421–430 of 752 posts
It's borderline impossible to read some webpages.
Just one more reason to stay on FF I guess.
Especially since they launched extensions on mobile FF has been so much better than any of the alternatives I don't see myself going back anywhere else.
Wtf, simply not true: Brave: chrome://flags/#brave-extensions-manifest-v2 > brave://settings/extensions/v2 > Enable uBlock Origin (Brave-hosted, even better). Helium comes with uBlock Origin pre-installed. Edge even still has it https://microsoftedge.microsoft.com/addons/detail/ublock-ori... And I'm sure others ...I personally only use/test Brave, Brave Origin, Helium and Firefox.
I use Vivaldi and I recently installed an update that disabled my v2 extensions. Had to downgrade and disable update checking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AFAIK they are using the built-in support which Google still maintains even if they don't expose it. My point is that when MV3 was announced there was an assumption that maintaining a Chromium fork to continue supporting MV2 would be too much work and too expensive. But now with LLMs that's no longer a safe assumption. The non-Chrome chromium based browsers can fork chromium and add back MV2. No need for any expirati…
Or you could just use Firefox.
We should prepare for a future without Firefox, because one day it won't be there anymore.
Why? Is it because they don't know about it? Or they won't go to the trouble of using any browser that isn't the one provided by default by the OS?
I'm not sure. I just don't get it.
What's funny is that extensions were supposed to be a way to let you do the things the browser didn't want you to do. Guess that was a bit too much freedom for Google to accept, so they had to make a store with a gate, and destroy the APIs so that they're useless. Then they had to make up some reasons to justify that and ram it through the pipeline despite everyone's objections, and the frog got boiled. Now we're bac…
> Then they had to make up some reasons to justify that Hate to be the one to defend Google here, but the reasons weren't that unreasonable. I want my browser to prevent random extensions from directly reading web page data. The declarative API idea is pretty good. It's just that uBlock Origin is so insanely useful, important and trusted, it should get full access to the entire browser regardless. Honestly, it should…
I don't want that! I want to be able to install any extension whatsoever (as we still can, more or less, install programs). And if I'm clueless enough to install "random" extensions that'll harm me, then shame on me! How often has it happened for the whole existence of Manifest V2 anyway?
Maybe we could have tolerated a well-hidden, well-protected "advanced" flag to open that possibility. But removing Manifest V2 altogether is unforgivable.
Also, security is a very very very weak argument, as many ads are much more dangerous and toxic than any popular extension will ever be.
I've been using Firefox for over 6 years now and I've never regretted it.
20 years and counting. :) Thanks for every day that this browser works. Sometimes I had to test something in Chrome - and it’s painful experience. But it really depends on personal view - I have tried to convert my friends and they don’t feel it.
The last few years I've noticed that some things have stopped working as smoothly though - mainly just little CSS glitches and things because people don't test in Firefox :(
There's a mystery here. People hate ads. Firefox is the only major browser (save Brave?) that properly blocks ads. Yet people don't use Firefox (indeed its popularity is in free-fall). Why? Is it because they don't know about it? Or they won't go to the trouble of using any browser that isn't the one provided by default by the OS? I'm not sure. I just don't get it.
Firefox on mobile is not good, tried it many times. I also don't trust Firefox Mobile security as much as I trust Brave/Chromium on Android.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way uBO works already provides a layer of plausible deniability. It's just a content blocker that loads filter lists maintained by other people.
I'm not sure if you responded to the wrong comment, but the gpp was suggesting building it in by default. If Firefox included it by default then it would remove a layer of deniability.
There's a mystery here. People hate ads. Firefox is the only major browser (save Brave?) that properly blocks ads. Yet people don't use Firefox (indeed its popularity is in free-fall). Why? Is it because they don't know about it? Or they won't go to the trouble of using any browser that isn't the one provided by default by the OS? I'm not sure. I just don't get it.
It's a cynical view, but I'm confident that it has a great deal of truth.