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

"Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

developer.chrome.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 490 posts

Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

#411

Post by Bobaso »

beached_whale wrote: post #31
varun_ch wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chrome to Firefox is a relatively easy switch, especially for those that don’t depend on Google sync. The main sources of friction for me were the lack of a good profile switching UI (solved with a browser extension that mimics the Chrome menu), and weird security requirements for homemade extensions (IIRC if you want to have the extension persist after restarting Firefox, you need to sign the extension, which is a p…

One feature that is missing, removed, from Firefox is PWA's/running sites as apps. This is super handy for low trust apps

same here, the one thing keeping me on chrome

Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

#412

Post by christophilus »

Springtime wrote: post #360
EasyMark wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To my knowledge the “big” chrome engine alternatives aren’t either. I know that Vivaldi and Brave plan on keeping around v2 as long as it is economically feasible

Brave is an odd one. They've publicly stated[1] they plan to support parts of Manifest v2 for a handful of popular addons (uBlock Origin included) by making limited patches, but they make no promises. It seems Shields was their main focus for MV3 mitigation, much like Vivaldi's now native content blocker made for the same reason (though Vivaldi has said[2] they won't be supporting MV2 past the last Chromium build tha…

Why use uBlock on Brave when Brave already blocks ads natively?

Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

#413

Post by jakeogh »

userbinator wrote: post #336
WesolyKubeczek wrote: post #50

I wish some brave enough (no relation to Brave) soul patched Blink so it became possible to delegate URL blocking decisions to an external process via some sort of IPC. In goes a full URL and maybe an opaque session ID so some state may be tracked, out goes a boolean value. Assume all are allowed if this process cannot be connected to.

You can already do this with a MITM proxy, and it works in all browsers.

Bypassing pinned certs is always going pass attention? (or whatever deliberately harder to lookup term they make up?)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41813480

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F8cT1YCsxgo

Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

#414

Post by pushupentry1219 »

zufallsheld wrote: post #393
pushupentry1219 wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer this way. Much simpler but way more aggressive: `export HOME=$TMPDIR chrome ` Will make chrome think that $TMPDIR is $HOME. Keep in mind that means your downloads for example would also be deleted after the rm -rf This works for most other software too

Better just use 'HOME=$TMPDIR chrome without the export. With export the Home variable will persist for the current shell, potentially leading to unwanted results.

Right correct. I put this in a script hence the export. Though its probably not necessary as well.

Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

#415

Post by wruza »

chlorion wrote: post #234
bad_user wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Security and possibly performance, which is the selling point of MV3.

Yup, the MV3 version requires zero permissions and in theory should be faster. These are real benefits that for some reason nobody will admit exist. Saying anything positive about MV3 or the lite extension seems to get you downvoted without explanation though, which is a nice example of how absurd this site is when it comes to anything related to Google. Sometimes I think downvoting should require leaving a comment a…

Is uBOL as ad-removing and privacy protecting as uBO?

We aren’t talking just an extension here. If it didn’t exist, that would make web browsing insufferable to many. It is a part of web browsing itself. Let me put it as clearly as it can be:

***

uBO is a Holy Grail and gorhill is our Jesus Christ.

***

If MV3 (and further development) tries to touch it in any inappropriate way, comments promoting it deserve 5x downvote mutiplier without the usual -4 limit.

Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

#416

Post by sebzim4500 »

chlorion wrote: post #234
bad_user wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Security and possibly performance, which is the selling point of MV3.

Yup, the MV3 version requires zero permissions and in theory should be faster. These are real benefits that for some reason nobody will admit exist. Saying anything positive about MV3 or the lite extension seems to get you downvoted without explanation though, which is a nice example of how absurd this site is when it comes to anything related to Google. Sometimes I think downvoting should require leaving a comment a…

I get the security benefits, but the performance benefits seem weak. Won't the benefits of not having to run as much js to do the filtering be cancelled out by having the run additional advertising code that isn't being blocked by the lobotomised adblockers?

Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

#417

Post by BiteCode_dev »

crazygringo wrote: post #86
sho wrote: post #25

Hopefully this is the inflection point for Chrome. Despite all their made-up "security" reasons, everyone knows this is solely about making adblock less effective. For many users, adblock is what makes chrome bearable - and if they make it unbearable, then those users will leave. Slowly but surely. Google seems much too sure of itself making this change. I hope their arrogance pays off just the same as Microsoft's di…

> everyone knows this is solely about making adblock less effective I thought I knew that. Then I switched from uBlock Origin to uBlock Origin Lite in Chrome, which is compatible with Manifest v3. I was prepared for the horrible onslaught of ads, expecting at least a quarter would start getting through, ready to switch to Firefox... ...and didn't notice a single change. Not a single ad gets through. And at the same t…

Haven'y tested, is it blocking youtube ads?

Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

#419

Post by [deleted] »

freedomben wrote: post #17

Notably, Firefox is not removing v2 support (at least for now as of March 2024) > Firefox, however, has no plans to deprecate MV2 and will continue to support MV2 extensions for the foreseeable future. And even if we re-evaluate this decision at some point down the road, we anticipate providing a notice of at least 12 months for developers to adjust accordingly and not feel rushed. [1] [1]: https://blog.mozilla.org/a…

[deleted]

Re: "Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

#420

Post by nox101 »

I'm curious what V3 doesn't allow that V2 does.

I read an article about Ublock Origin light. It claimed it couldn't do script injection and content blocking but I've written V3 extensions that do that though maybe what I'm thinking and what ublock origin does are different things. Does anyone know specific details or maybe a pointer to docs on what's not possible?

Post reply on HN