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

Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

bleepingcomputer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–448 of 448 posts

Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

#441

Post by 9dl »

Ensorceled wrote: post #156
9dl wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whut? Sites require chrome?

For the entire history of the internet, there have been sites that only work properly with the dominate browser, starting with Netscape and then, famously, IE6. I'm always confused when people imply this isn't the case or start demanding evidence. I'm bemused when they are surprised.

So you do not show us site with "this site working only with chrome"

In Netscape/ie times WWW was other than nowadays, so your analogy is not correct

Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

#442

Post by 9dl »

Kipters wrote: post #425
9dl wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DNS blockers are nuclear option Sometimes they are useful but in most cases you need more flexible solution

Why should it? Most ads are toxic. Even if the site is well-intended and doesn't put too many of them, the few ads are still going to track you and disregard your privacy.

This is tech limitation

If site has ads served from main domain you can't block them

You can block ads with some static files on subdomains/domains, and this drastically change content (like how is image sites looks like without images?)

So, using DNS filtering for big ads providers is OK

For small and smart ads providers will not work

And I mean ads and tracking the same thing. While you can block all kind of "analytics", at the same time you can't block web-server logs with your IP (cookies, etc)

Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

#443

Post by hollerith »

nvrspyx wrote: post #374
fastball wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All Chromium "based" browsers are forks already -- how is this any different?

They’re less so forks than re-builds. They rely heavily on upstream and Google can certainly make it more difficult for them to maintain a “fork” that diverges too much from Chromium proper. Manifest V3 may be something they can easily keep out of their builds while maintaining the old method, but I’m no expert so I won’t comment on that. A fork implies maintaining most or all of the code base themselves, when in rea…

>have also made it very clear that they’re not “forking” Chromium for the new Edge, but rather using it as their “back-end”

I would love a citation for that.

Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

#444

Post by BrendanEich »

fastball wrote: post #213
mcv wrote: post #170

I'm in the process of switching as much as possible to Firefox. I now use Firefox Mobile on my smartphone, and my new laptop doesn't even get Chrome. And in many ways, it's been a breath of fresh air. Firefox gives my much more control over my privacy, and even recommends some extensions to improve it further. A couple of websites are sadly broken on my Firefox setup, but I can live without them. I want to get back t…

Why not something like Brave which has the performance of Chromium (still better than Firefox imo) because it's a fork but probably won't make similar business decisions to Google?

We will support webRequest for uBO and uMatrix at least, I've already said so on Twitter and Reddit. The API is available to enterprise Chrome customers, it's being hidden not removed.

Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

#445

Post by BrendanEich »

bn7t wrote: post #308
fastball wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not something like Brave which has the performance of Chromium (still better than Firefox imo) because it's a fork but probably won't make similar business decisions to Google?

Regarding brave see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21323576

In case anyone cares about the facts that can be confirmed from our github: our enabling tips to unverified creators mistake was corrected quickly, and the tokens in question were ours, not the users who directed their flow (this matters because we do not intermediate in token flows; our partner Uphold, a licensed MSB, does).

Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

#446

Post by Kipters »

9dl wrote: post #442
Kipters wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should it? Most ads are toxic. Even if the site is well-intended and doesn't put too many of them, the few ads are still going to track you and disregard your privacy.

This is tech limitation If site has ads served from main domain you can't block them You can block ads with some static files on subdomains/domains, and this drastically change content (like how is image sites looks like without images?) So, using DNS filtering for big ads providers is OK For small and smart ads providers will not work And I mean ads and tracking the same thing. While you can block all kind of "analy…

That's why I use it in conjunction with Firefox (set to the strictest anti-tracking level) and uBlock Origin

Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

#447

Post by 9dl »

Kipters wrote: post #446
9dl wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is tech limitation If site has ads served from main domain you can't block them You can block ads with some static files on subdomains/domains, and this drastically change content (like how is image sites looks like without images?) So, using DNS filtering for big ads providers is OK For small and smart ads providers will not work And I mean ads and tracking the same thing. While you can block all kind of "analy…

That's why I use it in conjunction with Firefox (set to the strictest anti-tracking level) and uBlock Origin

And this is right way to use it

Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

#448

Post by nottorp »

JohnFen wrote: post #386
nottorp wrote: post #102

A couple years ago my mac started to not go to sleep... I checked and it was Chrome saying “webrtc has active peer connections”. No, you can’t disable webrtc in chrome. So I’ve been a bit ahead of the crowd and gave up on Chrome long ago. This ad block scandal made me give up on Safari too though. Firefox seems to be the only reasonable option left.

> No, you can’t disable webrtc in chrome. Is this true? That's a complete showstopper for me.

Was when I checked. Don't know now, haven't used Chrome in a while.

In any case, how do they dare disable my power management for something I didn't start myself?

Post reply on HN