4 ms·

Anything that breaks uBlock Origin is a deal breaker. With the chrome team making so many alterations to their plans, I guess we'll have to wait and see.

by m_a_g 4y ago

Operative0198 4y ago
Mv3 broke uBlock Lite for me (used uBlock to control js mostly). But that wasn't a deal breaker because I got to discover NoScript (still stuck on mv2 but I like the approach vastly better than original uBlock's implementation). Just waiting to see how this functionality will be handled in mv2 sunset since Noscript has no plans to migrate atm and uBlock lite should be "guttered" for the foreseeable future.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
poolopolopolo 4y ago
Pretty much, there will never be a "smooth" transition from V2 to V3 when you are purposely trying to kill the most used plugins.
pkulak 4y ago
Why wait? Move to Firefox now.
- ithrow 4y ago
  Feels slow in old computers with 4GB and Chrome has a better built-in for freeing up memory from inactive tabs.
  - voytec 4y ago
    But will likely be plagued with performance degrading ads.
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      And it's still fast in spite of that, which speaks to how far behind Mozilla is.
      - paulryanrogers 4y ago
        Part of the difference is that the modern web is built for Chrome. Even checking ones site or service with Firefox for functionality is a bridge too far, much less performance.
        reitanqild 4y ago
        I think it has actually become better lately. There was a time when people threw around "only works in Chrome" like they did with IE6, but for me it seems it has improved somewhat now.
  - bornfreddy 4y ago
    Not sure about that, works for me just fine on many (even old) computers. But even if it was true, I prefer keeping the number of open tabs below 100 if that means not running browser made by an advertising agency. Talk about conflict of interests...
- kivle 4y ago
  Using 2-3x as much battery as all other browsers on my Macbook is the dealbreaker for me.. I want to use the same browser on all systems when I move..
  - loxias 4y ago
    IME Firefox (esp with the right extensions, like autosuspend tabs) is very light on system resources. A bit more so than chrome. I run only Linux though. All the "websites that should be a program" (Netflix, Hulu, Slack, Amazon Video) now run great in FF, without my computer overheating. (though some of them might be on the chopping block if they don't quit blocking me from seeing HD content) I hear Apple does some special magic in MacOS so that on that platform Safari actually works (compared to the ~real~ non-Apple world, where Safari is slow as heck and why would anyone ever touch that with a 10ft pole.)
    - kivle 4y ago
      Honestly I do not think Apple does some special magic on Mac OS for Safari. I settled on Vivaldi (a chromium based browser with built-in ad blocking developed by former Opera devs). It gives battery life not much worse than Safari to be honest. Safari is very nice and snappy on a mac, but the extension support is extremely limited.
      - piperswe 4y ago
        Orion has Safari-level battery usage and performance thanks to using WebKit, while providing much better extension compatibility and a built-in ad blocker: https://browser.kagi.com/ https://browser.kagi.com/ It also runs on iOS, even with extension support!
  - jug 4y ago
    Would Brave maybe work better? But I personally feel a bit awkward about the crypto stuff in it even if it can be disabled. I don't think a browser should deal with these things. However, it might be personal preference... It does offer built-in ad blocking and more.
jacooper 4y ago
Use brave.

Anything that breaks uBlock Origin is a deal breaker. With the chrome team making so many alterations to their plans, I guess we'll have to wait and see.

by m_a_g 4y ago

Anything that breaks uBlock Origin is a deal breaker. With the chrome team making so many alterations to their plans, I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Operative0198 4y ago

Mv3 broke uBlock Lite for me (used uBlock to control js mostly). But that wasn't a deal breaker because I got to discover NoScript (still stuck on mv2 but I like the approach vastly better than original uBlock's implementation). Just waiting to see how this functionality will be handled in mv2 sunset since Noscript has no plans to migrate atm and uBlock lite should be "guttered" for the foreseeable future.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

poolopolopolo 4y ago

Pretty much, there will never be a "smooth" transition from V2 to V3 when you are purposely trying to kill the most used plugins.

pkulak 4y ago

Why wait? Move to Firefox now.

ithrow 4y ago
Feels slow in old computers with 4GB and Chrome has a better built-in for freeing up memory from inactive tabs.
- voytec 4y ago
  But will likely be plagued with performance degrading ads.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    And it's still fast in spite of that, which speaks to how far behind Mozilla is.
    - paulryanrogers 4y ago
      Part of the difference is that the modern web is built for Chrome. Even checking ones site or service with Firefox for functionality is a bridge too far, much less performance.
      - reitanqild 4y ago
        I think it has actually become better lately. There was a time when people threw around "only works in Chrome" like they did with IE6, but for me it seems it has improved somewhat now.
- bornfreddy 4y ago
  Not sure about that, works for me just fine on many (even old) computers. But even if it was true, I prefer keeping the number of open tabs below 100 if that means not running browser made by an advertising agency. Talk about conflict of interests...
kivle 4y ago
Using 2-3x as much battery as all other browsers on my Macbook is the dealbreaker for me.. I want to use the same browser on all systems when I move..
- loxias 4y ago
  IME Firefox (esp with the right extensions, like autosuspend tabs) is very light on system resources. A bit more so than chrome. I run only Linux though. All the "websites that should be a program" (Netflix, Hulu, Slack, Amazon Video) now run great in FF, without my computer overheating. (though some of them might be on the chopping block if they don't quit blocking me from seeing HD content) I hear Apple does some special magic in MacOS so that on that platform Safari actually works (compared to the ~real~ non-Apple world, where Safari is slow as heck and why would anyone ever touch that with a 10ft pole.)
  - kivle 4y ago
    Honestly I do not think Apple does some special magic on Mac OS for Safari. I settled on Vivaldi (a chromium based browser with built-in ad blocking developed by former Opera devs). It gives battery life not much worse than Safari to be honest. Safari is very nice and snappy on a mac, but the extension support is extremely limited.
    - piperswe 4y ago
      Orion has Safari-level battery usage and performance thanks to using WebKit, while providing much better extension compatibility and a built-in ad blocker: https://browser.kagi.com/ https://browser.kagi.com/ It also runs on iOS, even with extension support!
- jug 4y ago
  Would Brave maybe work better? But I personally feel a bit awkward about the crypto stuff in it even if it can be disabled. I don't think a browser should deal with these things. However, it might be personal preference... It does offer built-in ad blocking and more.

jacooper 4y ago

Use brave.