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

Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

neowin.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 480 posts

Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

#431

Post by inigyou »

Freak_NL wrote: post #80
28304283409234 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not exchange crap behaviour. I think google would win hands down. Firefox at least has adblocking.

The classic 'those guys did something bad, so I am going to go with the guys who are absolute assholes doing several orders of magnitude more bad things now instead' response. That usually means that whoever utters it was just looking for a sycophantic excuse to go with the bigger threat because it is more convenient to them (for now).

Other way around isn't it? Google are the worst assholes for the time being so many as well go with the less bad assholes?

Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

#432

Post by red_alpacalypse »

lxgr wrote: post #429
red_alpacalypse wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

uBlock Origin Lite had a TestFlight and now works fine as a Safari extension on iOS. uBlock Origin never claimed their Firefox extension works in Orion. So I don't think they need to respond.

Origin and Origin Lite are by the same developer.

Well, yes. I never said otherwise. But he is not the one to respond.

Instead I'd like a reply from the Orion PM, because they are the ones throwing around seemingly misleading claims about their product.

Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

#433

Post by dzonga »

mbmbn wrote: post #127
chinathrow wrote: post #23

Look, we're having a good time on Firefox since November 9, 2004. Come join us!

Then again, our laptop battery only lasts 1/3 as much on MacOS. I know, I know. The community keeps pretending this isn’t an issue for the last, hum, 15 years? But it is, and for people that are looking for a tool and not for a statement, it quickly drives them away from Firefox back to Chrome browsers.

ublock origin lite + adguard on safari are pretty decent.

yeah I love Firefox - but it takes a lot of memory + drains battery faster

Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

#434

Post by eps »

Animats wrote: post #350
chinathrow wrote: post #23

Look, we're having a good time on Firefox since November 9, 2004. Come join us!

My Ad Limiter add-on is down to 19 users on Firefox. Used to be thousands. It won't work on Chrome at all now. I'm shutting down SiteTruth, after almost 20 years.[1] [1] https://www.sitetruth.com

Fwiw, I've been using Firefox for 20+ years, I hate ads with passion and yet I never heard of your add-on until just now.

I don't remember what I've used before uBlock Origin, but since its appearance it's basically solved the ad blocking on Firefox and became the de-facto standard for the browser.

You probably lost all your users to it, rather that they all stopped using FF.

Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

#435

Post by eps »

Telemakhos wrote: post #331
chinathrow wrote: post #23

Look, we're having a good time on Firefox since November 9, 2004. Come join us!

I never went back to Firefox after they killed the Pimpzilla theme.

Conventionally, jokes not terminated with smileys aren't accepted on HN.

Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

#436

Post by stonogo »

yannicklesuisse wrote: post #425
hamburgererror wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will consider Orion only when it is open source.

We get this question a lot. Our CEO is clear about this: Our guiding principle isn’t about licensing models ... it’s about interoperability. The original Unix philosophy (McIlroy, Ritchie, Thompson) says nothing about source code licensing. It’s about programs that do one thing well and work together through universal interfaces. Open source is a distribution and licensing model; conflating it with software openness…

Applying the 'one thing well' bumper sticker to a web browser, which does a million things in a mediocre fashion, is a bizarre take. Not only is that whole comparison inapplicable, it's orthagonal to the point. You can do 'one thing well' and open source the code too, but you're not, and this post does not explain why.

Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

#437

Post by tyingq »

nolist_policy wrote: post #161
totetsu wrote: post #38

uBo is the only reason I find browsing the web at all tolerable anymore. As a test I turned it off to view this article and almost crashed my browser with a dozen auto play video ads This would mean I would find the energy to get over anything that is holding me on chrome, like saved passwords etc.

uBlock Origin Lite with MV3 works perfectly fine on Chrome. I don't notice a difference to the classic uBlock Origin, it even has a element zapper nowadays.

It will work fine until Google and others stomp out all easy paths to smart, heuristic based ad blockers.

The ad folks don't work around ubo lite now, because they understand it drives people to ubo actual.

Once that option is not really reasonable for anybody not highly technical... That's when the fun begins.

Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

#438

Post by monitron »

yannicklesuisse wrote: post #424
monitron wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a devoted Kagi user and really want to use Orion but keep running into perf issues and jank that frustrate me enough to switch back to something else. My most recent attempt was this past week. You all seem to maintain a very fast pace of development (the changelogs are always chock full of cool stuff) but the problems I am hitting have remained broken for ages. Some examples include: * The app hangs for 1~2 sec…

Thanks for the honest feedback, and I hear you. Some context that might explain (though not excuse) the situation: unlike browsers built on Chromium or Firefox/Gecko, Orion was built from scratch on top of WebKit. No fork, no upstream codebase to pull from. That means every feature, every integration, every compatibility shim is ours to build and maintain. Browsers that fork Chromium or Gecko inherit years of battle-…

I really appreciate the reply, and all your work. The difficulty of what you're doing is not lost on me; I was honestly blown away that you all launched a browser project at all. I think it's vitally important that the web not become a monolith in terms of user agents (even if, alas, one single rendering engine takes all the market share) so kudos to you.

Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

#439

Post by yndoendo »

ChoGGi wrote: post #251
HelloMcFly wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've used Firefox across devices, across the years. This just isn't my experience, at all, remotely. And I have had to use Chrome (now it is Edge) for many work functions, so I do have the A/B comparisons. I'm not doubting your experience, fine, but I also know I'm not "pretending" anything in my own experience.

Firefox on Android 16, it sucks the battery up in background mode (even with permission to use background turned off). If I manually close it no issue.

I have better battery life on Furi FX1s than any of my Android devices (Pixel 6a, Fairphone 4). This is with closing applications when I no longer need them on all devices.

Re: Chrome is looking to permanently drop MV2 extension

#440

Post by tomnipotent »

close04 wrote: post #262
rntksi wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're mis-representing things here. As in my reply further below, Q1 2026 you can see Google makes 70% of revenue from Ads, the non-ad money you refer to is only 1/3. But if you look at net income, 85% of the net income from Google comes from Services (including Ads). The Airlines story is taken out of context and different from Google, Delta for example in the Q1 2026 filing you can see they have a revenue of $15.8…

When someone says that all money a company pays is "money from their main segment", that's intentionally misrepresenting. In this case what's important is what the money is for , not from . Calling it "Firefox had ad-money coming in" can only be bad faith, the usual social media rage bait. Now everyone comes out of the woodwork with "well akshully" because there's an interpretation where they can plausibly claim "tec…

Without the ads, there would be no payments to Mozilla. It's absolutely 100% unequivocably ad money.
Post reply on HN