> Hey all, I'm Simeon, the developer advocate for Chrome extensions. This morning I heard from the review team; they've approved the current draft so next publish should go through. Unfortunately it's the weekend, so most folks are out, but I'm planning to follow up with u/gorhill4 with more details once I have them.
Just the fact that they reply in this way on issues is disgusting:
https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/745#iss...
https://github.com/dessant/search-by-image/issues/57#issueco...
So yes, Google will eventually be forced to open up Chrome to third-party extension stores. Google will not get to decide what software the majority of humans can install in their browsers, the same way Microsoft is not allowed to block you for arbitrary reasons from installing software on your Windows devices.
That argument can be applied to any software, being allowed to run code on your devices comes not just with the freedom, but also the risks. I don't think restricting people's freedoms is the right way to somewhat reduce the occurrence of malware.
> There was a post some time ago about how popular extension projects often get bought by adware/spyware companies and they were able to publish malicious changes directly to user's browsers without any validation.
I think you're referring to one of my blog posts. :)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20587440
https://armin.dev/blog/2019/08/supporting-browser-extension-...
I find it hard to take their expressed concern for my security seriously.
When alternative sources are not readily available, the calculus changes. When the platform is a walled garden, the matter of banning the wrong script/app becomes more serious. Apple's appstore, Mozilla's firefox extension platform and Google's chrome extension platform fall into this category. Because they make it difficult to install apps/extensions from other sources, they have a moral responsibility to perform to be more careful with what they ban.
(Also, I do not accept the premise that Google is actually trying in a meaningful way.)
Firefox's old system of you needing to manually initiate upgrades was much more secure, and encouraged user responsibility for the code running on their machines. Google wants to infantilize the user, take away all choice, claim users can't make good decisions and then claim anything control they remove is for the user's benefit.
They're a bunch of stinking liers.
At this point anyone claiming to be a platform needs to regulated just like we regulate platforms before the internet.
I have a friend who works in the compliance department of one of the big international commodity exchanges. They are responsible for regulating the platform (his words) and preventing anything untoward happening, but that also means the company itself cannot "double deal" it can't participate in the markets in anyway. In addition they have two fed watchdogs that do regular invasive audits to ensure that they're actually following the laws and regulations.
It's time for internet companies to be put to the same standard:
If you call yourself a platform get ready to be treated as such.
If you don't wanna be a platform and you have 70%+ of the market get ready to get broken up.
As a developer with 18 years experience, I am not sure I have the time to make good decisions. I am not going to audit the code of everything I install by reputation. An average user has no hope.
1. I generally trust when I update linux that things have been inspected. Maybe I'm dumb. I also trust that if I don't update immediately but a few weeks or months later, if anything snuck in it has been found, reverted, fixed. So, by not making updating automatic that would seem to help somewhat?
Of course the opposite is if there is a critical vulnerability then automatic updating helps many people. I believe this is mostly why Windows is so insistant on updates is that so many non-tech users were not updating and then getting powned.
2. It seems like maybe there'd be a market for a curated service. Neither Google's App store, nor Apple's, nor the Chrome Web Store, nor the Firefox Extension Gallery are curated well IMO. They are all 80-95% full of crappy software meant to scam you in one way or another.
I wonder if someone would make a startup that for $$ curated software and/or extensions including checking changes. Maybe publishers would have to pay to certified or maybe users would pay to fund the checking. Well I can wish :P
[0]https://i.imgur.com/ZGxI3xO.png
[1]https://microsoftedge.microsoft.com/insider-addons/detail/od...
The second MS Edge is on Ubuntu or Arch, I’m installing it! And I’m absolutely certain that if MS keeps adblocking facilities in place while Chrome drops them, they’ll gain a ton more users like me.
Maybe soon, Google will be paying Microsoft to make Google the default search engine! Funny thought, but I doubt it...
My intended audience with that original post was the legion of Chrome users, but I could see how the Firefox cult (which I've long been a part of, check my oldest HN posts) could see it as negative or the "wrong answer". I never found Chrome to be quite right in all the times I've kicked the tires over the years. But on Windows, Edge being the native browser will ensure it's optimized to get the absolute best battery life out of laptop, a huge perk, and is quite frankly on the merits just shaping up to be a great Chrome-alternative on all platforms. No reason to resist the right-answer just because Microsoft is the one that appears to be bringing it.
And donate...
Mozilla Corporation develops Firefox with their income from sources like their contract with Google and other search engines. Donations are not used for Firefox dev.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2017/
The way it's worded it sounds like they do it through the Mozilla Corporation, which they own wholly own.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?product=Web%20Compa...
Bugs are fixed where necessary, but I don't think they've stooped to implementing Chrome's bugs yet. Most of the work is social - reaching out to owners of websites which are broken in Firefox and asking them to fix them.
https://github.com/mozilla/webcompat-addon
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Compatibility/Go_Faster_Addon/Overr...
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/07/firefox-68-bigints-contras...
The add-on uses data from WebCompat, and there are several ways you can report site issues:
- The official ublock repo links to it, so it's reasonably trustworthy, but it's explicitly not controlled by Gorhil. The author has what appears to be an open offer to give control of it to him.
- It's out of date.
- There is no real plan to make it up-to-date until edge finishes moving to being a chromium fork.
[0]https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/ublock-origin/9nblggh444l4...
[1]https://microsoftedge.microsoft.com/insider-addons/detail/od...
Still, if MS Edge comes to Linux without the manifest v3 blocking restrictions, I’ll try switching to that first because I want a Chrome-based Chrome competitor supported by a major entity.