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

Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

9to5google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

801–810 of 909 posts

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#801

Post by jakear »

gzimhelshani wrote: post #737
SimonPStevens wrote: post #727

I say this all the time when this kind of thing comes up. Please use Firefox! Even if it's worse. Even if its slower[1]. Even if it doesn't have that one feature or bug fix that you personally consider really important. Just use Firefox anyway. Find a workaround. Suffer whatever it is you dislike about Firefox because in the end if we don't act as individuals against the chrome monopoly then google are going to own t…

what do you think about the new Edge browser from Microsoft, its based on Chromium. So you would get most benefits of chrome but its from Microsoft, which personally, I trust more than I trust Google.

Do we know how much the new Edge will phone home to Google? What about raw chromium? Alternatively, are there settings you can change in Chrome to prohibit it talking back to G?

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#802

Post by Hnrobert42 »

Myrmornis wrote: post #780
heinrich5991 wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can try Firefox containers. They even work within the same window.

No. This is a misconception that is being spread around. I don't know what FF containers are useful for, but they certainly do not function to replace Chrome's profiles: Here are my notes from when I investigated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15688651 I went deeply into trying to use containers as a profile replacement, replacing Chrome with the new Firefox beta for one month, and I can report that it is not…

I don’t know about profiles, so I can’t speak to that. All I can do is say that I use containers to open multiple tabs of the same site with different users.

For example, I have multiple AWS accounts. To login to two different ones at the same time, I use different containers. Way better than opening one is FF, one in Chrome, etc. When I open a link from a container in a new tab it opens in the same container.

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#803

Post by riskable »

techntoke wrote: post #442
ravenstine wrote: post #269

Slightly off topic, I'm finding it very disingenuous that people in this thread(and any other threads that come up about Firefox) have actually had significant performance issues with Firefox. No bugs that are noteworthy, sans that fiasco with the expired certificate that disabled addons briefly. I've been using Firefox since "quantum" on both my MacBooks(one of which is old AF) and on Linux. I've yet to have problem…

Firefox doesn't even properly support hardware acceleration in Linux.

This is a rather ambiguous and incorrect statement. Hardware acceleration of some things is disabled by default because of a security issue related to the way X11 works (it's complicated but in short, one window can "see through" to another window--even if it's an entirely different app). You can re-enable it via the prefs (forget the name but it's under "Performance") or just toggle `layers.acceleration.force-enabled` in `about:config`.

Furthermore, acceleration is enabled by default for loads of things. It's just some certain WebGL features that aren't hardware accelerated. For example, when you play back a video it's going to use hardware acceleration by default (if the underlying library supports it).

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#804

Post by mrguyorama »

chris_wot wrote: post #646
josteink wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yep, I'm about to ditch Chrome altogether now. I keep seeing people write stuff like this, and I just don’t get it. What’s keeping you? Why haven’t you switched already? I mean... it takes minutes at most.

I tend to have to use it at work. The reason I haven't shifted at work is a ridiculous one really - it's the way you can tear off tabs and move them to another screen - it doesn't tear the same way as Chrome. Like I say, ridiculous.

I've used this exact feature on firefox for years

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#805

Post by josteink »

behringer wrote: post #782
josteink wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but so does Chrome. In that regard, Firefox is not a worse option, just equally suboptimal.

Signing is pretty important. Without signing anybody could surreptitiously replace your addon with something else.

Only if they have local access. In which case, I’ve already lost.

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#806

Post by larntz »

SimonPStevens wrote: post #727

I say this all the time when this kind of thing comes up. Please use Firefox! Even if it's worse. Even if its slower[1]. Even if it doesn't have that one feature or bug fix that you personally consider really important. Just use Firefox anyway. Find a workaround. Suffer whatever it is you dislike about Firefox because in the end if we don't act as individuals against the chrome monopoly then google are going to own t…

I switched from Vivaldi back to Firefox within the last year for the same reason. I'm growing tired of Google and have been moving away from them piece by piece for the past year.

I prefer the customizability of Vivaldi but Firefox has been fine. I can't think of anything that is a thorn in my side at all. In fact, 99% of the time I can't tell a difference functionally, but I'm not a typical web browser (I disable JS except on trusted sites).

I think for the general population they wouldn't notice much difference between chrome and firefox.

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#807

Post by wlll »

cptskippy wrote: post #781
wlll wrote: post #760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I switched to FireFox I think about a year ago. I prefer Chrome for sure. It full screens video properly (which I need to automatically trigger turning off f.lux), it seemed faster, it does spell checking of form fields. I'm sticking with Firefox though as these features aren't much of a hindrance compared to the increasingly shitty behaviour of Google, and one benefit is that my Macbook Pro (2014, max spec), doesn't…

> it does spell checking of form fields. So does FireFox, other than Form Fields where else would one need/use spellcheck? I wonder what's been done to yours so that it doesn't.

Firefox dsoe nto spel chcek fomr feilds. This comment didn't get any spell checking whatsoever. Last time I investigated this the suggestion was to install a plugin, a hoop I think is unreasonable to make people jump through. I'm using a vanilla Firefox install on a Mac. I've not fiddled with it in any way.

update It seems there is a preference:

https://dl.sendcat.com/8BEOaD0qwKgHhIizbRLif8G572x4RgKGGLvcp...

It was selected already but I still don't get spell checking.

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#808

Post by jeltz »

SimonPStevens wrote: post #727

I say this all the time when this kind of thing comes up. Please use Firefox! Even if it's worse. Even if its slower[1]. Even if it doesn't have that one feature or bug fix that you personally consider really important. Just use Firefox anyway. Find a workaround. Suffer whatever it is you dislike about Firefox because in the end if we don't act as individuals against the chrome monopoly then google are going to own t…

I switched to Firefox on Android just to avoid AMP and it turns out I like it more than Chrome.

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#809

Post by riskable »

bradstewart wrote: post #93
irrational wrote: post #85

I don't get it. I've used Firefox and Chrome for years. Firefox is easily as good and capable as Chrome. The barrier to switch from Chrome to Firefox is almost non-existent. Is Google counting on the majority of people not being knowledgeable enough or motivated enough to switch browsers?

I've been using Firefox for the last two weeks or so. It's fine, but noticeably slower (on a 2018 MacBook Pro) when opening new tabs and especially dragging tabs into new windows. It also seems to get stuck resolving DNS sometimes, which is probably an artifact of the corporate network, but Chrome doesn't have that problem.

The DNS thing is probably caused by Firefox's OS-agnostic DNS. You see, in Windows Chrome will use IE's networking stack (so changing your IE proxy settings changes them in Chrome) if you have the "enterprise version" installed. Also, if your company has installed "security software" that screws with web requests and/or DNS resolution in order to "keep you safe" it'll treat Firefox's outbound HTTP requests like they're coming from a script and treat them with heavy suspicion (which slows everything down and can even result in timeouts).

It's super annoying. This is the state of things at my workplace and it's ridiculous.

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#810

Post by riskable »

Aeolun wrote: post #222
irrational wrote: post #85

I don't get it. I've used Firefox and Chrome for years. Firefox is easily as good and capable as Chrome. The barrier to switch from Chrome to Firefox is almost non-existent. Is Google counting on the majority of people not being knowledgeable enough or motivated enough to switch browsers?

Unfortunately, my Firefox on Ubuntu just keeps claiming more and more memory until it runs out and freezes the system. I don’t want to use Chrome, but I still wouldn’t call that very great.

What extensions do you have loaded? Done anything else to customize it?

I've been running Firefox for over a year now on my Kubuntu desktop and haven't had that issue. Not with pre-Quantum or post-Quantum Firefox.

Also, some tabs will continually use more and more memory due to poorly-written JavaScript. That's not really Firefox's fault but Chrome seems to be much more aggressive in shutting those sorts of things down (which can be annoying because if you go over that threshold in your own JavaScript it'll stop working and you'll get ambiguous resource errors in the console).

Post reply on HN