It is directly supported and maintained from Google, which then bases Chrome on that project adding some proprietary code. So I think yes, it is doomed
Just use firefox? Wtf
LibreWolf. Cut out the Mozilla spying, too.
Adblockers will still be allowed, they will just be crippled a lot. It will probably be the same as the adblocking situation on Safari.
If any 3rd party browser vendor wants to maintain a Chromium fork with Manifest V2, they can do so, but with the risk of code maintenance hell. They would also need an extension store for Manifest V2 extensions. Otherwise V2 extensions needs to be installed manually.
Browser vendors can also create their own separate ad blockers that aren't affected by the changes. For example Brave Shields, Vivaldi adblock, Opera adblock, etc.
Idk why people even try to use chromium garbage when Firefox exists. So many problems suddenly disappear
In my case mainly because Firefox doesn't have per site isolation , the same level of security as Chromium and a webview implementation.
There are a few more layers to this problem that no one seems to acknowledge.
What if someone DID come out of the woods and provided a Chromium fork that put Mv2 support back in. Then what? How do you install those extensions? Google won't be allowing Mv2 extensions in their store anymore. Supposedly you'd need to download it directly from the developer and install it manually. That's not great UX.
Maybe if the dev community came up with an alternative web store implementation that allowed Mv2 extensions, but that comes with a lot of other problems, to name a few: dev effort, costs for hosting the web app for the store and hosting the extensions themselves (which wouldn't necessarily be expensive, but wouldn't be free either), approval workflows for the extensions, etc. Thing is, though, all of that would require from devs a clear roadmap and a level of coordination that from my seat here, I don't see a hint of it happening.
All of the above: either having a Chromium fork that allows installing Mv2 extensions manually, or implementing an alternative web store, is not a trivial effort, and then how many people will actually benefit from it? Those really concerned with effective adblocking, like us, are a tiny minority of the user base. Would the effort of maintaining a Chromium fork and/or a free(dom) webstore be worth it if very few people will actually use it?
I hate to say it, but yeah, Mv2 is doomed. I didn't want to go back to Firefox, but I guess I'll have to.
Firefox already runs a web store that supports v2 extensions and is open source. But... You'd just be chasing your tail forever trying to keep your fork of chromium updated until you gave up and forked it. We've seen this happen too often.
trying to keep your fork of chromium updated until you gave up and forked it
?
Maybe have the fork allow installing .xpi formats and freeload off the Firefox store? Since Firefox’s extension API is basically the same extension API but with the chrome namespace renamed to browser, it shouldn’t be that big of a hassle if someone was willing to do it
Why don’t you want to go back to Firefox? If you hate Mozilla just use a fork like Waterfox
My gripe is Mozilla not implementing PWA''s (for reasons I have no idea), and then the whole thing with privacy pass (because they're too afraid of centralization of any kind despite being a multi-million dollar non-profit).
I seriously do hate that Firefox is going to be my only option on a couple of months for ad blocking. Because I strongly doubt it's going to get any better between now and June given the rate that Mozilla develops that and how little they listen to their userbase.
As for all the forks out there, they usually don't have a mobile equivalent to go with them so they're only half decent to me.
Why don’t you want to go back to Firefox? If you hate Mozilla just use a fork like Waterfox
Nothing specifically against Mozilla. As far as big techs go, they all have their hands covered in mud in some way. If anyhing, Mozilla would be one of the less dirty of them. As most everything else these days, rallying behind a big tech (as if that made any sense at all) is a matter of picking your poison.
My peeve with Firefox is that I think that it's just an overall worse browser, in terms of design and architecture, than Chromium, and it shows as it being mostly behind it in performance. As a software developer myself, this is important to me for an application that is a central part of my everyday life. I do use it sometimes as an alternate browser, and I realize that Firefox got a lot of improvement in the last few years, and that it's performance nowadays is really close to Chromium, but it all feel like lipstick on a pig kind of thing. I also quite dislike Mozilla's choices in UI design - every time they change it, it seems to be for the worse, as opposed to Chromium that has kept pretty much the same since its inception, with just relatively subtle changes since then.
I know I'll eventually get used to it, I guess I just dislike being forced to change.
Many chromium browsera already have inbuilt adblockers that aren't extensions, so they won't be affected by MV3.
OTOH, MV3 versions of uBO and AdGuard are already more than enough for 99.9% of people.
So no, nothing will change, despite Mozilla's undeserved fans' hopes.
have inbuilt adblockers that aren't extensions
yeah but they are way less powerful than uBlock Origin. I tried Brave, just out of curiosity, and shields is a crippled uBO.
There are plenty of chromium browsers like brave that will keep the feature alive. I suspect it'll just become a compile time option. I'd be surprised if there weren't enterprise customers on Chrome that will need v2 manifests for years.
The real question is what webstore will host the extensions...
That's like asking if I can resist reading a book. Sure I could, but I want to read a book - why would I resist?
this analogy does not make any sense.
Hehe, I can be more explicit: why would Chromium "resist" MV3 when the Chromium developers are the ones pushing it?
Yes that's a 1:1 comparison.
