5 ms·

A lot of comments here are wondering what Firefox will do and if uBlock Origin would be made useless in Firefox like it would be in Chrome (once Mv3 is implemen

by AnonC 5y ago

A lot of comments here are wondering what Firefox will do and if uBlock Origin would be made useless in Firefox like it would be in Chrome (once Mv3 is implemented). Short answer: Firefox is adopting various parts of Mv3, but will continue to support blocking webrequest, which is used by extensions like uBlock Origin. So uBlock Origin would become useless in Chrome, possibly Edge and a few other browsers, but not on Firefox. Quoting from this update [1] from Mozilla: > Google has introduced declarativeNetRequest (DNR) to replace the blocking webRequest API. This impacts the capabilities of extensions that process network requests (including but not limited to content blockers) by limiting the number of rules an extension can use, as well as available filters and actions. > After discussing this with several content blocking extension developers, we have decided to implement DNR and continue maintaining support for blocking webRequest. Our initial goal for implementing DNR is to provide compatibility with Chrome so developers do not have to support multiple code bases if they do not want to. With both APIs supported in Firefox, developers can choose the approach that works best for them and their users. > We will support blocking webRequest until there’s a better solution which covers all use cases we consider important, since DNR as currently implemented by Chrome does not yet meet the needs of extension developers. [1]: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2021/05/27/manifest-v3-update/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2021/05/27/manifest-v3-updat...

winternett 5y ago
Chrome has just been getting worse and worse over time, but if you can recall, Firefox was also a slug when it was at a peak of market dominance and before that MSIE... The problem is that orgs and companies stop caring once they gain the primary market share. They also start dictating standards to everyone and ignoring user feedback. It's symptomatic of our current software development driven economy. I recall when as a web dev I had to ensure my code was best supported by 3-4 browsers and don't miss that era at all, but it would be much better if proper regulation, consumer protection, and ethical corporate behavior came into play before hostile competition, corruption, and monopoly-driven "dictatorware" do in software market dominance for a change.
- Karunamon 5y ago
  Mozilla never seemed to get out of that "the user is an idiot, best ignored" mindset even as their market share falls lower than a vendor-specific mobile browser. It's mind-boggling how just about everyone except the people calling the shots in that org can point out the problem.
  - jconnop 5y ago
    I've used Firefox as a daily driver for over 15 years, and while I do think it treats me more like an idiot than it used to, and don't like that, I still feel far more in control, trusted, and able to configure it than I do with chrome.
  - zuminator 5y ago
    How do you mean? I use both browsers and, while I certainly wasn't happy with the changes that accompanied their move to WebExtensions back around version 57, I don't find FF these days to be any worse overall than Chrome. Not trying to be argumentative, just not clear on your meaning.
    - bunnythefifth 5y ago
      I rely on Firefox for everything a browser does, and praise its many unique features and conveniences; I don't want to imagine using a garbage flavor of Chromium. But the folks at Mozilla keep hitting my morale. Examples- 1. History of installing and running arbitrary code on clients in the name of "Experiments" without user permission. 2. Full telemetry on by default. 3. Shoving their products like Pocket (added to the address bar by default, shows up as an advertisement on the page that opens after Firefox updates itself), Mozilla VPN (non-removable advertisement on every Private Window you open) in the name of revenue, while their clueless leadership enjoys fat paychecks for whatever value they bring to the organization. 4. Forcing undesirable changes down people's throat (removed the "Compact" density address bar after a redesign, hiding it under about:config). Feel free to pile on.
      - 5y ago
Helmut10001 5y ago
Get a DNS Sink (such as pfblockerNG-devel). Works without Add-Ons or client config and in any browser. uBlock Origin is really only used on my computer for when I am not at home.
- ayushnix 5y ago
  No DNS based solution comes anywhere close to what uBO offers. You can hide elements you don't like. You can block individual scripts or resources in a web page, even if they are first party resources. No DNS sink solution can do that. Browsing the internet would be an extremely bad experience for me if I just relied on a DNS sink.
  - Helmut10001 5y ago
    Generally, I agree - the two complement each other. The difference is that uBO is client side and its use can be detected. A DNS sink will work, no matter what was configured on the server end. Further, the DNS sink will hide elements - everywhere ADs are placed I see simple whitespace. Finally, scripts are blocked from even getting loaded - e.g. stats for the top scripts blocked today (2 hours in) for me: Count:Type:Blocked Domain 4154:DNSBL_A:browser.pipe.aria.microsoft.com; 445:DNSBL_A:googleads.g.doubleclick.net; 421:DNSBL_A:www.googleadservices.com; 414:DNSBL_A:app-measurement.com; 356:DNSBL_A:in.treasuredata.com; 283:DNSBL_A:incoming.telemetry.mozilla.org; 254:DNSBL_A:reports.crashlytics.com; 239:DNSBL_A:config.inmobi.com; 146:DNSBL_A:telemetry.sdk.inmobi.com; 125:DNSBL_A:www.googletagmanager.com;
    - ayushnix 5y ago
      > Further, the DNS sink will hide elements - everywhere ADs are placed I see simple whitespace. I find those leftover empty spaces extremely annoying. Imagine being interrupted by a big portion of nothing in the middle of an article. uBO hides those empty spaces as well. And no, I don't use or like Reader Mode. It's yet another click I need to do to just read an article. > Finally, scripts are blocked from even getting loaded - e.g. stats for the top scripts blocked today (2 hours in) for me: That doesn't look like individual script blocking to me, you're just blocking domains. If the script you want to block is part of the first party domain itself, you can't just block it using a DNS sinkhole. At this point, I'd go as far as to say that a web browser which doesn't support the complete capabilities of uBO, considering things like CNAME tracking exist, is a user hostile web browser. This includes all Chromium based browsers. https://blog.apnic.net/2020/08/04/characterizing-cname-cloaking-based-tracking/ https://blog.apnic.net/2020/08/04/characterizing-cname-cloak...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by AnonC 5y ago

winternett 5y ago

Chrome has just been getting worse and worse over time, but if you can recall, Firefox was also a slug when it was at a peak of market dominance and before that MSIE... The problem is that orgs and companies stop caring once they gain the primary market share. They also start dictating standards to everyone and ignoring user feedback. It's symptomatic of our current software development driven economy. I recall when as a web dev I had to ensure my code was best supported by 3-4 browsers and don't miss that era at all, but it would be much better if proper regulation, consumer protection, and ethical corporate behavior came into play before hostile competition, corruption, and monopoly-driven "dictatorware" do in software market dominance for a change.

Karunamon 5y ago
Mozilla never seemed to get out of that "the user is an idiot, best ignored" mindset even as their market share falls lower than a vendor-specific mobile browser. It's mind-boggling how just about everyone except the people calling the shots in that org can point out the problem.
- jconnop 5y ago
  I've used Firefox as a daily driver for over 15 years, and while I do think it treats me more like an idiot than it used to, and don't like that, I still feel far more in control, trusted, and able to configure it than I do with chrome.
- zuminator 5y ago
  How do you mean? I use both browsers and, while I certainly wasn't happy with the changes that accompanied their move to WebExtensions back around version 57, I don't find FF these days to be any worse overall than Chrome. Not trying to be argumentative, just not clear on your meaning.
  - bunnythefifth 5y ago
    I rely on Firefox for everything a browser does, and praise its many unique features and conveniences; I don't want to imagine using a garbage flavor of Chromium. But the folks at Mozilla keep hitting my morale. Examples- 1. History of installing and running arbitrary code on clients in the name of "Experiments" without user permission. 2. Full telemetry on by default. 3. Shoving their products like Pocket (added to the address bar by default, shows up as an advertisement on the page that opens after Firefox updates itself), Mozilla VPN (non-removable advertisement on every Private Window you open) in the name of revenue, while their clueless leadership enjoys fat paychecks for whatever value they bring to the organization. 4. Forcing undesirable changes down people's throat (removed the "Compact" density address bar after a redesign, hiding it under about:config). Feel free to pile on.
    - 5y ago

Helmut10001 5y ago

Get a DNS Sink (such as pfblockerNG-devel). Works without Add-Ons or client config and in any browser. uBlock Origin is really only used on my computer for when I am not at home.

ayushnix 5y ago
No DNS based solution comes anywhere close to what uBO offers. You can hide elements you don't like. You can block individual scripts or resources in a web page, even if they are first party resources. No DNS sink solution can do that. Browsing the internet would be an extremely bad experience for me if I just relied on a DNS sink.
- Helmut10001 5y ago
  Generally, I agree - the two complement each other. The difference is that uBO is client side and its use can be detected. A DNS sink will work, no matter what was configured on the server end. Further, the DNS sink will hide elements - everywhere ADs are placed I see simple whitespace. Finally, scripts are blocked from even getting loaded - e.g. stats for the top scripts blocked today (2 hours in) for me: Count:Type:Blocked Domain 4154:DNSBL_A:browser.pipe.aria.microsoft.com; 445:DNSBL_A:googleads.g.doubleclick.net; 421:DNSBL_A:www.googleadservices.com; 414:DNSBL_A:app-measurement.com; 356:DNSBL_A:in.treasuredata.com; 283:DNSBL_A:incoming.telemetry.mozilla.org; 254:DNSBL_A:reports.crashlytics.com; 239:DNSBL_A:config.inmobi.com; 146:DNSBL_A:telemetry.sdk.inmobi.com; 125:DNSBL_A:www.googletagmanager.com;
  - ayushnix 5y ago
    > Further, the DNS sink will hide elements - everywhere ADs are placed I see simple whitespace. I find those leftover empty spaces extremely annoying. Imagine being interrupted by a big portion of nothing in the middle of an article. uBO hides those empty spaces as well. And no, I don't use or like Reader Mode. It's yet another click I need to do to just read an article. > Finally, scripts are blocked from even getting loaded - e.g. stats for the top scripts blocked today (2 hours in) for me: That doesn't look like individual script blocking to me, you're just blocking domains. If the script you want to block is part of the first party domain itself, you can't just block it using a DNS sinkhole. At this point, I'd go as far as to say that a web browser which doesn't support the complete capabilities of uBO, considering things like CNAME tracking exist, is a user hostile web browser. This includes all Chromium based browsers. https://blog.apnic.net/2020/08/04/characterizing-cname-cloaking-based-tracking/ https://blog.apnic.net/2020/08/04/characterizing-cname-cloak...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]