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

Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

bugs.chromium.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 779 posts

Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

#621

Post by calgoo »

nvarsj wrote: post #573
sixothree wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really just don't understand the obsession with Chrome, especially in hacker communities. Sorry Google, I feel "icky & gross" when I use you.

Chrome is still the best performing browser (even if it's a resource hog). I tried using Firefox for Linux for about 6 months last year, but had to give up. I got frustrated with the random UI pauses/latency, random crashes, and broken web rendering (not its fault). On the other hand, Chrome just works, and provides a very smooth, low latency experience on Linux. I don't like that I have to give up my privacy for a d…

I'm currently running the experimental branch of Firefox on Linux and IMO things have improved a lot since then. I had similar issues, especially with tabs that crashes / get stuck when watching 3 or 4 twitch streams. With the latest releases almost all has gone away (cant remember any crashed tabs in the last few months).

Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

#622

Post by ciex »

lettergram wrote: post #8

Well, highly recommend Firefox. Works great after the updates last year and even use it on mobile. It bothers me that iOS doesn’t support addons to Firefox mobile. But on Android you can even install ublock origin

In Firefox I really miss the ability to tab-search from the address bar in site-specific search engines. I.e. in order to search for something on Amazon: type "amaz", tab, then type a search term. I didn't find any extensions for Firefox that would provide this feature.

Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

#623

Post by renholder »

mr_custard wrote: post #409
QML wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox just doesn’t have enough advantages yet that would convince someone comfortable with Chrome to switch over. While privacy is an ever growing concern, it isn’t a strong enough feature for most people.

I switched because Firefox has Multi-Account Containers, which was extremely compelling. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/containers

The Temporary Containers was a nice add-on built on top of that.[0] While it's a pain in the aspect of cookie-use across domains (like logging into Azure), it's other features out-weigh the initial nuissance - like automatic deletion of the container, as soon as the last one for that particular domain is closed. All of this is, of course, configurable.

This wasn't meant to be a plug, just a happenstance of "if you like 'x', have you seen 'y' based on it?". =]

[0] - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/temporary-con...

Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

#624

Post by Krasnol »

pojzon wrote: post #613
pleasecalllater wrote: post #596

Google is an advertisement publishing company. All the things they do, they do to earn money, not to give people anything. When Chrome first appeared, I was wondering about the extremely huge cost of building the browser and how Google wants to earn from that. Then it started to be obvious: it's all to spy on people. Not from the beginning, but slowly... the google account integration... the forced logging into the a…

Sadly people who dont care about their privacy will keep on using Chrome. Same with folks who are not so "advanced" as we call it.

Don't forget the people who had it installed because it was bundled with some other software during installation...

Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

#625

Post by fbender »

CannisterFlux wrote: post #598
metalliqaz wrote: post #4

Another reason to be glad that Firefox is still standing.

I worry that Mozilla will copy the API changes ("for compatibility!") and disable ublock on Firefox too, as Mozilla gets most of their funding from advertising companies too.

If the new API get's ported (which is likely to happen), it does not mean the existing API will get crippled. After all, they are different implementations and it's Mozilla who's behind that. I trust them to not deprecate the old API until all use cases, especially concerning privacy, are taken care of in the appropriate way.

Let's hope I'm right. :)

Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

#626

Post by feanaro »

londons_explore wrote: post #579
feanaro wrote: post #560

Why would Google be given any benefit of a doubt in the case of ad/resource blocking? They are a behemoth ad-based corporation that is becoming a monopoly in many areas of computing. In yet more areas, they are becoming an effective monopoly through size: they may not be the only company offering a type of service, but they are the only one able to offer it at scale and/or with a certain level of sophistication, give…

I think you overestimate the level of strategy here. This is simply an engineer spotting a performance bottleneck in Chrome and posting a design to resolve it. There is zero chance that Google's top brass told the engineer to deliberately cripple ublock.

A design that happens to cripple modern ad blocking and is not nearly close to being a full replacement of the existing API. Improving performance by removing features is easy. I don't think it's misrepresentation to call it crippling of said features.

The fact is that modern ads and crapware/malware web resources are a large problem that users choose to deal with by installing modern ad blockers. Even if that makes the browser somewhat slower overall, it is the ads that are the culprit, not the ad blockers. Also, anecdotally, but I find the web's performance to be vastly improved by installing uBlock Origin, as has also been noted in another comment.

It is also a fact that Google's whole business revolves around ads. Again, why wouldn't Google be mindful of ad blocking and try to prevent it from happening, with all the resources it has at its disposal? It would be bad business not to try.

Even if this particular situation isn't an example of this, I think it is irrational to think it does not and will not happen.

Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

#627

Post by jqt »

pojzon wrote: post #613
pleasecalllater wrote: post #596

Google is an advertisement publishing company. All the things they do, they do to earn money, not to give people anything. When Chrome first appeared, I was wondering about the extremely huge cost of building the browser and how Google wants to earn from that. Then it started to be obvious: it's all to spy on people. Not from the beginning, but slowly... the google account integration... the forced logging into the a…

Sadly people who dont care about their privacy will keep on using Chrome. Same with folks who are not so "advanced" as we call it.

I care about my privacy, that's why I don't use Firefox, because the Mozilla Corporation was caught red-handed sending user data to an advertisement company, Cliqz.

Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

#628

Post by renholder »

Memosyne wrote: post #96
sixothree wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really just don't understand the obsession with Chrome, especially in hacker communities. Sorry Google, I feel "icky & gross" when I use you.

I use Chromium on linux because Firefox doesn't have touch-screen support and smooth-scrolling feels a little rough. I wont hesitate to switch over if these changes are made though.

>Firefox doesn't have touch-screen support

On Ubuntu and Kali (both debian-based), it most certainly does.

Re: Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

#629

Post by konart »

pleasecalllater wrote: post #618
pojzon wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly people who dont care about their privacy will keep on using Chrome. Same with folks who are not so "advanced" as we call it.

All the I-have-nothing-to-hide people, please publish your bank account, address, SSN, passwords and other information the bank can ask when trying to transfer the money. Yea, I know... so they really have something to hide, right? So why not to start caring about the privacy and start thinking?

> I-have-nothing-to-hide

Not one of them, but I hope you realize that this 'example' is completely off mark.

I have nothing to hide if we are talking about that new hifi system I was looking on Amazon, I don't care if google knows what did I have for breakfast, I might even be ok with you knowing my address, but this is fundamentally different from you haveing keys from my apartment or my bank account.

Post reply on HN