this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
80 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

48069 readers
1089 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
nooter692@lemmy.ml
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
80
will ad-blockers in chromium follow suit when chrome discontinues them? (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 months ago by AndrewZabar@lemmy.world to c/linux@lemmy.ml
47 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Hey all, I was about to setup uBlock Origin in chromium, when I saw the notice that it may soon be ended due to not following best practices, etc. I looked this up and some articles and posts state that Chrome is discontinuing content blockers / ad blockers soon. Will this apply to the chromium app in Linux?

Other than for testing purposes, my usage of Chromium is for the ability to make some sites into webApps. I just like some to be isolated with their own window and icon. The standard response I see to pretty much anyone is that they should switch to Firefox and stop wanting the webApp. I saw some comments that Firefox does not and will not implement webApps due to some security issues (?? not sure why). I don't understand how it is difficult just make a standalone window with a custom icon choice. I see no reason that has to compromise anything at all, but I am not a developer.

I'm getting off-track here. So, is Chromium going to go the way Google wants it to go for Chrome? It was my understanding that Chromium is kind of an offshoot and not just up to Google in terms of its course. Will we be able to use extensions that Google doesn't want, and have to get them from a new repository instead of the chrome web store?

Any insight on this would be appreciated, thanks.

top 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] hades@lemm.ee 79 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Edit: it appears the PWA support in Firefox is not ideal, see responses to this comment.

Chromium is not an offshoot of Chrome, it's more of a precursor to Chrome, and it is completely controlled by Google. As such, it will also drop support for extensions that do not support Manifest v3.

If you want to enable PWA support in Firefox, it looks like this is possible (however the experience doesn't seem to be great, see responses to this comment): https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Progressive_web_apps/Guides/Installing

For other browser suggestions see, e.g. https://www.xda-developers.com/4-browsers-manifest-v2-ublock-origin/

[–] Sbauer@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (2 children)

There are a couple interesting browser these days, for example floorp. It’s always interesting to check who is behind a browser, in the case of floorp it’s a Japanese company which I like.

They might still pull a corporate fast one on you, but at least they will apologise profusely over it. It’s also genuinely a nice browser, obviously fully open source and privacy focused. I think it’s a nice filter between my browser and mozilla which lost some trust from me over time.

https://floorp.app/en

[–] lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They might still pull a corporate fast one on you, but at least they will apologise profusely over it.

I've never seen Nintendo or Sony apologise for it.

I feel like the whole apologising profusely thing is a stereotype about Japanese people, maybe with a core of truth in it, but it doesn't seem to apply to their corporate culture.

[–] HowManyNimons@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

Please understand.

[–] Eyck_of_denesle@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 months ago

Floorps pwa is still behind tge pwa extension. I wish it provided different prifiles for each pwa.

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

You got me so excited, your comment needs an edit. PWAs are not supported on Firefox desktop. The article even says so. It recommends an extension that is super janky requiring manual CSS edits to files in the FF folder, and multiple profiles. (from experience).

[–] Vincent@feddit.nl 4 points 2 months ago

Desktop web apps are being looked at though, so there's that!

[–] hades@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

I've updated my comment.

[–] Sbauer@lemmy.world 30 points 2 months ago (4 children)

They are deprecating the underlying technology(called manifest V2 or MV2 for short) and replacing it with a different one(MV3) that lacks some of the capabilities for some kind of adblocking.

So yeah, it’s pretty much dead on chromium. The developers of brave have commited to provide a best effort support for their browser though: https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/

Firefox on the other end has no intention of deprecating support for MV2 so any browsers based on that are fine. Keep in mind MV3 supports some adblocking and some Adblockers have already moved to it, it’s just a lesser extent.

[–] walthervonstolzing@lemmy.ml 17 points 2 months ago (3 children)

There's a less capable Mv3 port of uBlock Origin by the original developer, called 'uBlock Origin Lite': https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ddkjiahejlhfcafbddmgiahcphecmpfh

I use Chromium only very rarely, so I don't know how effective it is, though.

[–] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 2 months ago

It’s effective for probably most typical users (set it and forget it), especially if you “up” the permissions. Downside is the filter rules have to be bundled in the extension, so it doesn’t update dynamically.

[–] WhiteOakBayou@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

I used it on a relatives computer recently. On streaming sports sites it got about 90% of ads but did miss the transparent overlays that open a new page when clicked. UbO handles all of that just fine.

[–] AndrewZabar@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Yeah I saw it.

[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Brave and Vivaldi have both mentioned they intend to support V2 ongoing.

Brave was more like screw them we got this.

Vivaldi was hesitant and said they would do it as long as they could.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

worth clarifying though afaik brave has said they won’t remove v2; not that they will continue to support it… ie if there’s a breaking change in upstream chromium, i’m not sure i have confidence that they’ll spend a bunch of time working around it

[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

They also specifically said the way they block ads is not relative to V2 or V3. They said that even if V2 is completely destroyed they will still have the same ad blocking they have now.

[–] Vincent@feddit.nl 3 points 2 months ago

It's also not clear how long they'd be able to keep that up anyway, given... https://techcrunch.com/2024/08/28/brave-lays-off-27-employees/

[–] Engywuck@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago

In the case of Brave (or Vivaldi, to a certain extent) it doesn't matter too much, as it has a very capable built-in adblocker. It's not an extension, so it is not going to be weakened by MV3.

[–] lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network -3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Firefox on the other end has no intention of deprecating support for MV2

~~Why would they? They also don't implement MV2, but their own addon spec.~~ nvm they do

[–] leopold@lemmy.kde.social 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

MV3 doesn't make adblockers impossible, only less effective. It's important to note that MV3 has changed a fair bit since the initial controversy and isn't quite as limiting as it used to be. The fact that adblockers will lose some functionality at all is still a dealbreaker for me and many others which I thankfully won't have to deal with as a Firefox user, but it isn't going to kill adblockers on Chrome and most users will probably just install an MV3-compatible adblocker and move on with their day.

uBlock Origin's developers don't seem to want to make a proper MV3 port, which is fair because they'd probably have to rewrite most of the extension, but they did create the far more minimal uBlock Orgin Lite, which a lot of people have taken to be an attempt at porting uBlock Origin to MV3. It isn't that. On top of MV3's limitations, it also makes the decision to work within these self-imposed restrictions:

  • No broad host permissions at install time -- extended permissions are granted explicitly by the user on a per-site basis.

  • Entirely declarative for reliability and CPU/memory efficiency.

These aren't MV3 limitations, just a thing Gorhill decided to do. See the FAQ. You can get much closer to uBlock Origin within MV3's constraints than uBlock Origin Lite does. Right now, the best option appears to be AdGuard, which has been making a true best-effort attempt at porting their adblocker to MV3 pretty much since the announcement.

[–] AndrewZabar@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

Hey, the moment it becomes less than the best, I’m out lol. I guess it’s goodbye chromium.

It’s actually not what I was using; I was using nativefier to make webapp using electron. I guess I’m just gonna ditch all these ideas and just stick to Firefox and that’s it.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So, is Chromium going to go the way Google wants it to go for Chrome? It was my understanding that Chromium is kind of an offshoot and not just up to Google in terms of its course.

I would be surprised if it doesn't. Chromium isn't an offshoot, it is the primary base of Chrome; it is a Google project at its core, and they essentially fund and build upon the open source efforts of the community to make Chrome.

[–] AndrewZabar@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Ah ok. So they just want to eliminate the entire concept of ad blocking. Kinda desperate act.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If ever there was a good case to abandon Chrome, it's these actions.

I would have less problem with advertising if it wasn't multiple, full-coverage, 30-sec video ads in a row alongside malvertisements that only get caught after a user reports them. If they're gonna serve me garbage, I don't have to let them shove it in my face.

[–] AndrewZabar@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Yep, it’s kinda the last straw. I don’t do ads, period.

[–] Findmysec@infosec.pub 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I wonder how ungoogled-chromium is faring?

[–] Chewy7324@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

They are evaluating different ways to continue to support ad blocking. E.g. "unbraving" Brave Browser, or just implementing their adblock-rust.

They most likely won't support MV2, since it would get increasingly difficult with each update to Chromium.

https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium/issues/662

[–] BobDolesBBallHandle@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Here is another concerning reason to not use Chrome.

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/google/google-chrome-to-let-isolated-web-app-access-sensitive-usb-devices

[–] FrostyCaveman@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago

Isolated web apps… ewww

[–] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Chromium itself will. Other Chromium-based browser vendors have confirmed that they will maintain v2 support for as long as they can. So perhaps try something like Vivaldi. I haven't tried PWAs in Vivaldi myself, but it supports them according to the docs.

[–] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The problem with most of them, is they don’t host their own extension repositories, so their support doesn’t really matter unless you side load all the time.

[–] dev_null@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's not like getting Ublock Origin from the official website instead of the Chrome Web Store is some kind of a problem.

[–] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Do you sideload extensions in Chromium browsers often? No browser makes it especially easy, auto-updates are hit and miss (uBo has a zip from GitHub, does that auto update?), and it’s extremely likely that many authors don’t bother with special niche development when the vast majority of their user-base is gone (he doesn’t build an XUL version anymore either).

It’s, in fact, some kind of problem even if it isn’t for you.

[–] AndrewZabar@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I have Vivaldi installed mayhap I’ll give it a try.

[–] Trent@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago

Vivaldi is pretty nice and was my main browser until the announcement about MV3, but Vivaldi isn't going to support it beyond whenever google removes MV2 from the source (IIRC, Vivaldi folks expected it around June next year). But I saw the way the wind was blowing and decided to jump ship while I could still do it and take my own sweet time doing so. In retrospect, glad I did. Still miss some features like markdown notes and sidebar web pages, but it's still better than being buried in ads.

[–] RmDebArc_5@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

You can use webapp Manager to get web apps for Firefox and apparently official PWA support is also coming

[–] AndrewZabar@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Nice! Thanks.

[–] lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network 1 points 2 months ago

I can vouch for this, I've used this a lot and I love it!

[–] uzay@infosec.pub 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Another approach to webapps in Firefox is to create separate browser profiles and create shortcuts for them.

[–] lordnikon@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Firefox supports containers tabs built in under settings enable container tabs

[–] uzay@infosec.pub 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Which does not give them their own window and icon though.

[–] lordnikon@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

you can if you pick a site and select always open this site in this container then make shortcuts that opens for each site. it will automatically open the correct containers for each icon

[–] cerement@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 months ago

Firefox *might* be *thinking* about bringing back webapps: How can Firefox create the best support for web apps on the desktop?

[–] rzlatic@lemmy.ml -5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

so you have to decide: you want websites inside their own window with a nice icon, or you want to get ridd of ads.

if the first is imperative to you, the choice is simple. watch ads.

[–] AndrewZabar@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Yeah clearly that’s the choice. It’s not a huge deal obviously I’m just using the sites in Firefox I was just hoping chromium was a possibility.

The thing is, we (you know, us) are very dependent upon Firefox and their management has really exhibited some stubbornness in the recent years with regard to some issues that the user-base really don’t agree with. No I’m not citing examples I just have encountered this more than once or twice in the recent years with a variety of issues.