They should recommend switching to Firefox instead. It's clear that Google cannot be allowed to have a monopoly on browsers.
this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2024
21 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59566 readers
4890 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Even better is FF mobile (on Android) supports full list of addons, including uBlock Origin.
The using the web without uBlock Origin is cancer.
Though not container tabs (yet)?
Unfortunately no.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The title is misleading, or false.
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox
This document explains why uBO works best in Firefox.
They should I've been using mull on mobile and Librewolf on Windows 10 since the first time Google announced these Anti Adblock intensions. Must be a few years now.
I did mess with Thorium a little when it claimed to be the fastest browser on earth but yeah apart from that I've been using hardened Firefox forks
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/
"uBlock Origin developer slams NeoWin, backpedals on recommendation!" —NeoWin editors, probably.
Sounds about right for any news outlet. "Slams" is so overused, and usually nowhere near an accurate euphamism.
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.
Ragebait gets more clicks.
Well yes, obviously. My question is more about how they pretend it's not just ragebait.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
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.
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. It's the only way to preserve what little agency users still have on the mainstream web.
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.
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.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/chrome-mask
This addon will work if it's not letting you
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.
Worth keeping around at least
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!
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.
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.
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
What the uBlock dev actually 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.
The 'block element' picker is the big one that can not be implemented in the lite version.
Also included block lists can't update unless the extension itself updates.
If you're not stuck on chrome due to workplace policy or something, now is the time to switch to Firefox
Do you know if the lite version still blocks YouTube ads?
load more comments
(1 replies)
o7
I switched somewhere in the early 2000s, from Internet Explorer (Microsoft), and never looked back. (Using IE and now Edge as alternatives only, when I get the rare non-functional Firefox issue.) Never created an account either. I manually save and port my bookmarks!
I see librewolf in the edge
Well I don't use Chrome, so....
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.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I just got firefox yesterday, cause I noticed youtube started baking unskippable ads into their site.
load more comments
(32 replies)
The best action ublock origions devs can take is drop support for chromium based browsers and retract ublock lite from the chrome webstore.
I was hopefull for something more than just a wiki page on github. adding a banner to chrome's add-on menu is way more powerful and far more reaching than what they did
load more comments
(1 replies)
I already switched to Firefox after Netscape.
view more: next ›