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

891–900 of 909 posts

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

#891

Post by ubercow13 »

rofrol wrote: post #887
ubercow13 wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a feature. Chrome will refuse to remember history so that you can reopen the tab, however it will remember all other data from the closed tab such as cookies. If you log into a website in an incognito window, close all tabs of that website and then open a new tab and navigate to the site again, you'll still be logged in. It tricks you into thinking that session state is kept only per-tab by disabling a useful…

I don't think that is true. I am using incognito all the time for web dev to test without cookies.

It's trivial to check that it's true for yourself

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

#892

Post by Mirioron »

josteink wrote: post #562
Mirioron wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But doesn't Firefox require that godawful add-on signing?

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

It does? But I'm using add ons that I made on Chrome that I haven't registered or signed anywhere. I thought Firefox disallows that?

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

#893

Post by Mirioron »

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.

But it also means that I can't have an add on that Mozilla doesn't sign, right?

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

#894

Post by 52AE8D47 »

pier25 wrote: post #834
gzimhelshani wrote: post #737

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I installed the beta for macOS and I'm not happy about it. It installed a daemon that updates Edge even when the browser is closed. Even if you delete the .app the daemon keeps running and when there is a new update it downloads it and installs it. There are no settings to change this intrusive behavior. I sent feedback and complained on Twitter. Apparently the team is looking on it.

> It installed a daemon that updates Edge even when the browser is closed.

They learned that trick from Google and Chrome; search for `com.google.keystone.agent.plist` -- they install a Launch Agent for you.

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

#895

Post by techntoke »

jaimex2 wrote: post #874
techntoke wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if you want hardware acceleration support in Linux. Not that most Firefox users care about open source operating systems.

I thought it had hardware acceleration? Alas hidden away in advanced settings.

No, Firefox doesn't support hardware acceleration for video decoding at all.

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

#896

Post by Myrmornis »

iggldiggl wrote: post #889
Myrmornis wrote: post #842

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that use case sounds very much like what Profiles are for. You'll find that Profiles are an improvement over Containers for tasks like that (logging into the same URL as different identities) for all the reasons I list above. > Way better than opening one is FF, one in Chrome, etc Agreed!

> Yes, that use case sounds very much like what Profiles are for. I'm not quite sure how profiles work in Chrome, but from a Firefox point-of-view this is only true if you also want to keep your history/bookmarks/settings/add-ons completely separate, too.

Yes, history, bookmarks and extensions are separate. I have one profile for "me in my personal life" and "me at work", and a few for testing logins to different interfaces at work. So this degree of separation is mostly what I want, although it can be a little annoying to maintain the extensions you want under both profiles.

Keeping history separate in particular is very valuable since nowadays the fastest / least hassle way to bring up a site is to start typing the beginning of the URL in the navigation bar, so you wouldn't want work URLs mixed in with non-work URLs.

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

#897

Post by jeena »

petjuh wrote: post #571
toddwprice wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I came back to Firefox a while back - maybe a year or two? - and have never regretted it. It's a fast, modern, respectful browser. Maintained by a non-profit. I do all my front-end dev work in Firefox, and also test in Chrome. Never had a problem. Come on back folks!

I switched to Chrome the same day the beta was released mostly because of the speed. Nowadays I stay because I keep my passwords synced over my Google Account and I'm not sure if Firefox works with that.

That is the second most important thing why I'm using Firefox, I sync my passwords via my own instance of the sync server https://jeena.net/firefox-sync-15. I don't even trust Mozilla not to do something stupid with my passwords (by accident) and Firefox was always the only browser which allowed to use your own sync solution.

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

#898

Post by sfink »

jdlshore wrote: post #419
darklajid wrote: post #406

I've been a Firefox user throughout - never made the switch to Chrome. But here's what worries me, what I'm wondering now: As far as I'm aware, Mozilla/Firefox tried to follow Google for extensions, deprecated their own API for Google's/Chrome's instead. How likely is it that Mozilla will further "follow the spec" so to speak, doing a change like this for compatibility or whatever?

Seems unlikely. It's in opposition to Mozilla's clearly stated stance toward privacy. In addition, their reasons for deprecating their old extension API was purely technical. Even then, they were extremely conservative in their deprecation timetable, waiting long past when the old API was massively harming performance. But once they made the decision to replace it, it made sense that they would choose an existing API…

Yes, that sounds exactly right. But I would add that there is a technical reason for the more limited blocklist setup, in that it's much more reasonable to do a simple list check asynchronously than to run JS code.

But to me, that just suggests that firefox might want to consider an additional async API. I can think of many options that are more powerful than what Chrome is moving to. eg use the exact logic uBO needs. Or register a WASM function with no access to anything that would problematic to run async.

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

#900

Post by sfink »

labster wrote: post #505
kibwen wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sometimes have hundreds of tabs open (Firefox on Windows), and a feature that I'll leverage if things start chugging is that, upon starting, Firefox will only load the contents of a tab if you put focus on the tab. So if I open a ludicrous number of tabs, I can quickly restart Firefox (just timed it; took six seconds) and all the tabs but the one that last had focus will be unloaded. I believe they're working on ma…

I'm currently over 1000 tabs in Firefox. Most aren't loaded in memory. I know this is terrible, one of these days I need to KonMari my tabs and start using bookmarks again. Thankfully I'm not a hoarder of non-digital goods. Either way, I only get bad performance from a few tabs at a time, usually a Fandom wikia or the pinned Gmail tabs. The first can be solved with a few seconds on about:performance, and the second w…

I sometimes creep above the 1000 mark as well. At 250 right now. I recommend the tabstats extension; it'll especially help when you discover that you've opened the same url in 12 tabs, which is easy to do when the tab count gets that high.

I also recommend periodically declaring tab bankruptcy. It feels so light and clean! For a little while, at least.

Post reply on HN