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

461–470 of 490 posts

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

#461

Post by ThunderSizzle »

isomorphic- wrote: post #400
Jach wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also worth mentioning that Firefox doesn't force you to auto-update add-ons, but Chrome/Chromium do. (There was a hack workaround to keep Chromium from updating, but I forgot what it was or if it still works. It wasn't a trivial option in the browser itself like it should be.)

I use a certain extension. An update turned the extension into payware, locking 90% of the features behind a paywall. So I refuse to update it and instead continue to use the revision that still has all the original features. I would be absolutely incensed and outraged if my browser insisted on forcing me to update this extension! Surely there are better ways for a developer to make money off of an existing extension…

New features requires work. Donations require charity, which doesn't exist in the mind of someone who does that

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

#462

Post by magnetowasright »

bdcravens wrote: post #75

Anyone using a PiHole to block on their network? I've been aware of it, but honestly, ad blocking was good enough that I didn't go down that route. Is PiHole good enough? Is there a big problem with false positives?

I love my PiHole. I block more stuff than just ads with it. No problems with false positives in default setups. I went a bit nuts adding blocklists, personally (it's not necessary lmao; be judicious with what blocklists you add!) so sometimes run into something, but whitelisting things is really simple and I can't remember the last time I had to do it. My not-very-technical husband learned very quickly how to look in the query log to check if the PiHole is blocking something. He hasn't had to in ages. Temporarily disabling blocking is also super easy (simple, quick, effective escape hatch), and so is managing the various lists, so if my husband whitelists something from the query log and I want to refine it for some reason, I can without working hard. The configurability of blocking per configured group or client is amazing (and simple) as well; the video game consoles have separate rule sets than everything else which works super well for me.

Once again, I went stupid adding blocklists so the level of management previously required is kinda worst case-y and it is absolutely my own doing and since working through my idiocy it just works its magic without needing intervention. If you're more careful about not adding blocklists which say 'this will break things' (not hard) you'll be fine.

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

#463

Post by mbs159 »

vinnymac wrote: post #13
codetrotter wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the Orion FAQ: > Is Orion open-source? > We’re working on it! We’ve begun with some of our components and intend to open more in the future. > Forking WebKit, porting hundreds of APIs and writing a browser app from scratch has been challenging for our small team. Properly maintaining an open-source project takes time and resources we’re short on at the moment, so if you want to contribute at this time, please co…

I won’t be touching this binary with a ten foot pole until every line of code is open. Many excellent alternatives already exist that are also open and free, I don’t see a compelling argument to use this software on any device at the moment.

> I won’t be touching this binary with a ten foot pole until every line of code is open.

You say this while using macOS? lmao

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

#464

Post by mbs159 »

bobajeff wrote: post #227

I'm addition to all the calls to switch to another browser I'd also have people consider the websites they use as potential dependencies on chrome. Right now most websites don't seem to require any specific chrome feature but with Google's pushing some API's like their Web Environment Integrity proposal I'm worried sites will start to lock their site to Google Chrome and their official Mobile clients.

But what about Safari users? Such a lock-down could force Apple to drop the $20B search engine deal with Google.

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

#465

Post by ragnese »

endgame wrote: post #372
ragnese wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but we saw this coming a mile away (as in, people have been saying this about Chrome for about a decade). People--especially tech nerds--didn't have to switch to the closed source, conflict-of-interest, browser. But, everyone did, and this is what we get for it. We now have proprietary DRM built in to the web standards, and all kinds of other bullshit, because a bunch of people decided to not learn any lessons…

I criticise Mozilla in tech circles, I recommend Firefox and a working adblocker to friends and family, and I donate to Ladybird. What else should I be doing?

That's it, I think. I think as long as enough of us actually do that, it'll make a difference. People seem to think that you need 50%+ of the users to "rebel" for there to be change, but the truth is that not all "users" are created equal. Developers, tech supporters (personal or professional), and "power users" matter more than typical users because it's our feedback, contributions, and demands that keep pushing these products forward. The "normies" will use whatever you put in front of them and they won't know or care that something could or should be different. If the nerds leave, the product will stagnate and other options will pick up steam.

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

#466

Post by ragnese »

Uvix wrote: post #340
ragnese wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was only true that Chrome was significantly superior (performance-wise, anyway) for a little while. Firefox had to play catch up and it took several years. It was (mostly) called the "electrolysis" (a.k.a., "e10s") project. It was considered complete by 2018, and had already offered significant performance and stability improvements for years before then. I wouldn't be surprised if Chrome still performs better on…

Chrome had better stability (not sure about performance) for nearly a decade - far more than "a little while". I gave Mozilla 3-4 years to catch up before finally switching to Chrome. Even once e10s supposedly fixed their problems another 4 years down the road, I didn't see any reason to rush back. I've switched to another Chromium browser, but I'd rather try a new engine entirely like Ladybird than switch back to Mo…

This is the double standard I'm talking about. First, I honestly don't even believe your claim that Chrome was more stable than Firefox for a decade.

But, even so, you basically admit in the second paragraph that they're probably both fine, but you won't switch back to Mozilla "until they prove they're not going to let the browser stagnate for so long again." What the heck kind of test is that? And how long, exactly, will that take for you? If they "stagnated" for a decade, according to you, is it going to take another decade to prove they won't let it stagnate? Two decades, maybe? What does "stagnate" even mean? To me, it looks like Chrome is stagnating- what have they done lately that's innovative and actually good for users? Breaking a bunch of extensions and removing the ability to block ads? How many years does Chrome have to start behaving itself before you'll switch back to it after all of this? Ah, right- you won't switch away from it; you're probably only concerned about Firefox stagnating.

The truth is that you'll always make an excuse to not switch away from Chrome (and yeah, a browser that uses the Chromium guts is effectively the same thing when it comes to the monopoly on web standards).

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

#467

Post by starky »

roca wrote: post #399
starky wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've tried to switch from Vivaldi to Floorp and there is some things that Firefox does that drive me absolutely nuts. The main one is the behaviour of pinned tabs. Pinning in Firefox turns it into an icon that is harder to hit and doesn't even protect it from closing. This makes them essentially useless, they should be moved to the front of the tab bar and be protected from closing. The second is that when you use ve…

> they should be moved to the front of the tab bar and be protected from closing. Firefox pinned tabs are moved to the LHS of the tab bar, they have no close button and ctrl-W doesn't close them. How much more do you want them to be protected from closing? This is actually one thing where Firefox is clearly better than Chrome ... Chrome pinned tabs close with ctrl-W which is really easy to do accidentally.

Middle click still closes tabs which is my most frequent way to close tabs.

As I mentioned Vivaldi is my Chromium based browser of choice, and it is far better in the handling of pinned tabs. They go up to a separate section at the start of the tab list without reducing in size, and then they absolutely cannot be closed without unpinning the tab first

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

#468

Post by account42 »

jeffbee wrote: post #278
Kbelicius wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's worth noting that the maintenance of the "lite" version is at some nonzero risk of burnout for its developers, ironically in part due to Mozilla being unnecessarily hostile: Why would you even use the lite version on firefox when the original works?

The "original" UBO is basically the mother of all supply chain vulnerabilities and whenever the inevitable exploit happens, everyone who thought they were a connoisseur of privacy is going to get completely pwned. UBO Lite works without being a gigantic security vuln.

The "original" Chrome is basically the mother of all supply chain vulnerabilities and whenever the inevitable exploitation happens, everyone who thought they were a connoisseur of security is going to get completely pwned.

But I suppose in your clown world security model the big US corporations who have proven again and again that they will act against your best interests are the only ones to be trusted while individuals with a proven track record must be sandboxed at all costs.

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

#469

Post by account42 »

tech234a wrote: post #316
QuantumGood wrote: post #222

"browsers using the ExtensionManifestV2Availability policy will be exempt from any browser changes until June 2025" To extend ManifestV2 in Chrome, add the text below to a text file, saving and running it as a .reg will create and add a value of 2 to "ExtensionManifestV2Availability" in the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Google\Chrome key (When you open/run a .reg file, it updates your registry, usually preceed…

Note that this will also disable Chrome’s DNS Over HTTPS as Chrome disables the DoH resolver by default when the browser is managed by enterprise policies like this one. See the platform-specific links mentioned on the uBlock Origin subreddit [1], many of which also include instructions for enabling the DoH resolver while managing the browser using policies. [1]: https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1d49ud1…

Good. Letting Google MITM all your DNS queries is insane.

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

#470

Post by account42 »

immibis wrote: post #201
pipo234 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To all the engineers working on this stuff, I hope you're happy that your work is essentially destroying the world that you and I grew up in. I recently quit my job, developing among others the means to "protect" media using DRM. While this was not a primary motivation, I'm glad to somewhat clean my hands. The technology (dubbed Common Encryption) is a bunch of smoke and mirrors that a childishly easy to hack aroun…

That's a good job - people who don't like DRM (you) get more money, and the bad DRM is a distraction that delays the implementation of good DRM.

On the other hand, even weak DRM trains users to accept it while power users are less likely to rally against it if they can find workarounds for themselves. So you don't really end up delaying the implementation of good DRM but helping prime its acceptance.
Post reply on HN