Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox also has password/history/bookmarks sync between devices.
auto-fill of CC/billing information is the feature I wish FF had.
I use the BitWarden Firefox extension for this.
Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
421–430 of 779 posts
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#422Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plus Chrome just works better for a lot of sites. That might be because the site isn't properly coded, but users don't care. They just want something that works and more often than not, that's Chrome. My main browser is Firefox, but I have to switch over to Chrome more often than I would like. Electron is also based on Chromium, isn't it? IMHO, the rise of Electron just reinforces Chromium's status and I think Micros…
I don't know about "a lot of sites". Very few, I'd say. Other web developers may want to chime in but I rarely have cross-browser problems between Firefox and Chrome. I can't recall the last one. The only time I encounter a problem with Firefox is looking at people's codepens where they're using webkit only prefixes or a draft API.
In a couple of projects I'm currently working on, the CSS for them was causing me problems between the 2 browsers. Willing to admit that I don't have an intimate familiarity with CSS best practices. I look up what I think I'm trying to do, and then implement what I've found. I primarily use Firefox while I'm coding, and then only check with Chrome and Safari periodically. I've had to circle back to fix CSS issues specifically for WebKit not rendering as expected. Eventually, I can get to something that works across all the browsers I have access (no Android devices anywhere).
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#423Firefox is a much nicer browser anyway. For a number of reasons including privacy.
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#424Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm invested in the Google ecosystem, and have recently got myself a Pixel Slate that I carry everywhere as my primary computing/ media device (no more separate laptop and tablet). It would now be silly of me to use Firefox in place of Chrome. Moreover I have got nothing to hide, so all these privacy-fears don't concern me; in fact I often feel like they are being overblown.
> I have got nothing to hide So if you don't mind would you share some nudes, your CC numbers and your medical history with us?
What about his address, and his family and friends' addresses, as well? What about his income, where he works, the time he leaves for work and the time that he gets back? And the street he grew up on and his mother's maiden name?
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#425Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#426Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really just don't understand the obsession with Chrome, especially in hacker communities. Sorry Google, I feel "icky & gross" when I use you.
Most of my logins have been syncd via Chrome. Makes logging into a new computer a breeze, or if I need to borrow someone else's stuff really quick.
I've been using 1Password for years now, and it has extensions for both browsers. Now I'm portable and not locked into a single browser. I had a friend nag me for a long time because I was too lazy to try it out. Once I did, I have never regretted it.
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#427Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pi-hole covers you regardless of browser.
Network level ad-blocking doesn't work very well. Privoxy (and Proxomitron before it) were doing it 20 years ago, but never caught on because they're a PITA to setup and can't handle inline adverts. Pi-hole is new, but it's even more work to setup, and suffers the same limitations. And as ad-blocking has become more popular the problems only gotten worse. It's unusual that I see any ads any more, but when I do it's a…
I still use Proxomitron. It's as powerful as the filters you write for it, works across all browsers (including the "hidden" ones embedded in apps and such), and the community has made patches that let you MITM TLS as well using OpenSSL (although the certificate setup needs a bit of planning and understanding.)
The only downside is that its filtering language is regex-like, so basically the equivalent of "two netcats and a sed". I've contemplated writing a filter proxy that would parse HTML into a DOM, run filtering on that tree-structured representation using something XPath or XSLT-ish, and then reserialise the modified HTML to send to browsers, but never had the time to. I suspect performance wouldn't be great with such a setup, although with MITM TLS it's already doing a double-encrypt-decrypt and I don't find that slowing me down noticeably.
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#428Perhaps the participants of this debate should also comment on the ticket itself? Complaining here probably won't make Google hear you.
If your goal is to lock the bug report to all future discussion, then by all means start brigading.
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#429Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't threaten, don't wait, do it now.
Threats are useful for shaping behavior. Disengaging with someone because they suggested something you disagree with can be good for shaping behavior, but it's really pretty extremist.
Disengaging immediately also gets rid of your leverage, so theres that as well.
Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin
#430Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you respond to the comment (#23) from the author of uBlock Origin & uMatrix describing the filtering capabilities that will be lost under the proposed declarativeNetRequest API?
Many similar concerns were raised when the Safari API changed, in this case some of the specific limitations and concerns re the declarativeNetRequest approach may be valid – if so, I'd hope that the Chromium team take them on board and improve. I think the concern re the 30,000 rule limit is misguided. Many of these adblock rule lists are extremely inefficient and should probably be pruned to have less rules. Extrem…
I personally use an adblocker not only to block ads, but also to block literally everything I don't like. In most websites, this means the social buttons, the comments section, all search functionality, anything in the header or navigation I won't click, related articles, top articles, other recommended articles, footers, links to privacy policies, parts of bylines that I don't care about, header images when I don't like them, posts in certain categories that I don't like, etc. I use filters to, for instance, block Slack links containing domains I know I'm not going to click. I have over 3,000 rules. I wrote the rules myself to be maximally specific and I am not confident that I could prune the list significantly, although I guess it's possible.
It would not surprise me if ad lists are substantially longer, because they have to incorporate the entire internet, not just the 0.001% of it that I visit.
I support the goals of efficiency and performance, and think developers should take those goals seriously, but I object when a browser places a hard cap on anything, because the number that cap should be at differs by use case and by user.