A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store • Hacker News Board

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#401

Post by simcop2387 » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 6:10 PM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #386

ravenstine wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone thinking of installing Firefox should check out the Multi-Account Containers addon. I'm pretty sure such functionality doesn't exist for Chrome, and it makes it possible to isolate different sites and logins from each other. It's one of the best reasons to switch to Firefox, in my opinion.

Thank you for posting this, never realized such a thing existed. Makes it easy to maintain different identities. It's made by Mozilla too. Wonder why it isn't a core feature of Firefox.

They try to develop most new features as extensions first these days. It keeps the release cycles from impacting each other and lets them make sure that the extension APIs remain useful for other developers. If it turns out to be a good feature they'll either bundle the extension or build it into the browser from the extension. That's not always something people celebrate though, see the pocket stuff.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#402

Post by rsync » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 6:10 PM UTC

TheMiller wrote: post #359

whoopdedo wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get why this lives in an extension. It's even advertised in the options, but requires downloading a separate component. Creating an awkward experience as what looks like a core feature lives in an external module. I imagine there is a non-zero number of users who look at containers then opt not to use it because of the download requirement.

I do get it. I've been using it for several months, and I run into problems fairly often. Nothing wrong with the implementation, AFAICT, but it takes a fair amount of thought to assign sites to different containers, and you can easily end up following links that cross container boundaries and then don't work right because of the context change. I've even run into several corporate sites where federated authentication…

"I do get it. I've been using it for several months, and I run into problems fairly often. Nothing wrong with the implementation, AFAICT, but it takes a fair amount of thought to assign sites to different containers, and you can easily end up following links that cross container boundaries and then don't work right because of the context change."

See my comment above - I think the obvious workflow for containers is a container window, not a tab, and all tabs created in that window inherit the container settings.

As I also note, above, I don't see how to manage per-container cookies and history ... I can't clear history for just my "banking" container (or whatever).

I really want to make heavy use of a container-like feature but keep stumbling over things like this.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#403

Post by taurath » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 6:11 PM UTC

diimdeep wrote: post #88

Have been using Firefox Nightly for few weeks as only browser. Rock solid. Can recommend few extensions - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/auto-tab-disc... - http://www.one-tab.com - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/multi-touch-z...

FF has never been rock solid for me. Massive CPU usage. Causes my fans to turn on on any MacBook I’ve ever had.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#404

Post by mjevans » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 6:13 PM UTC

echelon wrote: post #379

dessant wrote: post #104

Google must be forced to open up Chrome to third-party extension stores. A monopoly deciding on the kind of browser extensions we get to distribute and use is sickening. As Chrome is a dominant platform, our work is prevented from reaching users if it does not align with the bussiness goals of Google, and extensions that users want on their devices are effectively censored out of existence. Again, the solution in the…

Google must be forced to divest of its search business, Android business, ad business, browser business, office software, and web properties into wholly separate corporate entities. The same should happen to Apple. Both companies are anti-consumer monopolies.

How would this actually improve competition? I agree there is a problem, but in my view and opinion the solution is enforcing a regulated market that protects consumers and allows for new competition to enter even lacking scale.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#405

Post by foresto » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 6:13 PM UTC

kvark wrote: post #334

kettlecorn wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used Firefox before Chrome and have tried to swap numerous times in the past (and have been using it for the last few weeks). Advocates for Firefox often say "Firefox is better, just try switching!" yet when people point out reasons it's not better the response is "Oh those don't matter, you're just being nitpicky!" But it's not a very gentle push back, it's forceful. In this thread someone says "I don't like how m…

Arguing and downvoting is just how people and internet work. This has nothing to do with Mozilla culture. Rest assured the engineers of Mozilla are doing their best to make the product superior, independent of the principles difference.

> Mozilla are doing their best to make the product superior, independent of the principles difference.

Last time I remember trying to discuss an issue in Firefox was when they dropped ALSA support and started requiring PluseAudio for sound. When people complained, a manager silenced everyone by locking the bug report. This was not surprising, as other problem reports in recent years have been met with similarly obstinate responses.

It's nice to think that at least some of their engineers are genuinely trying to improve things. (If you're one of them, thanks for trying!) It is nevertheless discouraging when problem reports are silenced by both the internet public and the company's own managers.

Sadly, the current situation is that both major browsers have made themselves deficient in one way or another. I manage to get things done by switching between them, but really, I'm ready to drop them both if a good alternative shows up.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#406

Post by matheusmoreira » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 6:14 PM UTC

dessant wrote: post #104

Google must be forced to open up Chrome to third-party extension stores. A monopoly deciding on the kind of browser extensions we get to distribute and use is sickening. As Chrome is a dominant platform, our work is prevented from reaching users if it does not align with the bussiness goals of Google, and extensions that users want on their devices are effectively censored out of existence. Again, the solution in the…

Can't Chromium be modified in order to use other extension sources?

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#407

Post by nvrspyx » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 6:15 PM UTC

hrudham wrote: post #174

alexfromapex wrote: post #129

Someone needs to create a rival search engine to Google. I have tried switching but Bing and DuckDuckGo aren't anywhere near as good.

I've been using DuckDuckGo as my default search engine for the last year or so; it's certainly improved a lot. Something that can help this transition is the bang support [0], with `!g` prefixed to your query. This redirects you to google with same query if you find that the results are not satisfactory. I used to use it a lot, but I've found I've needed it a lot less lately. [0]: https://duckduckgo.com/bang

I recommend using `!s` instead, which will use Startpage instead of Google. But, since Startpage actually uses Google for search results in a private manner (similar to DDG using Bing and Oath/Yahoo), you'll get the same results as Google, but privately like DuckDuckGo.

Since !bangs are just using the URL search scheme of the site you're trying to search, it's just redirecting you to Google when you use !g, which allows Google to set cookies and use trackers. By using !g, one is sort of defeating the purpose of using DDG, so that's why I always like to recommend using Startpage and !s as a fallback instead.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#408

Post by nilkn » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 6:15 PM UTC

radicalbyte wrote: post #6

It's time to switch to Firefox as my main web browser. It's faster and generally more efficient than Chrome plus it has the most important extensions. The most surprising thing is that the Android version of Firefox is excellent. So good that I switched from Chrome a few months ago when this expected news first dropped. No ads on mobile is awesome.

Firefox also offers the Tree Style Tab extension. If you’re working with limited screen real estate (e.g., smaller laptop) it may not be ideal, but on a full-sized monitor browsing the internet without it feels downright antiquated.

My hierarchy of browsers looks like this. FF is my default, along with an extensive suite of security and privacy extensions including uBlock Origin. Very rarely, I’ll encounter an issue with a site, and I’ll fall back to Brave. Exceptionally rarely, I’ll fall back from Brave to Chrome, but I can’t remember right now the last time I needed to do that.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#409

Post by rvnx » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 6:16 PM UTC

"Hey all, I'm Simeon, the developer advocate for Chrome extensions. This morning I heard from the review team; they've approved the current draft so next publish should go through. Unfortunately it's the weekend, so most folks are out, but I'm planning to follow up with u/gorhill4 with more details once I have them."

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#410

Post by zaroth » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 6:16 PM UTC

dessant wrote: post #104

Google must be forced to open up Chrome to third-party extension stores. A monopoly deciding on the kind of browser extensions we get to distribute and use is sickening. As Chrome is a dominant platform, our work is prevented from reaching users if it does not align with the bussiness goals of Google, and extensions that users want on their devices are effectively censored out of existence. Again, the solution in the…

The top ranked comment on the page is a call to switch to Firefox. Google clearly does not have a monopoly on browsers, and we should let the market decide which extensions policy is preferred.

Now, whether Google is abusing its monopoly on Search to prop up its Chrome install numbers is a different matter.