this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
573 points (96.1% liked)

Technology

34977 readers
121 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 309 points 1 year ago (27 children)

Firefox.

Just thought I'd get that one out of the way early.

[–] BitsOfBeard@programming.dev 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I love Firefox, but we need more variety in browsers and Chromium is just making it worse! There has to be a way to make building browsers simpler without everyone ending up relying on the product that was designed to ruin the free internet.

[–] namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Yeah, the biggest problem with Firefox is that its engine is so hard to embed. Chrome has endless clones because it's just so damn easy to embed. And Firefox just has some weak forks like Librewolf.

I'd really rather see Mozilla focus on this rather than all their other stupid endeavors....

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What we actually need is more variety in rendering engines. There were never that many, and two or three (Presto, Trident, and Spartan if you count it) have been killed off within the past ten years. All that's left are two lineages: Google's Blink and its barely-threre parent WebKit (in Apple's Safari), and Mozilla's Gecko and its barely-there child Goanna (in Pale Moon).

Unfortunately, the rendering engine is probably the largest single chunk of code in a browser, and writing a new one (or even forking an existing one) is non-trivial.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rocha@lm.put.tf 16 points 1 year ago (12 children)

Sure, they just need to fix their annoying bugs on Android.

Everytime I leave a tab open and switch to another app, it's a 50/50 whether I return to a black screen and am forced to restart it or it just works fine.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (25 replies)
[–] nfsu2@feddit.cl 125 points 1 year ago

oh no, anyway... -Firefox users

[–] donut4ever@sh.itjust.works 119 points 1 year ago (13 children)

That, my friends, is why we kept fighting for firefox. It doesn't matter if you like or dislike Mozilla foundation, they have to exist because of shit like this

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] DirkMcCallahan@lemmy.world 88 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Thank goodness for Firefox. Google is really doing their best to make the Internet unusable.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 73 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Google justified this change by highlighting how extensions using the Web Request API could access and modify all the data in a network request, essentially being able to change everything that a user could do on the web (~~which is pretty scary and problematic when you think about it~~ which is a perfectly valid usecase of a user-installed extension).

[–] gever4ever@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago

I mean what else do I want it to do if not ~~modify~~ extend my usage of the web?

[–] Kodemystic@lemmy.kodemystic.dev 60 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is good new if you ask me: more people switching to firefox

[–] kionite231@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 year ago (4 children)

People don't even know about manifest v3 let alone switching to Firefox. They will just use whatever google throws at them.

[–] el_abuelo@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago

This was true of IE too.

All of this has happened before, and will happen again.

load more comments (3 replies)

Guess I just need to keep using firefox. shrug

[–] yoz@aussie.zone 49 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Goddamnit I missed out again, faaaackkk! Why do i keep using Firefox ? Why?

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

Because you don't randomly insist that your tab UI is some extremely fucking specific way that is somehow required to use the Internet! The nerve!

[–] Strayce@lemmy.sdf.org 41 points 1 year ago

Well what did you expect from an advertising company with a side hustle in web search.

[–] corbin@infosec.pub 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This article is really wrong, wow. There is already a Manifest V3-compliant version of uBlock Origin, it's discussed in this thread: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338

I don't know if it's stated definitively anywhere, but I'm pretty sure the plan is to roll out that different version to Chrome users as an update to the existing extension. It's going to be slightly worse because MV3 is still missing some API features.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

that version works but it's always been a lite version compared to the standard ublock origin with far less capabilities and features.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Z3k3@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I could have sworn I saw something saying Google caved on this due to pressure.

[–] canis_majoris@lemmy.ca 42 points 1 year ago (5 children)

They pushed it back. They've done so several times with Manifest V3.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's an important distinction. Whenever trillion dollar tech companies say they're not going to do something hugely unpopular and selfish because of public sentiment, what they really mean is they're not going to do it right then. Instead they back off, do something like this to get everyone's attention focused elsewhere, and then they'll push the original unpopular idea anyways, but quietly.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Tibert@jlai.lu 18 points 1 year ago

It was something else. Web drm : Web Integrity API.

Tho I don't think they canceled the mobile variant of it for apps.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] rob299@bookwormstory.social 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People all this stress can be avoided if more channels upload videos on peertube. U block origin wouldnt even be needed as generally no ads are on peertube.

[–] meteokr@community.adiquaints.moe 29 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Peertube doesn't give ad revenue sharing, so most content creators can't afford to make content for a platform with no return. If someone was uploading a video for their friends, or a school project, then sure, open platforms are perfect.

[–] anachronist@midwest.social 15 points 1 year ago

Vast majority of creators make pennies from youtube ads. They make their money from patreon and sponsorship, neither of which are incompatible with peertube.

The biggest problem vis-a-vis youtube is that people won't find you if you are not on it and blessed by the algorithm. Youtube is a monopoly because of metcalfe's law.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] GreenMario@lemm.ee 21 points 1 year ago

Enshitification continues.

[–] OrkneyKomodo@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 1 year ago

Amazing how versioning can give an air of legitimacy through the illusion of progress.

[–] intelisense@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I suppose this will affect chromium too?

[–] Dirk@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago

Since Chrome does not "disable uBlock Origin" but Google deprecating manifest V2 in favor of manifest V3 it will be done in Chromium because Chromium does the heavy lifting and Chrome is "just a Chromium based browser".

[–] mtchristo@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They have been postponing it for a long time now. But uBlock origin has a light version they expect to work with V3. I wonder why they bother in the first place when they can just focus on Firefox

[–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 15 points 1 year ago (7 children)

But uBlock origin has a light version they expect to work with V3

It just "kinda" works. It cannot nearly load all the network filters that it would normally use.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] red@sopuli.xyz 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Didn't expect the day to come when I can no longer use Chromium based browsers.

Oh well, anyway.

[–] Veticia@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 year ago (23 children)

Not sponsored, I just genuinely like the product. Adguard doesn't require manifests because it works outside the browser.

On the other news I hope this bullshit is finally the straw that kills chrome.

[–] ShortN0te@lemmy.ml 31 points 1 year ago

Not sponsored, I just genuinely like the product. Adguard doesn't require manifests because it works outside the browser.

But trivial to circumvent. Just change the origin url from (for example) 'ads.google.com' to 'google.com' and you no longer can block ads based on DNS blocking.

While it is now not a hugh thread it will eventually happen when they manage to eradicate adblockers in the browser.

[–] utubas@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ublock origin is far way more advanced and complete than adguard, though. Cosmetic filtering, for example

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›