Are we going to lose ublock origin on chrome when v2 will be disabled?
> Chromium got its webRequest API at a time it was trying to gain market share against Firefox (Sep 2011), where Adblock Plus, Ghostery, Disconnect, NoScript, and other such extensions were the most or among the most popular extensions on Firefox.
So the only reason they even implemented this browser standard was to gain market share and now that they are in the dominant position they yank it, getting rid of ad blockers. Straight out of the Microsoft playbook.
In order to compete with Chrome most of XUL extensions had to go.
Hyrum's law in practice.
Isn't that the same concerns used in pushing Mv3?
Does Mv2 really hold Chrome back?
Browser builders, this is your cue: if advertising is not your business, offer an ad blocker. Firefox became popular (in my personal experience) because it came with a popup blocker by default.
Yeah. Firefox should ship with uBlock Origin by default too. They're almost doing that on mobile since uBlock Origin is one of few allowed extensions.
But as a web developer I semi-regularly butt up against bugs in it that have languished in Bugzilla since like, 2014, with absolutely no progress on them.
I have dealt with two (maybe three?) bugs in Chrome ever and one of them was a pretty clear fuckup they rolled back within days.
The chromium bugtracker too is full of ancient unresolved bugs, just like gecko's bugzilla: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?sort=id, and I'm sure that if you wanted to you could find a ton of decade old bugs that leave you wondering how those weren't fixed by now.
This just seems to be a fact of life with various browser engines. There are surely all kinds of more or less reasonable motivations to ignore those old bugs, but whatever the cause it's certainly the status quo.
I also managed to find another case where of all things Internet Explorer (!) was the only one (possibly EdgeHTML, too, but I don't remember that any more and now it's been replaced by Blink-based Edge, I can't easily check it, either) that got things right.
Everything works fine on Chrome.
That's obviously done maliciously by Google, of course.
I have two issues with this, 1. Chrome is so much worse in respecting its users, it is completely hypocritical to say not to trust Firefox but use chrome. 2. All these posts are actually painting the impression that there is no valid alternative, in fact that chrome is the less bad (freer) choice compared to chrome. This creates exactly the narrative that Google wants, that their choices are really just minor inconveniences and there is no valid alternative to chrome. I mean just in this thread we have seen many posts that state that Mozilla is essentially doing the same just slower and cant be trusted, despite statements and actions to the contrary.
If it sounds like I'm holding Firefox to a higher standard, I am. Their own positioning in their own marketing is based on a moral stance on privacy and "empowering the user". They have demonstrated that this stance is held out of marketing convenience rather than sincerity.
Chrome is the devil you know, you know it is made by an ad company, is filled with tracking, and will always act to support that. Firefox is… Not who they make themselves out to be. That's almost worse in a way.
You do you.
Maybe you are confusing it with de-googled-chromium et al?
Looking at you Google search results [1] (but I understand their motivation), however I do have one local company site that refuses to move beyond their loading splash in Firefox.
I guess I should be thankful it's no where near as bad as the IE6 days where HTML standards were completely disrespected in the quest for more market share.
[1]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/addon/google-search...
Problems would begin once we'll eventually get Chrome-specific functionality or something that Mozilla won't implement due to a variety of concerns, thus simply breaking sites: https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/
Then we'll basically be back in the days of IE, except that this time Google will be the ones with the browser monopoly, if we're not already there somewhat - the majority of folks haven't even heard of Firefox.
If Firefox won’t work, edge almost always will. I’m really trying not to download chrome again. I forgot chromium is an option. Is that not maintained by Google?
Firefox has been my daily driver for close to a decade, and I've not run into something that didn't work on it, but worked on Chrome.
So this might work for some (and in that case why not just change browsers?) but I wouldn't assume that Google will allow this to be a valid and widespread tactic.