- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
EDIT: Apologies. Updated with a link to what gorhill REALLY said:
Manifest v2 uBO will not be automatically replaced by Manifest v3 uBOL[ight]. uBOL is too different from uBO for it to silently replace uBO – you will have to explicitly make a choice as to which extension should replace uBO according to your own prerogatives.
Ultimately whether uBOL is an acceptable alternative to uBO is up to you, it’s not a choice that will be made for you.
Will development of uBO continue? Yes, there are other browsers which are not deprecating Manifest v2, e.g. Firefox.
You must log in or register to comment.
Why not just recommend not using Chrome…?
…no?
why not?
Why?
a good reason is that they are controlled by Google and without competition they can implement any anti-consumer features they want
No they’re not. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
None of the other Chromium based browsers have the engineering power to go their own way. They are dependent on what Google adds or removes in Chromium.
You know there are other ad blockers? Other browsers have them built into the browser itself so there’s no need for any extensions at all.
You realize Mozilla is selling your data, regardless of what extensions you have?
Mozilla doesn’t sell your data if you use Librewolf (or if you just opt out)
Then use LibreWolf.
I just think it’s hilarious that people fall over themselves lambasting private Chromium alternatives while vehemently supporting a browser that is openly selling your data.
I do?
Was that a question? I dunno, do you?
deleted by creator
Prove it roflmao
wtf how can you reply to a deleted comment
I clicked the reply button
Weird that lemmy lets you do that, huh
uBO is the best one though. And Firefox is one of the major mainstream browsers. Is easier to get people to change to something well known rather than an obscure browser like librewolf.
Switching to another Chromium-based browser is a half-measure. Other Chromium-based browsers are on borrowed time.
As time goes on, it will become more difficult for them to maintain v2 support. Nobody has the resources to properly maintain a browser fork with more than minor modifications. And you can bet Google will go out of their way to make this difficult for everybody else.
I mean, sure, use what you’re comfortable with if you really can’t use a non-Chromium-based browser for some reason. But it means you’re likely going to have to jump ship again sooner or later. Why not just jump once, to something with better long-term prospects?
Then again, the folks behind Arc Browser have expressed interest in becoming engine-agnostic, so perhaps there will be a Chromium-free Arc version in the future. That would be very cool.
They don’t need to maintain V2, they can bundle native adblockers like Cromite.
Other Chromium-based browsers are on borrowed time. As time goes on, it will become more difficult for them to maintain v2 support.
And Firefox won’t? I just explained why you don’t even need v2 support.
Nobody has the resources to properly maintain a browser fork with more than minor modifications.
Except…all of them?
And you can bet Google will go out of their way to make this difficult for everybody else.
If and when that becomes a problem, I can change later just like I can today… Today it is not a problem.
They should update the Chrome extension to tell people to download Firefox instead
Imagine if Google’s decision to do this to fight adblockers results in them losing the lead in the browser war because everyone switches to other browsers.
Dreaming is one thing, but I remain skeptical. Tech people always seem to vastly overestimate how much the average population will react to tech news. Most people don’t care. They should but they don’t. In addition to that, use of Chrome by businesses is heavily entrenched. The IT guys probably hate it on a personal level, but it takes a lot to make business bigwigs change direction away from a “trustworthy” big company like Google.
The vast majority of people aren’t even going to know or care. A lot of people will probably just continue on even when their adblocker becomes less effective. Of course the type of people who use adblockers are also more likely to wonder why their adblocker suddenly became less effective and then switch to a browser where it’s more effective.
It takes a lot to change the inertia that already exists. People have been predicting the rise of the Linux desktop for at least a decade now and it still hasn’t really caught on.
Tech people are niche but over time we will pre-install what we consider “good” on our grandmas, dads, moms, friends, etc… PCs
The older generation demographic continues to shrink, while it seems the great majority of Gen Z and A are perfectly happy to use whatever ecosystem is built into their device. I’m not saying that people shouldn’t want better software, merely being realistic about the choices of populations.
I mostly agree, but lets remember
use of Chrome by businesses is heavily entrenched.
So was internet explorer
The thing that finally got businesses to finally get off IE wasn’t from the browser being worse than every other option. Heck, it wasn’t even because it was a decrepit piece of software that lost it’s former market dominance (and if anything businesses see that as a positive, not a negative).
What finally did that was microsoft saying there won’t be any security updates. That’s what finally got them off their ass; subtly threatening them with data breaches, exploits, etc. if they continue to use it. I don’t see google doing this anytime soon, at least not without a “sequel” like microsoft had with edge.
Chrome was backed by Google, a multifaceted staple of the Internet ecosystem and rolled out with a ton of marketing behind it.
I remain skeptical that Firefox could plausibly overtake Chrome. The mere word of mouth of tech enthusiasts simply isn’t enough to make a population majority proactively switch.
And we had it like forever.
“like” being a very important word in that sentence.
I have a Chromebook, what do I need to do to get ubo? From my understanding, Firefox is not supported in the browser so I’d need to get Linux? How does security work with Linux?
Firewalled for limiting untrustworthy connections to the computer(public networks, hotels, even work).
apparmor for protecting the kernel and controlling file access to applications. SELinux is also a good option but if you need to load kernel modules, it can take a few minutes to sign and register it. It is automated on redhat systems though.
Other than that, do your research and don’t run random scripts and install random apps.
I wonder why you’re getting downvoted
I don’t know, they’re just security measures you can take. Maybe some personal preference thing. I don’t bother with the app guard thing and SELinux is pretty annoying with my Nvidia graphics card but a firewall is something I always setup.
ive gotten almost my entire friend group using either the same fork as me or the original firefox, they all used chrome before. all because google was dumb enough to overstep some peoples boundaries.
if you don’t mind, which fork are you using? I got my sister to switch to firefox too.
not the original commenter but FLOORP, BABYYYY!!! let’s go let’s get this floorp action come on floorp is the best reign supreme for a thousand years floorp woooooo
You’ve watched a lot of Rick and Morty haven’t you
n… nuh uh
I use waterfox. They are independent again since last year and their big thing besides privacy is that they carry over a lot of stuff from Firefox that was scrapped with the proton design.
Comment from gorhill (the developer of uBO and uBOL):
I didn’t recommend to switch to uBO Lite, the article made that up. I merely pointed out Google Chrome currently presents uBO Lite as an alternative (along with 3 other content blockers), explained what uBO Lite is, and concluded that it may or may not be considered an acceptable alternative, it’s for each person to decide.
https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1ejhpu5/comment/lgdmthd/
“uBlock Origin developer slams NeoWin, backpedals on recommendation!” —NeoWin editors, probably.
Sounds about right for any news outlet. “Slams” is so overused, and usually nowhere near an accurate euphamism.
How did supposedly intellectual people ever conclude that we should use the word “slam” on the daily in headlines?
It’s straight out of Idiocracy and I will never get used to it.
Because not only is it emotive (and they love emotive language to get you to click), it’s also just an objectively fantastic word for a headline in that it’s very concise and helps headlines fit on a single line.
Headline space is limited, so it’s easier to go with “X slams Y over Z” as opposed to “X criticises Y over Z” or “X denounces Y over Z” or “X castigates Y over Z”
It’s annoying how much it’s seen. But I get why they do it.
it’s also just an objectively fantastic word
100% disagree
“X criticises Y over Z” or “X denounces Y over Z” or “X castigates Y over Z”
All of these are better. They’re honest about what’s happening and most people understand them. “Slams” implies some level of violence or at least force. Not only isn’t that dishonest most of the time, it could devalue the word to that point that it just simply has no meaning. I refuse to internalize it as best as I can, but if they had their way I would think “slam” means a brutal vitriolic takedown. Instead I know it normally means “mildly comments on” these days.
Fuck “slam” in headlines.
You’re interpreting me saying “it’s objectively good in headlines because it’s extremely short and clear what it means” as “I love it when they say ‘slams’!”
I was very explicit in saying I don’t like it. It’s just objectively (not subjectively) a good word for headlines.
I am not making an emotional argument to you. I’m just answering the question of why they use it. If you didn’t actually want an answer to the question, you should’ve made it clearer it was a rhetorical question.
All of these are better
No they aren’t, for the very reason I already stated. They aren’t concise, which is paramount when it comes to crafting a headline.
Slam in headlines implies violence
Slam does not imply violence or force lol.
If you didn’t actually want an answer to the question
I thought it’s clear when we ask a question that can’t actually be answered, because thousands of journalists are not one person we can ask, it’s not meant to be taken 100% literally.
Slam does not imply violence or force lol.
Of course it does. That’s 100% the only reason why they use it this way. Notice how that’s explicit in every definition but the last (the newer, still less-common usage I’m taking issue with):
I love when people want to quibble about word definitions, being super strict or loose whenever it suits them. In the real world, people use words loosely and over time the connotation changes. Hence definition 4’s existence here.
My main problem with using the word this way is that it’s rarely honest. I am annoyed by it because it sounds stupid, but like I said, more importantly:
if they had their way I would think “slam” means a brutal vitriolic takedown. Instead I know it normally means “mildly comments on” these days.
Intellectual? Shit, that doesn’t pay.
Unless you’re lucky enough to get tenure, or stumble upon a fact of the universe that no one knew and just happens to be relevant to a modern economy.
Ragebait gets more clicks.
Well yes, obviously. My question is more about how they pretend it’s not just ragebait.
Very simple, they learned not to care and the ones who did care got weeded out.
I only use Firefox and have for the past few years. Yesterday I tried to schedule an appointment to get my oil changed at the dealer but was unable because the process on the site just flat-out breaks on Firefox. This is not a complaint about Firefox, but the fact that Chrome is so popular that some websites only work with Chrome. I don’t have a Chromium-based browser installed (besides Edge, which I’ve never opened intentionally) and I despise being on the phone (which is why I was trying to schedule online in the first place), so I just didn’t make the appointment. I’ll go somewhere else to get my oil changed. Sorry for the rant but it was extremely frustrating.
Chrome is so popular that some websites only work with Chrome.
It’s the Internet Explorer problem all over again, but this time from an even more invasive company.
The more people choosing non-Chomium browsers, the better. Keeping them popular enough that most sites have to support them is the only way to preserve what little agency people still have on the mainstream web.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/chrome-mask
This addon will work if it’s not letting you
I’ll check it out. Thanks!
Not necessarily. The problem is often that chrome JavaScript implementation can be ever so slightly different from FFs. Or just that the web devs wrote fragile code that is barely working on chrome and doesn’t work on other browsers, where they failed to test.
Adding to this, Firefox’s JavaScript is much more strict than others (which I love). As a web developer I prioritize testing it in Firefox because it’s helped me find bugs other browsers just plow through.
Personally I use Safari daily and the number of websites that are broken due to poor security (but function fine in Chrome) is alarming. Chrome doesn’t even check content type on
<iframe>last time I checked.I tend to agree with you. Normally if something doesn’t work in firefox it makes sense, but less often is that the case in chrome.
I am fascinated by the idea of a web developer choosing to use Safari, honestly, though. Can I ask why? For me, the hesitancy of adopting new web standards, the lack of a real extensions, and lack of support for non-Apple OSes… combined with lots of random bugs that I only ever see so often in Safari, I absolutely loathe that browser. And I feel like being a web developer conditioned me to feel this way. And then there’s the business practice concerns (Apple selectively supporting new web features with the intention of keeping native apps seen as superior, because it makes them money)… but even ignoring this, I’m a Safari-hater through and through. It feels like Internet Explorer 7 vs Firefox to me.
On iOS I have to support a few major versions of Safari back and it’s nightmarish at times. For certain featuresets, you absolutely cannot assume things will probably work like you can with FF/Chromium browsers and it makes me so ragey sometimes. I’ve been spending the last few weeks trying to workaround an issue in various Safari iOS versions, and it’s not the first time I’ve been in this situation.
I’m curious – what versions of Safari are you required to support on the job?
Personally
This was my poor attempt to mean “as an end-user.” I just love that it’s tied in to the Apple ecosystem and the UI is so much cleaner than other browsers.
I’ve tried to make the switch to others but they always feel very clunky. I love Firefox to death but it looks awful (at least on macOS). I’m not a big extension guy because I’m filtering DNS and IP traffic at the network layer — if we’re talking about ad blocking, tracking and the like it doesn’t make sense to only protect against it in the browser, as apps tend to send traffic to the very same domains as the websites.
I actually hate the trend of apps being nothing more than a wrapper around web applications. It comes off as lazy development, and I miss native apps (regardless of platform) instead of these creepy wrappers around web applications. So I actually have to agree with Apple there.
As for browser support, my team works on an internal-only app and our security policy doesn’t allow outdated browsers, so there’s no hard rules when it comes to browser support.
I use a lot of extensions for a lot of various reasons. Privacy and ad blocking are only two of them. For development purposes, UI preferences, making common actions easier to access, disabling website features I don’t like, re-enabling ones I do, the list goes on and on.
I’m a bit confused about your app vs web comment. What I’m saying is that instead of allowing the web ecosystem to evolve at an organic pace by keeping up with the rest of browsers, apple puts their thumb on the scale, choosing not to support things, so that installing an app works better. This isn’t a matter of comparing ways of building a downloadable app, it’s a matter of them guarding against users quickly accessing a web app without needing to download something from their store (which provides them with profits). They even make money on free apps now!
The entire state of the web is held back because iOS is so popular, and Safari is always behind on feature support especially on iOS. And it really irks me. Many times every browser we support will support a really nice feature, except safari. And sometimes even the latest safari doesn’t support something even though the others have for years!
You are lucky not having to support old versions of Safari. The latest safari is always somewhat reasonable to support but Jesus… try supporting anything of complexity on iOS 14. So painful.
Worth keeping around at least
Out of principle, I refuse to pretend I am not browsing with Firefox. 🦊❤️✊ Let website statistics show! And I will boycott sites that break due to not testing on multiple browsers!
I thought like that until youtube started intentionally slowing firefox identifying clients. As soon as I changed my user-agent to match chrome’s the speed was back to normal.
Lol I blocked all but essential JS on YouTube with NoScript and never faced any problems at all. Videos load just fine without extra penalties.
That works until it’s your bank or credit card website. I cannot use Capital One’s (CC) “pay bill” any longer.
Luckily it hasn’t come to that for me yet. But I have reported issues with my bank’s website to them, and it had been fixed.
Change banks
Weird.
Super annoying to have to fire up chrome (brave) to pay my CC bill
Are you sure that it was Firefox itself? I find the few times something like that has come up, it was because of extensions (like adblocl, actually).
Delta’s website started blocking me due to using Dark Reader, apparently something about detecting that the contents of the page were being altered. And another site worked fine when I disabled unlock; I assume because it was blocking loading some .js that was actually being used for something other than just ads.
As far as I can tell. After disabling all extensions it still didn’t work.
Man, you never worked for a large corporation that that had internal web based apps that only work on Internet Explorer and refused to update it.
I worked somewhere like that back in the 2008-2010 time frame. Thankfully, there was a extension, I believe the name was “IETab”, that would spawn a new tab in Trident (IE’s browser engine). So you could set certain sites to launch in one of those tabs and everything else would use standard Firefox. None of the people I supported were any the wiser. They just thought everything worked in Firefox.
Granted it was only that seamless because Windows already had that rendering engine built in. There are some extensions that do something similar with Chrome, but because of more modern security standards and whatnot you have to install extension helper applications which is gross.
Welcome to Firefox to anyone who is switching. I use a fork for Firefox (Floorp) Becuase I like it’s features.
What does that do?
Mozilla telemetry disabled (you can do this on normal firefox)
Some themes
Sidebar extensions
More easily move titlebar (firefoxcss)
Thank you fellow Boob liker.
Well I don’t use Chrome, so…
@TheImpressiveX
Maybe you should update the title, since it is factually incorrect.
Thanks, fixed.
I don’t want to let go of my poor Vivaldi it’s a blast of a browser
Oh, how I get you! I managed to switch to Firefox after a while, but it took some adapting, and still I miss some of Vivaldi’s features. That sidebar is simply fantastic.
The best action ublock origions devs can take is drop support for chromium based browsers and retract ublock lite from the chrome webstore.
I was hopefull for something more than just a wiki page on github. adding a banner to chrome’s add-on menu is way more powerful and far more reaching than what they did
i crave decisiveness like that. it would make me so happy if that sort of behavior became the norm.
too many corpos getting away with murder because they are more convenient than their competitors or because switching is too hard
the creator of ublock also said to chrome/chormium users to use the light v3 version is that right?
The creator(s) did not give direct advise. Probably so they have the time to slowly get people to switch instead of instantly getting shut down by Google.
But people that are going to be using the lite version will definitely get bombarded by Google/Youtube ads very soon and will make the change regardless.
oh
o7
On the same day Google was found to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act…
I’m going to call foul play on Judge Mehta’s part. They are a direct competitor.
deleted by creator
Because their maiden name is Judge Fasbuk?
deleted by creator
whoosh
Mehta sounds like Meta, Fasbuk sounds like Facebook. it was a joke.
deleted by creator
I was trying to help you see how you misunderstood, but sure. Beep boop.
They were explaining on how the joke flew over your head. If there’s reason to think anyone in this exchange is a bot, it’d be you, because you can’t really understand jokes even when they’re explained to you. Though nowadays, even bots understand jokes, ChatGPT can explain them fairly well.
This is the biggest whoosh I’ve seen on lemmy.
One of Googles biggest competitor’s is the company “Meta” which is phonetically similar to the judges name. The previous commentator made a joke where they appeared to confuse the corporation for the person. A situation that would be absurd if true, and from there the humour arose.
When a respondent (you) appeared to miss the subtext in the comment, and took it at face value, I made a post where I gave the impression I had made the same mistake , and suggested that the judge had previously had a name phonetically similar to “Facebook” which was the name previously used by the corporation now called “Meta”.Such a situation would require a coincidence even more implausible and absurd than the first, and was intended to demonstrate that neither comment should be taken seriously.
Your comment indicates you either failed to identify the absurdity, possibly due to confirmation bias following your previous response. Or you are attempting to “up the ante” by erroneously taking such absurdity seriously for further humourous effect. Your follow up comments elsewhere suggest the former.
Regardless, the “joke” has now been thoroughly killed by way of explanation. You can choose to accept the explanation or choose to remain in error.
Too bad nothing will come from that.
What happened?
They lost what may end up being the biggest antitrust case in decades. And it’s not weak sauce like the ruling that may get overturned regarding the Play Store monopoly (which is kinda weak since Android manufacturers can and do include other app stores on their phones).
It had to do with their anti-competitive behavior regarding Online Search. Specifically stuff like paying Apple and other manufacturers to make Google the default or even exclusive search engine, then using that not only to capture the market, but to charge more for ads than the competition they sabotage.
As a bonus, it’ll probably hurt reddit too, since it almost certainly makes their recent deal with Google illegal.
It’ll be appealed, but it’s a pretty big ruling. Between the US Courts, EU legislature, and what looks poised to be a flop for Gemini/Bard, Google is on its way to having a real shit year.
I find I can bear their discomfort with extreme fortitude.
PPAPI really ruined this all NPAPI FTW
