lest they become incompatible with the "standard" version.
I never understand the intent behind introducing this move - is it greed for more ad money through lockdown ? The company is literally a monopoly and still it wants more. This seems like the company is bowing down for shareholder supremacy.
I never understand the intent behind introducing this move - is it greed for more ad money through lockdown ? The company is literally a monopoly and still it wants more. This seems like the company is bowing down for shareholder supremacy.
> I never understand the intent behind introducing this move I think the reasons provided are valid (namely, faster blocking with less data flowing through extensions), whether or not you think they are good enough to outweigh their disadvantages.
"Their study --which analyzed the network performance of ad blockers such as uBlock Origin, Adblock Plus, Brave, DuckDuckGo and Cliqz'z Ghostery-- found sub-millisecond median decision times per request, showing quite the opposite of what the Chrome team claimed."
What are they really optimizing for ? The sub-millisecond times per request is barely noticeable, and on any given day its much preferable to ads tracking you everywhere on the internet!
I never understand the intent behind introducing this move - is it greed for more ad money through lockdown ? The company is literally a monopoly and still it wants more. This seems like the company is bowing down for shareholder supremacy.
In my opinion its not really a conspiracy. People at Google are so far up their own ass that they don't understand the importance of content blockers. Personally I just can't deal with websites without ublock modifying them.
EDIT : I think my first comment triggered a bit of discussion. I also don't think there is any conspiracy (conspiracy is a big word :) ) - because I didn't intend to portray it that way. What I did want to convey, from the vantage point of a user, is that the priorities didn't seem to align.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I never understand the intent behind introducing this move I think the reasons provided are valid (namely, faster blocking with less data flowing through extensions), whether or not you think they are good enough to outweigh their disadvantages.
That justifies adding the new API, it does not explain removing the old capabilities. They could nudge extension developers to try the new API by adding some "extension X may slow down page loads" warnings somewhere if they don't use it.
Very true! Especially if the network impact is of the order of sub-milliseconds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I never understand the intent behind introducing this move I think the reasons provided are valid (namely, faster blocking with less data flowing through extensions), whether or not you think they are good enough to outweigh their disadvantages.
I think you should read this part of the article too : "Their study --which analyzed the network performance of ad blockers such as uBlock Origin, Adblock Plus, Brave, DuckDuckGo and Cliqz'z Ghostery-- found sub-millisecond median decision times per request, showing quite the opposite of what the Chrome team claimed." What are they really optimizing for ? The sub-millisecond times per request is barely noticeable, an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I never understand the intent behind introducing this move I think the reasons provided are valid (namely, faster blocking with less data flowing through extensions), whether or not you think they are good enough to outweigh their disadvantages.
That justifies adding the new API, it does not explain removing the old capabilities. They could nudge extension developers to try the new API by adding some "extension X may slow down page loads" warnings somewhere if they don't use it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That justifies adding the new API, it does not explain removing the old capabilities. They could nudge extension developers to try the new API by adding some "extension X may slow down page loads" warnings somewhere if they don't use it.
I'm fine with that.
Things like this is why it is so important for the web to have multiple browsers available to choose from.
That's all fine in principle but in practice Web Browsers just like Search Engines is zero sum. Sooner or later it'll just be one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with forks is having to chase upstream. The dominant browser can keep making changes with reckless abandon. And the fork has to keep up with those, even if it breaks their own features, lest they become incompatible with the "standard" version.
Unless you make the fork the dominant browser.