Chrome.userScripts API requires developer mode | Hacker News Reader

Chrome.userScripts API requires developer mode

developer.chrome.com

79 pointsnavels22 comments

The requirement is not without side-effects.

From the chrome developer group[1]

> The devmode switch also enables other features e.g. chrome.declarativeNetRequest.onRuleMatchedDebug which may severely reduce the performance of the content blocking extensions, depending on how it's used.

Unless they are happy with degraded performance or needing to switch to developer mode often, users may have to chose between ad-blocking and custom scripts.

Chrome's current stance is that users have no right/legitimate business case running custom scripts on a site. You are allowed to do it only in the context of development. On the flip-side, this also means some features in development mode can potentially be restricted in the future saying they are non-essential for development.

Given all these hostile decisions, it is still our choice on whether we want to switch to a better browser or become the proverbial frog in the pot.

[1] https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/chromium-extensio...

This anti-user stance combined with WEI would have been the end of the web as we know it.

No doubt they will try again in 3 years.

Adblock browser vs non. adblock browser is a pretty easy and quick choice.

> Unless they are happy with degraded performance or needing to switch to developer mode often, users may have to chose between ad-blocking and custom scripts.

Just going by the name, chrome.declarativeNetRequest.onRuleMatchedDebug, I'd expect that to be something that has to explicitly be used. Enabling developer mode would make it available which they say might reduce the performance "depending on how it's used", but would a production release of an ad-blocker extension be using it?

I'm unable to edit. So quick update:

As per [1], the chrome.declarativeNetRequest.onRuleMatchedDebug is available only for unpacked extensions i.e. local extensions with a specific permission. So, I'm not sure under what context there will be a performance impact.

Anyone more familiar with internals of chrome and/or extension development in general can clarify if there are any downsides to enabling dev mode permanently.

[1] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/api/d...

A lot of people run with developer mode enabled permanently, especially extension developers, both professional and amateur.

I've seen no downsides myself.

Pertains to user scripts injected by MV3 extensions. Noticed this when my Tampermonkey extension updated today with this message:

Enabling developer mode will soon become mandatory for running userscripts via Tampermonkey.

Not a big deal for me, I have extension dev mode on all the time, but ymmv.

Some discussion here: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/chromium-extensio...

They already make it hard enough that you need to get an extension to run extensions. That's so lame.

It simply puts up friction for the non-technical user from adopting these user scripts. The stated goal of google is to prevent malware from extensions, but i suspect the real goal is of course, prevent the browser from being changed by the user in a way that google doesn't like.

Currently I maintain a user script for myself and about 10 much-less-technical colleagues, which they install with Violent Monkey. With this change the ones who use Chrome will need to enable extension developer mode. Are there consequences to that, or is it just an extra step?

Just an extra step, it's a single toggle in about:extensions. Bonus: it let's them use extensions on their filesystem instead of only the chrome webstore.

It's a single step for now...

Why not just use Firefox?

I have no clue why people are so shocked about this. Being able to run arbitrary code makes extensions nearly impossible to audit. There are so many malicious extensions out there, surely there has to be some checks on them. How else would the chrome extension store be able to prevent apps like Honey from harvesting all of your personal data?

Also, users can check one box in chrome settings in order to go around this. It’s a bit too easy to bypass IMO.

Related ongoing thread:

Tampermonkey: Dev Mode will become mandatory for running userscripts in Chromium - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38533213 - Dec 2023 (75 comments)

Not an issue if you use Firefox like a cool kid

Shame, Google keeps alienating me further from their software. There isn't a single business on this planet qualified to tell me how my computing should be. If I want Hannah Montana GIFs on every form element then damnit I should have the ability to do it.

Any browser that gets between me and control over what comes over the wire, or the filesystem, is obsolete and user hostile.

> Shame, Google keeps alienating me further from their software.

Then don't wait to jump ship, you know where things are going.. Otherwise you'll just get used to this latest round of user-hostile moves, then the next time you'll say the same thing after this is normalized.. and so on...

The flip side of this is that if you threaten to bail every time there's a "user-hostile move", you'll quickly run out of software/products to use. A few years ago there were users complaining about firefox being "user-hostile" because of [mr robot promo/pocket/addon signing/whatever], but if you bailed on firefox because those what are you going to use?

In my case: Waterfox.

The statement "if you threaten to bail every time there's a user-hostile move, you'll quickly run out of software/products to use" seems true at first, but the longer one thinks about it, the less it makes sense.

If the argument is that all browsers have some user-hostile features, I disagree only meekly. If the argument is that all browsers are equally user-hostile, I disagree strongly.

I already don't use them for my own stuff, and have recommended against them when asked. They're just ensuring that I start discounting anything of theirs without consideration or benefit of the doubt.

The doubt's run dry.

Every user of Chrome or its skins, and every developer shipping Electron based applications has contributed to this state of affairs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com