> But hey you do you and when you melt down over getting taken for a ride by Brave, I’ll be here to laugh. user privacy never got violated by Brave. It’s also not half as “shady” as some stuff Firefox pulled, i.e. The criticism I have read about Brave so far was complete bullshit and easily debunked. You mean like covertly hijacking the browser with an add-on that exfiltrates the browsing history (Cliqz incident in Firefox) or covertly changing the user’s chosen DNS provider to Cloudflare like FF? You mean shady like that? Brave grows for a reason and I am sure the people using it also know about Firefox. That’s not a fanboy take, that’s just realism. It feels familiar and supports all Chrome extensions. If you like Chrome (interface, speed etc.) but dislike bad adblocking your next step is more likely Brave than Firefox. There is something deliciously ironic about you calling people “FF fanboys” while simultaneously posting a Brave fanboy take. I’ll take them seriously when this is no longer the case, meaning never. Mozilla is funded by Google and exists at their pleasure. > Supporting Firefox is the only valid option if you value a competitive future for browsing the internet. You know, Chromium-based web browsers can easily disable support for bad web standards as well, what difference does it make though? It’s either support it or die as a product. Then it also does not matter whether you use Gecko or Blink, it will get implemented by all of them. What happens then? Other companies pick up the last open source state of the Chromium code and go from there.Īnd web standard support? When Google starts using a web standard you don’t like on their vastly popular services (search, Maps, YouTube, GMail), all competitors will have to support it anyway no matter what, no one can afford to lose compatibility here. What is the worst possible scenario? Google could no longer contribute to Chromium and develop Chrome as a closed source hard fork, directing all patches to Chrome while it’s still dominant. Chromium is open source, that means it can be modified by you as you see fit. Please clarify what you mean by “monopoly”. Now What makes you so giddy about any single browser having an effective monopoly? The extension, which its developer claims operates best under Firefox, is the most popular extension for Firefox based on the number of installations and ratings. That is good news for users of the web browser who use content blockers such as uBlock Origin. In "These weeks in Firefox: issue 124", the organization confirms that it will support the WebRequst API of Manifest v2 alongside Manifest v3.Īgain, a reminder that Mozilla plans to continue support for the Manifest v2 blocking WebRequest API (this API powers, for example, uBlock Origin) while simultaneously supporting Manifest v3. Mozilla reaffirmed this week that its plan has not changed. Users who install a single content blocker and no other extension that relies on the same relevant API may not notice much of a change, but those who like to add custom filter lists or use multiple extensions that rely on the API, may run into artificial limits set by Google.ĪdGuard launched a Manifest v3 compatible ad-blocker recently, and it will display warning prompts if its operation is limited in the browser. While Manifest v3 does not mean the end for content blocking on Chrome, Edge and other Chromium-based browsers, it may limit abilities under certain circumstances. Used by content blockers extensively to filter certain items, it has been replaced by a less powerful option in Manifest v3. Probably the most important of them all is the WebRequest API. Mozilla announced early on that it will support Manifest v3 as well, but that it would continue to support important APIs that Google limited in Manifest v3. Those offered on the Chrome Web Store will vanish, unless their developers published an update to make them compatible with the new Manifest v3. Those installed will be disabled automatically, because they are no longer compatible. There is an Enterprise policy to extend the blocking of Manifest v2 support in Chrome by six months, but Google announced already that it won't extend that, despite delays in getting all APIs out in the open for developers.īy June 2023, Chrome and most Chromium-based browsers won't support Manifest v2 extensions anymore. From January 2023 on, extensions need to support Manifest v3 exclusively to be listed in the Chrome Web Store. Google is using its might to push Manifest v3, and most Chromium-based browsers, including Microsoft Edge, will follow. Current Chromium extensions use Manifest V2 for the most part, even though the January 2023 deadline is looming over the heads of every extension developer.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |