The weird prejudice against FF is too strong. I wager that people will browse internet with spam over switching to a better browser. BeCaUsE iT iS SlOwWwWw or something along those lines.
That's setting a registry value and having Chrome settings pages telling you that "Your browser is managed" for another six months of V2 uBlock Origin.
As advertising is a huge part of Google's revenue, I'm surprised they've let an extension like uBlock Origin work on Chrome as long as they have. If you haven't tried Firefox in a while, it's time to give it another shot. If I could get Firefox to handle Microsoft Teams meetings, I wouldn't even have Chrome installed.
I've been using Brave and I recently decided to give Firefox another shot. I clicked an Amazon affiliate link from one of Ben Vallack's YouTube videos for a handheld espresso maker. Next thing I know I'm getting tons of ads on Facebook for espresso machines. This was with uBlock installed.
I never, _ever_ had that happen with Brave. In the context of Google deprecating MV2 - Brave's shields are hard coded into the Chromium chromebase and do not rely on MV2 or MV3 [1]. They will also be continuing support for MV2 extensions.
I'll push back and say Brave is far more than just Chrome with a different skin. Remember, it is a fork. That description is better suited for Edge or Opera.
I hear you on the concern about the browser engine monoculture. It's a concern of mine as well.
I guess what I should say is - _if_ you're going to use a chromium-based browser, you should probably use Brave.
I'm currently looking into Mull browser as it seems to be to Firefox what Brave is to Chrome.
Yea, Brave is a fork. And I might actually use it if it weren't for the "we change affiliate links to our own" and the crypto stuff.
Might actually give it a second chance now that Google is clearly hamstringing non-chromium browsers on Youtube. Both Firefox and Safari on macOS have weird loading issues - and I pay for Premium so it can't be adblock related.
Fork term is too vague as to become almost meaningless. Technically cloning software and changing a single letter anywhere is "a fork". It's just pointless for endusers.
So going by a letter of definition Chrome Brave is a fork, but by spirit of a definition it is not. Example - this topic right here. If it was a fork they would have forked the code and maintained Manifest V2 instead of V3, autonomously, like software forks do. But since it is not a real fork (in spirit of the word), they can't and don't want to do it, and simply accept every change the real code owner does, Google in this case.
Your point about Firefox not handling the Microsoft teams meeting is interesting as I have found that google meet video calls do not work well or at all on Firefox the last time I checked. my best guess is that this is Google trying to entrench their browser.
Well, it's not like Chrome and Chrome-clones users weren't warned about this outcome around ten thousand times over the last few years in every massmedia. Now the ball is on the user's side.
Does this also apply to Chrome-based browsers like Arc or Brave? Could they keep manifest v2 around on their own without relying on Google here?
Edit: I've googled around and it seems that yes, this would apply to all Chromium-based browsers, and all the clones are planning to solve the problem by rolling out their own adblocking, either native or ManifestV3-based.
This does not affect Brave entirely. It will affect MV2 extensions on Brave generally speaking, but it will not affect Brave's shields that are built in. See my response to another comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41181701
It will apply to all the other Chromium based browsers that are wrappers and not forks.
Having seen the writing on the wall, I moved from ungoogled-chromium to Firefox a few weeks ago. At first, I missed Chromium, but after getting a few extensions installed, I am so happy in the firefox world. Because of sidebery alone, I can't go back to Chromium. I have also been using:
I use ungoogled-chromium for precisely one reason: Teams meetings on Fedora (on my Windows machine at work they launch fine). If I had a non-shitty tablet I'd probably uninstall it. Btw, if you're a fan of Vimium, you may like to give Tridactyl a shot. I absolutely love it.
22 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 62.8 ms ] threadhttps://chromeenterprise.google/policies/#ExtensionManifestV...
https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate...
That's setting a registry value and having Chrome settings pages telling you that "Your browser is managed" for another six months of V2 uBlock Origin.
I never, _ever_ had that happen with Brave. In the context of Google deprecating MV2 - Brave's shields are hard coded into the Chromium chromebase and do not rely on MV2 or MV3 [1]. They will also be continuing support for MV2 extensions.
1. https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/ 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41158769
Note: There isn't really any discussion on that HN post, but perhaps this may spark some.
I'm against Chromium the engine's monopoly, not just Chrome. Monoculture is bad for the internet.
If it weren't for (mobile) Safari, we'd have a new IE situation on our hands.
I hear you on the concern about the browser engine monoculture. It's a concern of mine as well.
I guess what I should say is - _if_ you're going to use a chromium-based browser, you should probably use Brave.
I'm currently looking into Mull browser as it seems to be to Firefox what Brave is to Chrome.
Might actually give it a second chance now that Google is clearly hamstringing non-chromium browsers on Youtube. Both Firefox and Safari on macOS have weird loading issues - and I pay for Premium so it can't be adblock related.
So going by a letter of definition Chrome Brave is a fork, but by spirit of a definition it is not. Example - this topic right here. If it was a fork they would have forked the code and maintained Manifest V2 instead of V3, autonomously, like software forks do. But since it is not a real fork (in spirit of the word), they can't and don't want to do it, and simply accept every change the real code owner does, Google in this case.
Edit: I've googled around and it seems that yes, this would apply to all Chromium-based browsers, and all the clones are planning to solve the problem by rolling out their own adblocking, either native or ManifestV3-based.
It will apply to all the other Chromium based browsers that are wrappers and not forks.
Multi-Account Containers
Cookie Quick Manager
Decentraleyes
Open External Links in a Container
Sidebery
SponserBlock
uBlock
Vimium