~~https://www.neowin.net/news/ublock-origin-developer-recommends-switching-to-ublock-lite-as-chrome-flags-the-extension/~~

EDIT: Apologies. Updated with a link to what gorhill REALLY 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.

  • hOrni@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I know, that some day I will have to switch to Firefox. But I’m putting it off as long as I can, as I don’t like that browser. I will have to instal a shit load of add-ons to get the customisability of Vivaldi, and I doubt k will get it all.

  • Axum@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    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

  • cygnus@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    They should recommend switching to Firefox instead. It’s clear that Google cannot be allowed to have a monopoly on browsers.

    • AnAmericanPotato@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Switching to another Chromium-based browser is a half-measure. Other Chromium-based browsers are on borrowed time.

      As time goes on, it will become more difficult for them to maintain v2 support. Nobody has the resources to properly maintain a browser fork with more than minor modifications. And you can bet Google will go out of their way to make this difficult for everybody else.

      I mean, sure, use what you’re comfortable with if you really can’t use a non-Chromium-based browser for some reason. But it means you’re likely going to have to jump ship again sooner or later. Why not just jump once, to something with better long-term prospects?

      Then again, the folks behind Arc Browser have expressed interest in becoming engine-agnostic, so perhaps there will be a Chromium-free Arc version in the future. That would be very cool.

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Other Chromium-based browsers are on borrowed time. As time goes on, it will become more difficult for them to maintain v2 support.

        And Firefox won’t? I just explained why you don’t even need v2 support.

        Nobody has the resources to properly maintain a browser fork with more than minor modifications.

        Except…all of them?

        And you can bet Google will go out of their way to make this difficult for everybody else.

        If and when that becomes a problem, I can change later just like I can today… Today it is not a problem.

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        You know there other ad blockers? Other browsers have them built into the browser itself so there’s no need for any extensions at all.

  • Dju@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    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/

    • Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      “uBlock Origin developer slams NeoWin, backpedals on recommendation!” —NeoWin editors, probably.

      • TeoTwawki@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Sounds about right for any news outlet. “Slams” is so overused, and usually nowhere near an accurate euphamism.

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

            • jabathekek@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Unless you’re lucky enough to get tenure, or stumble upon a fact of the universe that no one knew and just happens to be relevant to a modern economy.

          • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Because not only is it emotive (and they love emotive language to get you to click), it’s also just an objectively fantastic word for a headline in that it’s very concise and helps headlines fit on a single line.

            Headline space is limited, so it’s easier to go with “X slams Y over Z” as opposed to “X criticises Y over Z” or “X denounces Y over Z” or “X castigates Y over Z”

            It’s annoying how much it’s seen. But I get why they do it.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              it’s also just an objectively fantastic word

              100% disagree

              “X criticises Y over Z” or “X denounces Y over Z” or “X castigates Y over Z”

              All of these are better. They’re honest about what’s happening and most people understand them. “Slams” implies some level of violence or at least force. Not only isn’t that dishonest most of the time, it could devalue the word to that point that it just simply has no meaning. I refuse to internalize it as best as I can, but if they had their way I would think “slam” means a brutal vitriolic takedown. Instead I know it normally means “mildly comments on” these days.

              Fuck “slam” in headlines.

              • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                You’re interpreting me saying “it’s objectively good in headlines because it’s extremely short and clear what it means” as “I love it when they say ‘slams’!”

                I was very explicit in saying I don’t like it. It’s just objectively (not subjectively) a good word for headlines.

                I am not making an emotional argument to you. I’m just answering the question of why they use it. If you didn’t actually want an answer to the question, you should’ve made it clearer it was a rhetorical question.

                Slam does not imply violence or force lol.

                • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  If you didn’t actually want an answer to the question

                  I thought it’s clear when we ask a question that can’t actually be answered, because thousands of journalists are not one person we can ask, it’s not meant to be taken 100% literally.

                  Slam does not imply violence or force lol.

                  Of course it does. That’s 100% the only reason why they use it this way. Notice how that’s explicit in every definition but the last (the newer, still less-common usage I’m taking issue with):

                  I love when people want to quibble about word definitions, being super strict or loose whenever it suits them. In the real world, people use words loosely and over time the connotation changes. Hence definition 4’s existence here.

                  My main problem with using the word this way is that it’s rarely honest. I am annoyed by it because it sounds stupid, but like I said, more importantly:

                  if they had their way I would think “slam” means a brutal vitriolic takedown. Instead I know it normally means “mildly comments on” these days.

  • watson387@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

    • cultsuperstar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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.

      • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

        • undefined@links.hackliberty.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Adding to this, Firefox’s JavaScript is much more strict than others (which I love). As a web developer I prioritize testing it in Firefox because it’s helped me find bugs other browsers just plow through.

          Personally I use Safari daily and the number of websites that are broken due to poor security (but function fine in Chrome) is alarming. Chrome doesn’t even check content type on <iframe> last time I checked.

          • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            I tend to agree with you. Normally if something doesn’t work in firefox it makes sense, but less often is that the case in chrome.

            I am fascinated by the idea of a web developer choosing to use Safari, honestly, though. Can I ask why? For me, the hesitancy of adopting new web standards, the lack of a real extensions, and lack of support for non-Apple OSes… combined with lots of random bugs that I only ever see so often in Safari, I absolutely loathe that browser. And I feel like being a web developer conditioned me to feel this way. And then there’s the business practice concerns (Apple selectively supporting new web features with the intention of keeping native apps seen as superior, because it makes them money)… but even ignoring this, I’m a Safari-hater through and through. It feels like Internet Explorer 7 vs Firefox to me.

            On iOS I have to support a few major versions of Safari back and it’s nightmarish at times. For certain featuresets, you absolutely cannot assume things will probably work like you can with FF/Chromium browsers and it makes me so ragey sometimes. I’ve been spending the last few weeks trying to workaround an issue in various Safari iOS versions, and it’s not the first time I’ve been in this situation.

            I’m curious – what versions of Safari are you required to support on the job?

            • undefined@links.hackliberty.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              Personally

              This was my poor attempt to mean “as an end-user.” I just love that it’s tied in to the Apple ecosystem and the UI is so much cleaner than other browsers.

              I’ve tried to make the switch to others but they always feel very clunky. I love Firefox to death but it looks awful (at least on macOS). I’m not a big extension guy because I’m filtering DNS and IP traffic at the network layer — if we’re talking about ad blocking, tracking and the like it doesn’t make sense to only protect against it in the browser, as apps tend to send traffic to the very same domains as the websites.

              I actually hate the trend of apps being nothing more than a wrapper around web applications. It comes off as lazy development, and I miss native apps (regardless of platform) instead of these creepy wrappers around web applications. So I actually have to agree with Apple there.

              As for browser support, my team works on an internal-only app and our security policy doesn’t allow outdated browsers, so there’s no hard rules when it comes to browser support.

          • Victor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            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!

            • teft@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              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.

              • MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                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.

            • dmtalon@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              That works until it’s your bank or credit card website. I cannot use Capital One’s (CC) “pay bill” any longer.

    • ripcord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Are you sure that it was Firefox itself? I find the few times something like that has come up, it was because of extensions (like adblocl, actually).

      Delta’s website started blocking me due to using Dark Reader, apparently something about detecting that the contents of the page were being altered. And another site worked fine when I disabled unlock; I assume because it was blocking loading some .js that was actually being used for something other than just ads.

  • uzay@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    What the uBlock dev actually said:

    https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/wiki/About-Google-Chrome’s-“This-extension-may-soon-no-longer-be-supported”

    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.

    • Bone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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!

    • viking@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      They did? Never used that garbage. Switched from Netscape Navigator to Opera to Firefox.

      I used chrome on mobile since in the old days, Firefox mobile was unusable, but that’s been years ago.

      Now for the 3 websites that stubbornly refuse to open in FF I use Edge on desktop, and kiwi on mobile.

  • FeelThePower@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

      • FeelThePower@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        I use waterfox. They are independent again since last year and their big thing besides privacy is that they carry over a lot of stuff from Firefox that was scrapped with the proton design.

      • sparkle@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        not the original commenter but FLOORP, BABYYYY!!! let’s go let’s get this floorp action come on floorp is the best reign supreme for a thousand years floorp woooooo

    • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I love Librewolf currently but I worry it’s going to stray too much from what it originally was like Waterfox and others ended up doing, and then end up randomly breaking compatibility with certain plugins or introducing other issues.

      Right now, Librewolf is the best way to experience Firefox. Will that still be the case in 5, 10, 15 years? That remains to be seen. I hope it’s still the best way to experience Firefox years from now. Having to change browsers every so often does suck tbh.

      • xavier666@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Those are jumping to Librewolf from Firefox, keep the following things in mind

        • It’s a privacy first, usability second browser
        • It’s not a browser for your grandparents. You have you take some steps to give it the same functionality as Firefox
        • Good news is it removes a lot of Mozilla cruft
        • Browser fingerprinting, which allows websites to recognize an individual user, is disabled on this browser. This feature greatly enhances privacy.
        • But it means it will ‘slightly’ break some websites. Nothing very serious but certain QoL features will be missing at first. Eg. When downloading a software, it can’t determine which OS you are using.
        • You can enable browser fingerprinting and get those QoL features back.

        Hope you have a good experience on Librewolf. I’ve been using it for the past 1 year and it’s fine.

      • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Meh.

        Librewolf already breaks loads of websites with it’s fingerprinting resistance - just get used to turning it off.

        In any case, you already need a chromium fork handy for all the sites that just plain don’t support firefox any more. I’ve run in to weird issues in firefox that don’t arise in chromium several times in the last month. This is going to get much worse.

        As for changing browsers. I don’t care very much. I don’t use many browser features like bookmarks or passwords.

        • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Which websites did you run into issues with Firefox? I haven’t had any issues with any websites. I do think you’re right that it’s probably going to get worse over time, but maybe not if more people make the switch to Firefox.

    • AShadyRaven@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      hello, i have chosen to value your opinion above my own based on very shaky reasoning i will not be sharing

      I abandoned chrome for being too RAM-hungry when im playing games w the browser open

      i abandoned Internet Explorer for being too slow

      and i abandoned firefox for being too bloated and sluggish, but that was like 2010 and things change

      im currently using Opera but why do you choose firefox over its contemporaries?

      • _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Firefox is open source and Opera is still based on Chromium (the engine for Chrome, same as Edge and a number of other browsers).

        For practical use, Firefox seems plenty fast on my devices including mobile.

      • megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Because it’s not based on chromium(blink web engine), there are two other well supported web engines which browsers can be based on, WebKit (Apple), and Gecko (Mozilla).

        At the end of the day, if it’s built on Blink, it’s liable to have Google break things they don’t like on the back end. Including ad blockers.

        Opera used to be built on it’s own web engine (presto) but since 2013 it’s been built on Blink.

        • AShadyRaven@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          that was a great summary, thank you

          trying to research such a broad topic was overwhelming

  • Butterpaderp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I just got firefox yesterday, cause I noticed youtube started baking unskippable ads into their site.

    • irotsoma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I’ve been using LibreWolf on Desktop and Mull on Android. Basically more securely configured versions of Firefox with the proprietary telemetry and some other stuff removed. Takes some tweaking to get certain websites to work that need more access than they should or use Certificate Authorities that don’t have working OSCP servers.

      • saplyng@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Thanks for sharing the extension! I just got some passkeys and they just weren’t working on several websites for Firefox (looking at you Azure) but that solved the issue immediately!

      • bluewing@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        I"m going to try that extension to see if it helps with a couple of websites. So thanks for the recommendation!