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

A list of recent hostile moves by Google's Chrome team

mastodon.social

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 602 posts

Re: A list of recent hostile moves by Google's Chrome team

#471

Post by insanitybit »

nequo wrote: post #426
insanitybit wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(I'll just copy/paste from a previous comment) 1. Under her leadership Mozilla has lost virtually all of its users. It has been reduced to less than 10% of what it had before, maybe worse - I haven't kept up. 2. At the beginning of Covid, a time when remote work was on the rise and tech valuations were through the roof, a time when the browser was more important than ever, she took her largest payout and fired hundre…

Are you essentially saying that you refuse to use Firefox because most people don’t use Firefox? What do Firefox’s enterprise market share and Mozilla’s initiatives that are unrelated to Firefox have to do with whether Firefox would work for you as a browser?

I was answering this question:

> What childish nonsense has you all up in arms for a product you don't pay for?

Re: A list of recent hostile moves by Google's Chrome team

#472

Post by insanitybit »

reitanqild wrote: post #411
insanitybit wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Manifest v3 has been delayed and was/is pretty legitimate, I don't think most people really know wtf they're talking about when it comes to v3. JPEGXL doesn't exactly seem like that big of a deal and is now being developed again - sounds fine, Chrome went "seems like no one wants this" and then people said "we want this" and now it's being worked on. WEI isn't even properly proposed yet, it's so early. So these 3 thi…

> Mozilla won't earn me as a user until their CEO is removed So use LibreWolf like me: Up to date, based on Firefox, but without Mozilla getting a cent.

I don't see the point of that. I like Chrome, it solves all of my problems well and it has top notch security too. I like the integrations it has with gsuite, etc.

If I'm going to switch for ideological purposes I'm going to need to see a browser that can actually follow through on its ideology.

Re: A list of recent hostile moves by Google's Chrome team

#473

Post by hbn »

rpdillon wrote: post #436
hbn wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (it never had anything else to block ads) I've used Wipr for a long time on both my Mac and iPhone, this isn't true.

Wipr says it uses Safari's Content Blocking API, which has restrictions similar to those found in MV3. I think this is what GP was referring to, since it means Wipr/MV3 is limited in what they can block compared to, say, UBO on Firefox.

I think the big issue with MV3 is the limit of like 30k content blocking rules per extension, whereas Safari's is unlimited(?)

Re: A list of recent hostile moves by Google's Chrome team

#474

Post by toxik »

maxbond wrote: post #24
toxik wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

/More/ popovers and popups? What about just making the site slower?

If you're going to do something in protest, people have to know that you're protesting and that you want them to take an action in support of it. And if you degrade their service, they won't blame Chrome, they'll blame you.

I think you can tell people other ways that you degraded their experience intentionally. I guess I’m actually fine with popups too. The goal is to make Chrome known as the slow browser so people stop using it.

Re: A list of recent hostile moves by Google's Chrome team

#475

Post by tapoxi »

tylercrompton wrote: post #453
tapoxi wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've fallen in love with Arc https://arc.net/ It's Chromium-based with a custom UI (in SwiftUI). It's very clean and Mac-native.

I would avoid Chromium-based browsers entirely as it still allows Google to strongarm their way into standards that few others want.

My attitude is that even if all the enthusiasts switched, its too small of a marketshare to matter, and its clear nobody wants to build on the Firefox platform - not even Brendan Eich.

Our best hope is for a fork of Chromium to be maintained by the Linux Foundation and for other vendors (and Electron) to use that fork instead. Just moving Electron over would provide significant momentum.

Re: A list of recent hostile moves by Google's Chrome team

#476

Post by lapcat »

hbn wrote: post #473
rpdillon wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wipr says it uses Safari's Content Blocking API, which has restrictions similar to those found in MV3. I think this is what GP was referring to, since it means Wipr/MV3 is limited in what they can block compared to, say, UBO on Firefox.

I think the big issue with MV3 is the limit of like 30k content blocking rules per extension, whereas Safari's is unlimited(?)

> Safari's is unlimited(?)

Safari content blocker rules are limited. Formerly 50k, increased to 150k: https://adguard.com/en/blog/adguard-for-safari-1-11.html

Re: A list of recent hostile moves by Google's Chrome team

#477

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

consentreality wrote: post #391
tux1968 wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The biggest blocker for me has been the lack of convenient profile switching. Switching profiles can be as easy as restarting the browser. For instance, you could create an icon on your desktop for each profile, or just a single icon to run : firefox --ProfileManager And you'll get a menu to choose which profile you want to use. > I also can't open links in anything but the default profile Interesting. Running on L…

That is interesting. Googling "firefox open links in active profile" provides plenty of results about the same issue. I do know there's a flag to launch the profile manager, but I find that to be a nuisance. I don't want to launch it every time, because I'm constantly launching and killing browser instances. Dedicated shortcuts cuts out that step, but in my case would require 5+ shortcuts via .desktop files on my Lin…

Make a .desktop file that uses --ProfileManager and --no-remote , and then just open it per profile

Re: A list of recent hostile moves by Google's Chrome team

#478

Post by aaa_aaa »

tommiegannert wrote: post #64
mrtksn wrote: post #57

Remember the "Safari is the new IE" narrative? Just because Safari doesn't support some API doesn't make it IE, IE wasn't an inferior browser at the beginning either. What made IE the IE everyone hates was its departure from standards(?) and enforcing its own vision of the web thanks to its enormous market share. On IE's case, MS probably stagnated it to prevent competition against its desktop Apps business and on Go…

IE was absolutely hated for not evolving. I'm curious what "its own vision" was, other than "do as little as possible, while Mozilla and Opera keeps pushing forward." Now, this is from the perspective of the web developer. I don't think IE was ever hated the same way from the end-user perspective. Chrome is still innovating, but now end-users hate it, because it's trying to be too much. The "new IE" hat still belongs…

No it was not hated for evolving. It was hated because it made banks and many web sites enforcing people to use Windows. Chrome is nowhere near it.

Re: A list of recent hostile moves by Google's Chrome team

#479

Post by reitanqild »

insanitybit wrote: post #472
reitanqild wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mozilla won't earn me as a user until their CEO is removed So use LibreWolf like me: Up to date, based on Firefox, but without Mozilla getting a cent.

I don't see the point of that. I like Chrome, it solves all of my problems well and it has top notch security too. I like the integrations it has with gsuite, etc. If I'm going to switch for ideological purposes I'm going to need to see a browser that can actually follow through on its ideology.

So, in reality, it had nothing to do with the CEO and all to do with the fact that you don't care?

Re: A list of recent hostile moves by Google's Chrome team

#480

Post by pg_1234 »

tommiegannert wrote: post #64
mrtksn wrote: post #57

Remember the "Safari is the new IE" narrative? Just because Safari doesn't support some API doesn't make it IE, IE wasn't an inferior browser at the beginning either. What made IE the IE everyone hates was its departure from standards(?) and enforcing its own vision of the web thanks to its enormous market share. On IE's case, MS probably stagnated it to prevent competition against its desktop Apps business and on Go…

IE was absolutely hated for not evolving. I'm curious what "its own vision" was, other than "do as little as possible, while Mozilla and Opera keeps pushing forward." Now, this is from the perspective of the web developer. I don't think IE was ever hated the same way from the end-user perspective. Chrome is still innovating, but now end-users hate it, because it's trying to be too much. The "new IE" hat still belongs…

> IE was absolutely hated for not evolving.

Chrome is doing worse than not evolving ...

... it is evolving towards evil.

Compared to this, stasis would be a blessing.

Post reply on HN