Google is Killing uBlock Origin. No Chromium Browser is Safe.
Google is Killing uBlock Origin. No Chromium Browser is Safe.
We’ve been anticipating it for years,1 and it’s finally happening. Google is finally killing uBlock Origin – with a note on their web store stating that the ...
We’ve been anticipating it for years, and it’s finally happening. Google is finally killing uBlock Origin – with a note on their web store stating that the extension will soon no longer be available because it “doesn’t follow the best practices for Chrome extensions”.
Now that it is finally happening, many seem to be oddly resigned to the idea that Google is taking away the best and most powerful ad content blocker available on any web browser today, with one article recommending people set up a DNS based content blocker on their network 😒 – instead of more obvious solutions.
I may not have blogged about this but I recently read an article from 1999 about why Gopher lost out to the Web, where Christopher Lee discusses the importance of the then-novel term “mind share” and how it played an important part in dictating why the web won out. In my last post, I touched on the importance of good information to democracies – the same applies to markets (including the browser market) – and it seems to me that we aren’t getting good information about this topic.
This post is me trying to give you that information, to help increase the mind share of an actual alternative. Enjoy!
You're viewing a single thread.
Firefox needs to work on ensuring seamless compatibility with more websites, web apps and so on, because I'm personally very bored with my kids' schools and related services sending out emails and forms with links that simply won't open in FF but are clearly expecting Chrome or Edge where they work fine. Yes, this is on the lazy developers, but if FF want wider scale take-up outside of geeky niche groups then this is the stuff they must fix.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If your site doesn't work on Firefox your site doesn't work. As web developers your job is to develop applications for the web not for one specific browser. This goes double for essential services.
My job requires login to most internal websites via Microsoft Azure AD SSO using Kerberos authentication using passwordless, smart card auth.
This switch happened this week. Up until yesterday I was 100% Firefox until this.
Firefox for MacOS is not able to do this. I spent an hour or so looking for solutions. Chrome on MacOS also doesn't. Safari does and now I have to fucking use Safari FFS.
Could be worse. You could have to use Chrome.
I read this in my history and for a second thought it was in response to my other comment, which also is true
Bshahahaha
Internet Explorer has entered the chat.
Check some of Firefox's
about:configflags. A number of years ago I enabled something related to Kerberos for my previous company's (simpler) Microsoft SSO on a Mac, it may still be available and enough to work for you.I did. Unfortunately for the Mac it's a no-go. It was a good 10 year run :(
Or use Edge
Why do you hate me
Just tryna save you from the failed abortion that is Safari
Doesn't really matter to a regular user, in that case it's"Firefox doesn't work"
"ugh just use a normal browser"
- everyone
That's some BS. You and i both know that Chromium has the largest share in the browser business, so it makes sense from a development perspective to develop websites that will reach the most people. It's on Firefox to optimise their browser so that it can run these sites as well.
A single company shouldn't be able to dictate how the web works.
But they said they wouldn't be evil!
Shit. You got me there. Carry on I guess.
Well too bad, because that's how things are
Nope
Wrong again, sparky.
On the same line of thought, we should remove sidewalks and bike lanes because cars use the road more
That's a pretty crooked line of thought
line
I see what you did there...
firefox uses the standard, chrome are adding some non-standard crap to be anti-competitive. same shit microsoft did with internet explorer and caused it to eventually be replaced by chrome waybackwhen once law finally told them to back off.
it's not up to firefox, it's up to the law to step in and prevent google from doing anti-competitive non-standard shit.
Firefox can't fix all the broken sites in the world, but they do investigate issues reported to https://webcompat.com
You can help by reporting sites that don't work for you.
Slack calls disabled for firefox users, but if you change the user agent to chrome it works...
Almost like it does work on Firefox but for some reason they don't want you using it. Honestly it's so damn weird, why do that? Is there some incentive for them?
Okay that's fine, but when websites are effectively writing
if user_agent_string != [chromium] break;It doesn't really matter how good compatibility is. I've had websites go from nothing but a "Firefox is not supported, please use Chrome" splash screen to working just fine with Firefox by simply spoofing the user agent to Chrome. Maybe some feature was broken, but I was able to do what I needed. More often than not they just aren't testing it and don't want to support other browsers.
The more insidious side of this is that websites will require and attempt to enforce Chrome as adblocking gets increasingly impossible on them, because it aligns with their interests. It's so important for the future of the web that we resist this change, but I think it's too late.
The world wide web is quickly turning into the dark alley of the internet that nobody is willing to walk down.
As a developer, I can foresee websites using features other than
navigator.userAgentto detect Chrome, because it's easy to change its value. For example: for now,navigator.getBatteryis available only in Chromium, and it doesn't need permissions to be checked for its existence throughtypeof navigator.getBattery === 'function'(also, the function seems to be perfectly callable without user intervention, enabling additional means of fingerprinting). While it's easy to spoof userAgent, it's not as easy to "mock" unsupported APIs such asnavigator.getBatterythrough Firefox.
I can't think of a single example where a web page doesn't work on FF.
if FF want wider scale take-up outside of geeky niche groups
Lol. I remember when FF was the most popular browser.
I just need a „install as app“ Feature in Firefox, that is not as pain as the webapp Manager app we currently have
What do you mean "install as app"?
Install PWA so that you can start those as normal native apps without it looking like a website in a browser (remove unnecessary window decorations) and cache js for ever, so that the PWA can be used offline, if features are not dependant on API calls
On mobile it's the three dots then the install button that has an image of a cellphone?
I guess, I only know the way on iPhone using “add to homescreen”
There was a point in time where Firefox had the most market share? When was this?
Around 2009~2011 if I remember correctly. Back then it was either IE or FF. Then Chrome came on the scene with their fancy marketing ads and blew up very quickly to overtake FF.
At the time FF felt bloated compared to Chrome, so Chrome was like the fresh new and faster alternative.
Can you send me an example? I don't think I ever really encountered those sites and I use FF almost exclusively for ~20 years.
Yeah, unfortunately the next step will be sites rejecting "unsecure" browsers because they want the ad money.
This is going to get worse, not better.
Firefox needs to work on ensuring seamless compatibility with more websites, web apps and so on
Care to share some examples Firefox has trouble with? The only issues I have with websites is due to my aggressive use of Noscript.
There's some streaming video sites that deliberately block Firefox. It used to be that Firefox didn't support the necessary web standards, but now it does. The site put up blocks telling you to use Chrome, and never got around to taking them down.
I'm on a Surface Pro, which is a somewhat weaker device. For whatever reason, Microsoft Edge (Chromium) runs YouTube and Twitch much better than Firefox. This might be due to efficiency in the browser, or the site video code itself being built for it.
It's pretty trivial to just use an alternate browser for the garbage sites that don't support FF.
What to do when the site is not compatible with Firefox: Alt + ←
If I create a blank HTML file, every single web browser will open it perfectly fine. If I add browser-specific things that firefox doesn't have, it is my responsibility to create an alternative that keeps the site working. A user shouldn't have to switch browsers due to incompetence of webdevs.
I just want my modern codecs to function. Why can't I play .mov or h264??