Google's "Manifest V2" Chrome extension phaseout next month is expected to impact the original uBlock Origin extension, which still uses the V2 framework and has 37 million users
Google's "Manifest V2" Chrome extension phaseout next month is expected to impact the original uBlock Origin extension, which still uses the V2 framework and has 37 million users
Starting Monday, users will gradually be warned the end is near
The new MV3 architecture reflects Google's avowed desire to make browser extensions more performant, private, and secure. But the internet giant's attempt to do so has been bitterly contested by makers of privacy-protecting and content-blocking extensions, who have argued that the Chocolate Factory's new software architecture will lead to less effective privacy and content-filtering extensions.
For users of uBlock Origin, which runs on Manifest V2, "options" means using the less capable uBlock Origin Lite, which supports Manifest V3.
You're viewing a single thread.
For those looking to move beyond Chrome, there are alternatives that come pre-installed with uBlock Origin and are considered better than Firefox:
This project is a custom and independent version of Firefox, with the primary goals of privacy, security and user freedom.
LibreWolf is designed to increase protection against tracking and fingerprinting techniques, while also including a few security improvements. This is achieved through our privacy and security oriented settings and patches. LibreWolf also aims to remove all the telemetry, data collection and annoyances, as well as disabling anti-freedom features like DRM.
The Mullvad Browser is developed – in collaboration between Mullvad VPN and the Tor Project – to minimize tracking and fingerprinting. It is designed to be used with a trustworthy VPN instead of the Tor Network. It does not require the use of Mullvad's VPN.
Looks up LibreWolf on AUR
Holy dependencies batman!
What do you mean by that?
(I'm a filthy casual)It just has a crap load of software packages it depends on to work properly (though a number of them seem like fonts). I have reasonably fast computer, and it's been compiling for about 45 minutes at this point.
Use librewolf-bin or just use the flatpak
Just did with librewolf-bin, thanks. I always forget to look for the binary packages specifically on AUR.
Ah compile... guess I'll stick with regular Firefox. There are some magiks I don't tamper with.
You don't need to compile it. There's a flatpak, and the AUR has a binary package
How is the flatpak system? I've never dug into it.
It's really nice. It's compatible with all Linux distros and it provides some configurable sandboxing via bubblewrap that you don't get with other repos. The sandboxing is easilly configurable using a GUI like Flatseal.
Interesting, thanks for the insight. One of these days I'll spin up a VM to play around with it.
I'm guessing you don't already use Linux? Just keep in mind that with a VM, the GPU has to be emulated (except for edge cases, like passing through a hardware GPU or going headless), which will heavilly impact performance. There is also the option of dipping your toe using a live USB stick (basically every distro has this as an option), but that has its own performance penalty due to running off of a USB stick.
I'd recommend actually installing it to try it out to get the full performance of your hardware, and to make sure that everything you have is compatible (most hardware is compatible out of the box)
I finally got back on the horse a few months ago after about a 10 year hiatus from the Linux world, and I am just cautious about what I install because I've borked many distro installs over the years. Since my DD is also for work, and I don't have the downtime to troubleshoot or reinstall because I went on a package install spree without doing my due diligence on what the packages I'm installing are actually doing, I'd rather take Flatpak for a spin through an Arch VM just to get a feel for it and any kinks I might encounter.
A lot has changed in the past decade, and while I'm amazed at the stability these days, I still err on the side of caution, and also don't want to fill up my install with a bunch of random stuff I don't actually need. Same reason I'm also cautious about using AUR. I know dependency hell has very much improved, but call it PTSD for lack of a better term.
I mean, if you're intimidated by compiling you probably shouldn't be using Arch to begin with.
(I'm hoping that you didn't understand the "on AUR" part of the comment as well as the "dependencies" part, and actually use a more reasonable distro that isn't subject to the issue @bobs_monkey is complaining about.)
You're right. I don't even know what Arch is to want to try and use it.
-
Arch is a Linux distribution that intentionally requires a bunch of relatively-complicated manual steps to install, so "I use Arch BTW" has become a meme among people who want to brag about how 'l33t' they are.
-
AUR is Arch's package manager.
-
A package manager is a software database that lets you easily install apps with a single command (e.g.
[tool-name] install [app-name]) along with all the software libraries they depend on (i.e. their 'dependencies'), such that you only need one copy of each library no matter how many apps use it.
(Without a package manager, there are two other ways installing apps can work: either an app can come with its own copy of all its dependencies, which means it takes up a lot of disk space unnecessarily, or the user can be responsible for installing all the dependencies separately, which is a gigantic pain in the ass. Windows takes the former approach, while Linux, before package managers were invented, tended to do the latter because open-source software was distributed mostly as source code you had to compile and link yourself.)
-
You don't need to compile it. There's a librewolf-bin package which provides a precompiled binary, or you can use the Flatpak.
Anyone that's used Librewolf mind offering their opinion on it? That description sounds pretty sweet.
It's the best. Deletes all cookies and browsing data on exit by default. I changed it to keep history and cookies for a handful of sites
Turned up uBO to strict mode and installed JShelter to get rid of most clientside fingerprinting (this will cause some breakage on a site by site basis though, which is quick to be fixed. Mostly on sites that are dynamically managed by JS instead of the way it's meant to be)
What's jshtler is this like noscrypt?
Not really, NoScript prevents executing all JavaScript by default. JShelter instead strongly limits what JS can do and spoofs some values to throw of fingerprinters. It also has a network boundary shield (mostly blocking cross sites post/get requests. Same for lan to prevent your local network being scanned etc). And it comes with a fingerprint detector which allows you to see which websites want to track you the most (I avoid those whenever possible)
Deletes all cookies and browsing data on exit by default
This would make for an extremely annoying browsing experience.
True
That's why I changed it to keep all history and cookies on pages I whitelisted
It is pretty sweet. Used it as my main browser for a year. It comes pretty hardened. Try it out for sure its worth it.
I quite enjoy using it. Stays out of the way, boots instantly, is very plain looking.
In my experience, the Flatpak variant of Firefox on Linux is the swiftest among Firefox-based browsers.
It's a bit too restrictive by default imo, good for privacy but you will need to change quite a few setting if you want to browse normally.
Despite my opinion it's the browser I use most on my laptop.
I've had librewolf specific bugs absent in firefox, definitely not a strict upgrade.
It's great. It's essentially Firefox, but without the unnecessary bullshit like Sponsored sites or Pocket integration, and it has some quite significant privacy and security improvements. Also comes with uBlock Origin pre-installed.
I've used Librewolf until pretty recently and I say it's not for everyone. It's hardened Firefox made into its own thing for people who want the benefits of hardened Firefox but don't want to go through the effort of hardening their Firefox install.
There are some sites that wouldn't work in the strictest settings. As far as I remember, the most problematic sites with Librewolf are those that demand way too much in terms of privacy and security, so I took it as a given that if a site doesn't work with Librewolf (with me using the default settings), it's not worth it to enter to begin with.