this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2024
506 points (97.7% liked)

Technology

59605 readers
3394 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone 345 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (32 children)
  • the answer is 1

  • it’s Firefox

  • Vivaldi is supporting for less than a year (June 2025 it stop) and edge is unclear but may support it simultaneously (at least for now). Brave has “partial support” which means it may as well not and they’ve left a “lot of wiggle room” to drop support in their statement.

If you want to keep using ublock origin, get Firefox. You should just get Firefox because it’s the best browser for privacy/not using chromium in general and it works well.

[–] narc0tic_bird@lemm.ee 74 points 3 months ago

Hardly surprising considering that Brave, Vivaldi and Edge are all based on Chromium. The Brave and Vivaldi team won't have the resources to maintain Manifest v2 support for each new Chromium version, and Microsoft doesn't have any reason to support v2 with Edge outside of goodwill.

[–] kubica@fedia.io 51 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They are just giving some time for the waters to calm a bit, and then say that it is taking too much effort.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago

Yup. And perhaps even hoping they can pick up a few users from Chrome when it drops support.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 50 points 3 months ago (10 children)

i don't know why people are so allergic to firefox but it is the answer.

its the only halfway decent answer. install firefox and switch to it.

[–] SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone 38 points 3 months ago

Classic letting perfect get in the way of good. Firefox is excellent as is. Hate Mozilla? Get one of the quality forks. Which exist because we have firefox.

[–] Krzd@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Vivaldi just has better features than Firefox. I'll switch to Firefox when Vivaldi is forced to switch to V3 but until then I'm gonna continue to enjoy Vivaldi

[–] dubyakay@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Curios, what sets Vivaldi apart so much in features that makes it hard to switch to Firefox?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] kokesh@lemmy.world 27 points 3 months ago

I came back to Firefox this spring after probably 12 years, or how long is Chrome around and I must say everything works with it, it is snappy, doesn't bog down my memory and has great extensions even on Android. I don't look back to Chrome. It was great in the beginning and got more convoluted as the time progressed. With switching to Firefox i feel like when switched to Chrome back in the day.

[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The answer is more than one, because Firefox has several forks of its own, and as far as I know all of them (even Pale Moon, which is highly divergent and never supported Manifest V2) support uBlock.

I agree that all Chromium-based browsers are going to drop support sooner or later.

[–] SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

That’s fair. Firefox and its forks will reliably still support ublock origin.

I was going off the list with Firefox listed as #1, but I see that reads now as “just 1.”

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Does Firefox use “manifest v2”? When reading all the frothing news about this stuff, I assumed the “manifest” thing was a Chromium thing.

[–] BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world 36 points 3 months ago

Firefox will support Manifest v3. However Mozilla will be implementing Manifest 3 differently so the routes Ublock and other extensions use to maintain privacy and block ads will still be available. Firefox will support both the original route and the new limited option Google is forcing on Chromium.

Googles implementation deliberately locks out extensions by removing something called WebRequest, supposedly for security reasons but almost certainly actually for commercial reasons as they are not a neutral party. Google is a major ad and data broker.

Apple will apparently also be adopting the same approach for Safari as Mozilla is for Firefox.

[–] TheOctonaut@mander.xyz 23 points 3 months ago (4 children)

If I remember correctly, yes. There was a pain in the ass a few years ago when Firefox switched from their own add-on system to one that matched Chrome's, despite Firefox's being more powerful and mature. The goal was to make it easier to port Chromes (arguably) greater variety of add-ons to Firefox.

It was an unpopular decision and it was the start of a downward decline for Firefox. People that had their browser "just the way I like it" found themselves starting fresh essentially, and without some of their favourite add-ons.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Vivaldi does a lot of adblocking natively, and they are maintaining V2 as long as they can, which based on info from Google is summer 2025 but might change.

[–] SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Yes but that doesn’t change the fact that in 10mo uBlock origin won’t work on Vivaldi. The perils of chromium builds. I don’t blame Vivaldi, I’m just stating a fact. They won’t support Mv2 and uBlock origin will not work.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (25 replies)
[–] autonomoususer@lemmy.world 98 points 3 months ago
[–] lowleveldata@programming.dev 46 points 3 months ago (2 children)

So Lynx is not going to support uBlock?? Outrageous

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 5 points 3 months ago

holy crap that's a neat project

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HappyTimeHarry@lemm.ee 38 points 3 months ago (4 children)

I wish someone could explain to me how it is firefox, which is not chromium based but larely dependent on google for funding, has the ability and manpower to maintain not just the manifest v2+all the other stuff, while every single chromium fork has no choice but to use v3. Why can't they just fork the last usable version of chromium and go from there as an independent fork? Is it just that no one wants to?

Like firefox has lots of ports, some of the follow the main branch but then others like waterfox forked off older versions at some point and just kept going, why can't chrome based browsers do a fork like that? How is it there are people making new browsers from scratch like ladybird, but this manifest stuff is just out of reach for everyone, except mozilla (and i guess other firefox forks).

[–] towerful@programming.dev 24 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Not having control of the core codebase, and branching/tracking based on 1 (declared) legacy feature could lead to huge amounts of work and issue in the future.
Manifest V2 spec is defined, manifest V3 spec is defined... They can be developed against.
JS-whatever-spec is defined, CSS-whatever-spec is defined, HTML-whatever-spec is defined... They have industry standard approved specs (even if they can be vague in areas). They can be developed against.
They have defined spec documents that can be developed against.

Firefox has control and experience of how they implement those specs.
Chrome forks do not have control of how those specs are implemented.
So if chrome changes how things are implemented, forks might not be able to "backport" for manifest V2 compatibility, and might find themselves implementing more and more of the core browser functionality. Browsers are NOT easy to develop for the modern fuckery of the web.
Firefox hopefully does have that knowledge and ability to include V2 manifest backwards compatibility in future development without impacting further spec implementations.... It seems like Google is depreciating V2 to combat ad-blockers (ads being their major funding revenue)

There are already very slight differences how Firefox and Chrome interpret all these specs. I've noticed a few sites & plugins that just work better (or just work) in Chrome. Which is why I still have (unfortunately) an install of Chrome.

[–] daq@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You could also just stop using sites that don't work in Firefox. Also https://webcompat.com/

[–] towerful@programming.dev 5 points 3 months ago

Absolutely.
And casually, that's exactly what I do. To be honest, casually I haven't encountered any (I don't think...).

But for work stuff, sometimes I don't have a choice. I guess I'm just thankful it doesn't require edge IE compat mode, or even IE itself

[–] Goodie@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago (3 children)

A port of a browser is relatively minimal effort. Typically, the changes are largely cosmetic, and occasionally skin deep.

There's a reason none of the ports of Chrome caught the recent snafu with Google having its own special addon that fucks your privacy.

Developing a browser, Firefox or Chrome, takes a huge amount of effort, and are on a similar scale to both Windows and Linux. It's a lot. There are a lot of places to hide things. Taking all of that, and making V2 continue to work... well it'll be alright to start with. It's probably a flag somewhere currently. But in 2 years time? 5 years time? It will take a lot to keep V2 working, let alone back porting V3 features that people may actually want.

Just use Firefox instead.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 18 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Why can’t they just fork the last usable version of chromium and go from there as an independent fork? Is it just that no one wants to?

Creating or even just maintaining a web browser is an insurmountable amount of work. With constantly changing and new specs coming out all the time, it's an unwinnable amount of work. Not to mention, browsers and the Internet in general is so complex it's like web browsers are an operating system themselves.

A web browser is likely the most complex software on your PC outside of the operating system itself.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] fernandofig@reddthat.com 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well, Thorium developer stated he intends to support Mv2 past the 2025 deadline. Whether he'll make it, we'll see. It's a one man show, there was some drama involving it in the past, and there's the question of what's the point in maintaining Mv2 extensions support if you won't be able to install them from the store after they're cut off?

[–] helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

To clarify for anyone curious about the drama, while it was blown out of proportion, it was absolutly vaild.

  1. there was a light nsfw furry easter egg, removed once found. Considering the browser was originally a side project by a young guy (teen/early 20?) it's not really surprising or a big deal. Once the browser gained a sudden boost in users and it was found, the image was removed (once the guy got back from vacation? hospital?, there was a month or two gap)

  2. this one was a larger problem for sure, and again removed. If I reacll right, he was apparently hosting a website for a friend about supporting the end of a certain procedure done to baby males at birth. There were some graphic images, its not technically CP anymore than the infomus Nirvana cover, but still...not okay.

To make matters worse, the link the site was somewhere browsers home or about page, making it pretty easy for anyone to find.


It's all old news now. Personally I didn't really care, but some people might.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›