Chrome Canary just killed uBlock Origin and other Manifest V2 extensions
The Chrome Canary in the coal mine just went silent, as uBlock Origin and other Manifest V2 extensions can no longer be re-enabled via flags
You're viewing a single thread.
And what? If someone can live with ads, they can stay. Otherwise anyone can install Firefox. I was all-in Google since the beginning of Gmail. And switching to Firefox was completely painless. Everything works the same, times of website incompatibility are long gone.
Because Google is trying to turn the internet into a walled garden where only people with Chrome can visit the majority of websites.
I've been been a full time Firefox user for three years now. Haven't experience a single problem like that. Haven't really experienced any problem at all to be honest
Unfortunately that has not been the case for me. Some sites for buying concert tickets don't seem to like Firefox.
I've had problems with several Microsoft sites we use internally for work ever since Edge went to Chrome.
It's not Firefox's fault. Mozilla is abiding by web standards.
If you find any websites that don't work with firefox, you should report them to Mozilla. Firefox has a list of known bad websites, and has fixes for them, usually just a user agent override.
Your past experiences with Firefox are irrelevant because we're talking about the future.
I know. My experience with Chrome used to be good too. And we all know what's up now.
If Firefox fucks up, I'm fine with abandoning ship and moving on to the next thing. I'm not sure what that would be, but I'm sure I'll figure that out once we get there.
That's the problem. Google is working so that there's not going to be a next thing.
That is concerning, but Internet Explorer used to be the only option too. Of course things are different now, but I have faith (for lack of anything else).
That was for a different reason, though. That was Microsoft forcing you to use their software on something you owned. A website can say, "you have to use chrome to access our site," and that's not antitrust behavior on the part of Google.
There always is a next thing. It's called Gemini and it has the problem of guys like Google fixed by having a non-extensible standard.
I'm not joking, too - sometimes even wide masses become practical and just want "no bullshit" Internet publishing. Which Gemini delivers.
But - would be interesting to have something like Gemini, but serverless.
Thats the thing.
There is basically no alternative. Firefox exists on the mercy of google which is its biggest donor.
There are very few attempts at a truly open source browser and neither can tackle the biggest problem, which is google pushing websites to adopt their standards, weaponizing ad income to guarantee compliance.
Currently more then 80% of internet users have a chromium browser while websites creation for many entities is often outsourced out of lack of own IT knowledge. When firefox dies there will be no economic insensitive to build sites accessible by anything but chromium.
Low key i wish this fires back into anarchy. I hate the corporate web and the only sites i like to see are those free of economic insensitive and all in on an ethical free digital world.
Incentive
I tried YouTube in Chrome on desktop (for about 2 minutes) and I didn't notice any difference. I'll just keep using NewPipe on my phone though.
Do you use YouTube?
NewPipe exclusively. YouTube has been unusable long before I fully moved back to FireFox.
Smart choice. YouTube has been fucking Firefox users for a while now. Implementing stuff like a 5s wait to load videos.
Maybe part of the monopoly ruling will have chrome taken away from them.
What if websites decide that chrome users earn much more ad revenue and start forcing users to switch with those "This website only supports Chrome" error messages? What if this practice gets popular? I'm sure there are ways to get around it, but the average users who bothered switching to Firefox at all, will just conclude that anything except chrome has a bad browsing experience.
Can't you have your Firefox browser just report itself as chrome?
You certainly can. They don't know what you're doing.
It's all fun and games till they check for web USB support. They don't need to actually use web USB but it's a telltale sign that you're not on Chrome.
A plugin could very easily have Firefox claim to support WebUSB, but return no devices or junk devices. Some of the anti-fingerprinting add-ons already do, iirc.
You get my point though, all they need to do is start supporting a feature that's not easy to spoof.
The real defense against this is for people to refuse to use Chrome. It's not the tail that wags the dog, Make The Firefox user base so big the developers can't ignore it. Basically IE all over again
I agree with your conclusion, but as long as they're offering data up for download to your machine, they really can't control how you access it or what application you use for it. That doesn't mean it'll be easy, but even if it requires reverse-engineering some website DRM, somebody's going to do it. And if Chromium remains FOSS, it won't even be terribly difficult.
Remember, they tried to defeat ad blockers on YouTube, and they gave up because it wasn't worth it. uBO was updating to block their attempts within hours. They've tested inserting the ads in the video stream, but that's probably also not going to last for long.
They're trying to assert an ownership over the Web; and yes, the best way to defeat it is to build a strong and united resistance against it. But even if we don't, there are ways to quietly refuse to comply.
i never understood how those messages work? like how would using firefox ruin your website? or how they even detect firefox in the first place lmfao
They can in theory make tricks showing that you are using an ad blocker or a specific browser. Even if you set Chrome's user agent in Firefox.
I personally wouldn't make such effort to use such websites then.
Browsers have user-agent identifiers, websites can see what browser and what version you use.
They are mostly used to run browser-dependent code to avoid some things breaking in some browsers.
Then apple would whip out their giant throbbing cock and smack them with it because they want people using safari.
Visit about:compat. Sites already do that. Firefox can deal.
times of website incompatibility are long gone
I wish I could agree with that. Hell, I have to use Chrome to download my phone bill from Virgin, and a couple of others don't work.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming FF. It's these lazy web developers that only target Chrome. I'm sure Safari users get the same shit experience.
I've cried also in dev a lot in the past, but mostly don't cry so much anymore
Issue is, a lot of people think the only browser in existence is "google". I even had people looking me at funny for having an e-mail address ending in outlookcom rather than the usual gmailcom, and not because of some anti-MS sentiment, but because they thought e-mail was invented by Google, hance the name "gmail".
but because they thought e-mail was invented by Google, hance the name “gmail”.
Life is scary.
I really wish Firefox implemented easily switchable browser profiles. I am use Firefox mainly but for work I'll still use edge so I can use this feature.
I don't know exactly what part of a separate profile you are after, so this may not be a 100% substitute, but I found container tabs in Firefox to work quite well (with some extensions to improve UX). It's still the same profile though, so passwords and history are shared.
firefox.exe -P -no-remote
Yep so happy with Firefox having switched back a couple years ago.
some people dont want firefox bcs its kinda slower then chromium based tbh but it aint bad am not saying firefox is bad
They're not that different any longer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36770883
Oh
Everything works the same, times of website incompatibility are long gone.
Not completely true. It's mostly true. I've daily driven Firefox for years, and the number of websites I've crossed that wouldn't function in it correctly but would work just fine in Chrome was very slim... but not zero. Definitely not comparable to the complete shitshow of the 90's and 00's. That's true. But it's not a completely solved problem.
And with Mozilla's leadership practically looking for footguns to play with combined with the threat of Google's sugar daddy checks drying up soon due to the antitrust suit (how utterly ironic that busting up the monopoly would actually harm the only competition...), that gap can get much worse in very little time if resources to keep full time devs paid disappear.
