~~https://www.neowin.net/news/ublock-origin-developer-recommends-switching-to-ublock-lite-as-chrome-flags-the-extension/~~

EDIT: Apologies. Updated with a link to what gorhill REALLY said:

Manifest v2 uBO will not be automatically replaced by Manifest v3 uBOL[ight]. uBOL is too different from uBO for it to silently replace uBO – you will have to explicitly make a choice as to which extension should replace uBO according to your own prerogatives.

Ultimately whether uBOL is an acceptable alternative to uBO is up to you, it’s not a choice that will be made for you.

Will development of uBO continue? Yes, there are other browsers which are not deprecating Manifest v2, e.g. Firefox.

  • @uzay@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1114 months ago

    What the uBlock dev actually said:

    https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/wiki/About-Google-Chrome’s-“This-extension-may-soon-no-longer-be-supported”

    Manifest v2 uBO will not be automatically replaced by Manifest v3 uBOL[ight]. uBOL is too different from uBO for it to silently replace uBO – you will have to explicitly make a choice as to which extension should replace uBO according to your own prerogatives.

    Ultimately whether uBOL is an acceptable alternative to uBO is up to you, it’s not a choice that will be made for you.

    Will development of uBO continue? Yes, there are other browsers which are not deprecating Manifest v2, e.g. Firefox.

    • @M0oP0o@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      84 months ago

      Guess you get to find out if this will be effecting all of chromium or just chrome…

      • @0oWow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        24 months ago

        Brave has added a feature to explicitly enable MV2 apps and install uBo directly from Brave settings. You can also install uMatrix and Adguard MV2 versions also.

          • @0oWow@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -24 months ago

            And jump to the clone? Mozilla isn’t better (consider their recent Ad Privacy clone), they just have less market share.

            That said, I use Firefox and Brave. Whatever I feel like at the time.

            • @M0oP0o@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              7
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              The clone? Are you implying that mozilla (founded 1998) is a clone of chrome (first launched 2008)?

              Just use anything but chome or chromium if you can. Just don’t feed the beast now known as alphabet.

            • @megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              44 months ago

              There are plenty of browsers built on Gecko that aren’t fire fox. So if you don’t trust Mozilla to build your browser, and don’t want your ad blocker bricked by Google, you have options.

      • Traister101
        link
        fedilink
        English
        34 months ago

        Brave is forked from Chromium so hypothetically they could maintain V2 but they’d need their own store as they currently rely on Googles

  • @watson387@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1504 months ago

    I only use Firefox and have for the past few years. Yesterday I tried to schedule an appointment to get my oil changed at the dealer but was unable because the process on the site just flat-out breaks on Firefox. This is not a complaint about Firefox, but the fact that Chrome is so popular that some websites only work with Chrome. I don’t have a Chromium-based browser installed (besides Edge, which I’ve never opened intentionally) and I despise being on the phone (which is why I was trying to schedule online in the first place), so I just didn’t make the appointment. I’ll go somewhere else to get my oil changed. Sorry for the rant but it was extremely frustrating.

    • @ripcord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      24 months ago

      Are you sure that it was Firefox itself? I find the few times something like that has come up, it was because of extensions (like adblocl, actually).

      Delta’s website started blocking me due to using Dark Reader, apparently something about detecting that the contents of the page were being altered. And another site worked fine when I disabled unlock; I assume because it was blocking loading some .js that was actually being used for something other than just ads.

    • mox
      link
      fedilink
      English
      98
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Chrome is so popular that some websites only work with Chrome.

      It’s the Internet Explorer problem all over again, but this time from an even more invasive company.

      The more people choosing non-Chomium browsers, the better. Keeping them popular enough that most sites have to support them is the only way to preserve what little agency people still have on the mainstream web.

      • @TrickDacy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        574 months ago

        Not necessarily. The problem is often that chrome JavaScript implementation can be ever so slightly different from FFs. Or just that the web devs wrote fragile code that is barely working on chrome and doesn’t work on other browsers, where they failed to test.

        • Prison Mike
          link
          fedilink
          English
          4
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Adding to this, Firefox’s JavaScript is much more strict than others (which I love). As a web developer I prioritize testing it in Firefox because it’s helped me find bugs other browsers just plow through.

          Personally I use Safari daily and the number of websites that are broken due to poor security (but function fine in Chrome) is alarming. Chrome doesn’t even check content type on <iframe> last time I checked.

          • @TrickDacy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            24 months ago

            I tend to agree with you. Normally if something doesn’t work in firefox it makes sense, but less often is that the case in chrome.

            I am fascinated by the idea of a web developer choosing to use Safari, honestly, though. Can I ask why? For me, the hesitancy of adopting new web standards, the lack of a real extensions, and lack of support for non-Apple OSes… combined with lots of random bugs that I only ever see so often in Safari, I absolutely loathe that browser. And I feel like being a web developer conditioned me to feel this way. And then there’s the business practice concerns (Apple selectively supporting new web features with the intention of keeping native apps seen as superior, because it makes them money)… but even ignoring this, I’m a Safari-hater through and through. It feels like Internet Explorer 7 vs Firefox to me.

            On iOS I have to support a few major versions of Safari back and it’s nightmarish at times. For certain featuresets, you absolutely cannot assume things will probably work like you can with FF/Chromium browsers and it makes me so ragey sometimes. I’ve been spending the last few weeks trying to workaround an issue in various Safari iOS versions, and it’s not the first time I’ve been in this situation.

            I’m curious – what versions of Safari are you required to support on the job?

            • Prison Mike
              link
              fedilink
              English
              24 months ago

              Personally

              This was my poor attempt to mean “as an end-user.” I just love that it’s tied in to the Apple ecosystem and the UI is so much cleaner than other browsers.

              I’ve tried to make the switch to others but they always feel very clunky. I love Firefox to death but it looks awful (at least on macOS). I’m not a big extension guy because I’m filtering DNS and IP traffic at the network layer — if we’re talking about ad blocking, tracking and the like it doesn’t make sense to only protect against it in the browser, as apps tend to send traffic to the very same domains as the websites.

              I actually hate the trend of apps being nothing more than a wrapper around web applications. It comes off as lazy development, and I miss native apps (regardless of platform) instead of these creepy wrappers around web applications. So I actually have to agree with Apple there.

              As for browser support, my team works on an internal-only app and our security policy doesn’t allow outdated browsers, so there’s no hard rules when it comes to browser support.

              • @TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                14 months ago

                I use a lot of extensions for a lot of various reasons. Privacy and ad blocking are only two of them. For development purposes, UI preferences, making common actions easier to access, disabling website features I don’t like, re-enabling ones I do, the list goes on and on.

                I’m a bit confused about your app vs web comment. What I’m saying is that instead of allowing the web ecosystem to evolve at an organic pace by keeping up with the rest of browsers, apple puts their thumb on the scale, choosing not to support things, so that installing an app works better. This isn’t a matter of comparing ways of building a downloadable app, it’s a matter of them guarding against users quickly accessing a web app without needing to download something from their store (which provides them with profits). They even make money on free apps now!

                The entire state of the web is held back because iOS is so popular, and Safari is always behind on feature support especially on iOS. And it really irks me. Many times every browser we support will support a really nice feature, except safari. And sometimes even the latest safari doesn’t support something even though the others have for years!

                You are lucky not having to support old versions of Safari. The latest safari is always somewhat reasonable to support but Jesus… try supporting anything of complexity on iOS 14. So painful.

          • Victor
            link
            fedilink
            English
            544 months ago

            Out of principle, I refuse to pretend I am not browsing with Firefox. 🦊❤️✊ Let website statistics show! And I will boycott sites that break due to not testing on multiple browsers!

            • @dmtalon@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              104 months ago

              That works until it’s your bank or credit card website. I cannot use Capital One’s (CC) “pay bill” any longer.

            • teft
              link
              fedilink
              English
              104 months ago

              I thought like that until youtube started intentionally slowing firefox identifying clients. As soon as I changed my user-agent to match chrome’s the speed was back to normal.

              • @MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                104 months ago

                Lol I blocked all but essential JS on YouTube with NoScript and never faced any problems at all. Videos load just fine without extra penalties.

    • @cultsuperstar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      354 months ago

      Man, you never worked for a large corporation that that had internal web based apps that only work on Internet Explorer and refused to update it.

      • @flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        7
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I worked somewhere like that back in the 2008-2010 time frame. Thankfully, there was a extension, I believe the name was “IETab”, that would spawn a new tab in Trident (IE’s browser engine). So you could set certain sites to launch in one of those tabs and everything else would use standard Firefox. None of the people I supported were any the wiser. They just thought everything worked in Firefox.

        Granted it was only that seamless because Windows already had that rendering engine built in. There are some extensions that do something similar with Chrome, but because of more modern security standards and whatnot you have to install extension helper applications which is gross.

    • @mke@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Oh, how I get you! I managed to switch to Firefox after a while, but it took some adapting, and still I miss some of Vivaldi’s features. That sidebar is simply fantastic.

  • NutWrench
    link
    fedilink
    English
    114 months ago

    UBlock for Chrome is going away, no matter what Google says about Manifest.

  • @Suavevillain@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    224 months ago

    Welcome to Firefox to anyone who is switching. I use a fork for Firefox (Floorp) Becuase I like it’s features.

  • @Katana314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    54 months ago

    Not quite on topic, but: This past week developers at my company have been slammed by the Chrome DevTools debugger freezing when you hit a breakpoint. There’s been no tracked bug and no timeline from Chrome on a fix. It’s been a little bit of a lesson in having just one browser engine.

  • @Dju@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3744 months ago

    Comment from gorhill (the developer of uBO and uBOL):

    I didn’t recommend to switch to uBO Lite, the article made that up. I merely pointed out Google Chrome currently presents uBO Lite as an alternative (along with 3 other content blockers), explained what uBO Lite is, and concluded that it may or may not be considered an acceptable alternative, it’s for each person to decide.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1ejhpu5/comment/lgdmthd/

    • @Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1534 months ago

      “uBlock Origin developer slams NeoWin, backpedals on recommendation!” —NeoWin editors, probably.

      • TeoTwawki
        link
        fedilink
        English
        614 months ago

        Sounds about right for any news outlet. “Slams” is so overused, and usually nowhere near an accurate euphamism.

        • @TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          294 months ago

          How did supposedly intellectual people ever conclude that we should use the word “slam” on the daily in headlines?

          It’s straight out of Idiocracy and I will never get used to it.

          • @TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            14 months ago

            Because not only is it emotive (and they love emotive language to get you to click), it’s also just an objectively fantastic word for a headline in that it’s very concise and helps headlines fit on a single line.

            Headline space is limited, so it’s easier to go with “X slams Y over Z” as opposed to “X criticises Y over Z” or “X denounces Y over Z” or “X castigates Y over Z”

            It’s annoying how much it’s seen. But I get why they do it.

            • @TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              14 months ago

              it’s also just an objectively fantastic word

              100% disagree

              “X criticises Y over Z” or “X denounces Y over Z” or “X castigates Y over Z”

              All of these are better. They’re honest about what’s happening and most people understand them. “Slams” implies some level of violence or at least force. Not only isn’t that dishonest most of the time, it could devalue the word to that point that it just simply has no meaning. I refuse to internalize it as best as I can, but if they had their way I would think “slam” means a brutal vitriolic takedown. Instead I know it normally means “mildly comments on” these days.

              Fuck “slam” in headlines.

              • @TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                1
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                You’re interpreting me saying “it’s objectively good in headlines because it’s extremely short and clear what it means” as “I love it when they say ‘slams’!”

                I was very explicit in saying I don’t like it. It’s just objectively (not subjectively) a good word for headlines.

                I am not making an emotional argument to you. I’m just answering the question of why they use it. If you didn’t actually want an answer to the question, you should’ve made it clearer it was a rhetorical question.

                All of these are better

                No they aren’t, for the very reason I already stated. They aren’t concise, which is paramount when it comes to crafting a headline.

                Slam in headlines implies violence

                Slam does not imply violence or force lol.

                • @TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  14 months ago

                  If you didn’t actually want an answer to the question

                  I thought it’s clear when we ask a question that can’t actually be answered, because thousands of journalists are not one person we can ask, it’s not meant to be taken 100% literally.

                  Slam does not imply violence or force lol.

                  Of course it does. That’s 100% the only reason why they use it this way. Notice how that’s explicit in every definition but the last (the newer, still less-common usage I’m taking issue with):

                  I love when people want to quibble about word definitions, being super strict or loose whenever it suits them. In the real world, people use words loosely and over time the connotation changes. Hence definition 4’s existence here.

                  My main problem with using the word this way is that it’s rarely honest. I am annoyed by it because it sounds stupid, but like I said, more importantly:

                  if they had their way I would think “slam” means a brutal vitriolic takedown. Instead I know it normally means “mildly comments on” these days.

            • @jabathekek@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              54 months ago

              Unless you’re lucky enough to get tenure, or stumble upon a fact of the universe that no one knew and just happens to be relevant to a modern economy.

    • @Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      104 months ago

      from the umatrix chrome store reviews:

      It’s great for advanced users, for the time being. The project is no longer being developed (since 2021) and the Github repository has been archived. It will probably, mostly, continue to work for years. Probably. Apparently you can get some support from uBlock github site, I have no knowledge on the details of this.

      github backs that up https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix

      From the looks of things it still works but i’m afraid to recommend something that isn’t maintained to normal users.

      • @chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        424 months ago

        They lost what may end up being the biggest antitrust case in decades. And it’s not weak sauce like the ruling that may get overturned regarding the Play Store monopoly (which is kinda weak since Android manufacturers can and do include other app stores on their phones).

        It had to do with their anti-competitive behavior regarding Online Search. Specifically stuff like paying Apple and other manufacturers to make Google the default or even exclusive search engine, then using that not only to capture the market, but to charge more for ads than the competition they sabotage.

        As a bonus, it’ll probably hurt reddit too, since it almost certainly makes their recent deal with Google illegal.

        It’ll be appealed, but it’s a pretty big ruling. Between the US Courts, EU legislature, and what looks poised to be a flop for Gemini/Bard, Google is on its way to having a real shit year.

    • @Crikeste@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I’m going to call foul play on Judge Mehta’s ruling. They are a direct competitor.

            • @Raxiel@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              114 months ago

              One of Googles biggest competitor’s is the company “Meta” which is phonetically similar to the judges name. The previous commentator made a joke where they appeared to confuse the corporation for the person. A situation that would be absurd if true, and from there the humour arose.
              When a respondent (you) appeared to miss the subtext in the comment, and took it at face value, I made a post where I gave the impression I had made the same mistake , and suggested that the judge had previously had a name phonetically similar to “Facebook” which was the name previously used by the corporation now called “Meta”.

              Such a situation would require a coincidence even more implausible and absurd than the first, and was intended to demonstrate that neither comment should be taken seriously.

              Your comment indicates you either failed to identify the absurdity, possibly due to confirmation bias following your previous response. Or you are attempting to “up the ante” by erroneously taking such absurdity seriously for further humourous effect. Your follow up comments elsewhere suggest the former.

              Regardless, the “joke” has now been thoroughly killed by way of explanation. You can choose to accept the explanation or choose to remain in error.

                • @boonhet@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  54 months ago

                  They were explaining on how the joke flew over your head. If there’s reason to think anyone in this exchange is a bot, it’d be you, because you can’t really understand jokes even when they’re explained to you. Though nowadays, even bots understand jokes, ChatGPT can explain them fairly well.

  • @FeelThePower@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    364 months ago

    ive gotten almost my entire friend group using either the same fork as me or the original firefox, they all used chrome before. all because google was dumb enough to overstep some peoples boundaries.

      • @FeelThePower@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        24 months ago

        I use waterfox. They are independent again since last year and their big thing besides privacy is that they carry over a lot of stuff from Firefox that was scrapped with the proton design.

      • @sparkle@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        not the original commenter but FLOORP, BABYYYY!!! let’s go let’s get this floorp action come on floorp is the best reign supreme for a thousand years floorp woooooo