~~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.

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

      Oh, how I get you! I managed to switch to Firefox after a while, but it took some adapting, and still I miss some of Vivaldi’s features. That sidebar is just fantastic.

  • Katana314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Not quite on topic, but: This past week developers at my company have been slammed by the Chrome DevTools debugger freezing when you hit a breakpoint. There’s been no tracked bug and no timeline from Chrome on a fix. It’s been a little bit of a lesson in having just one browser engine.

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

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

      • 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.

  • cygnus@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

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

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

    • AnAmericanPotato@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month 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.

    • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Guess you get to find out if this will be effecting all of chromium or just chrome…

      • Traister101@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Brave is forked from Chromium so hypothetically they could maintain V2 but they’d need their own store as they currently rely on Googles

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

        Brave has added a feature to explicitly enable MV2 apps and install uBo directly from Brave settings. You can also install uMatrix and Adguard MV2 versions also.

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

            And jump to the clone? Mozilla isn’t better (consider their recent Ad Privacy clone), they just have less market share.

            That said, I use Firefox and Brave. Whatever I feel like at the time.

            • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              The clone? Are you implying that mozilla (founded 1998) is a clone of chrome (first launched 2008)?

              Just use anything but chome or chromium if you can. Just don’t feed the beast now known as alphabet.

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

              There are plenty of browsers built on Gecko that aren’t fire fox. So if you don’t trust Mozilla to build your browser, and don’t want your ad blocker bricked by Google, you have options.

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

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

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

  • 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.

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

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

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

    They should update the Chrome extension to tell people to download Firefox instead

    • r3df0x ✡️✝☪️@7.62x54r.ru
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Imagine if Google’s decision to do this to fight adblockers results in them losing the lead in the browser war because everyone switches to other browsers.

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

        Dreaming is one thing, but I remain skeptical. Tech people always seem to vastly overestimate how much the average population will react to tech news. Most people don’t care. They should but they don’t. In addition to that, use of Chrome by businesses is heavily entrenched. The IT guys probably hate it on a personal level, but it takes a lot to make business bigwigs change direction away from a “trustworthy” big company like Google.

        • r3df0x ✡️✝☪️@7.62x54r.ru
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          The vast majority of people aren’t even going to know or care. A lot of people will probably just continue on even when their adblocker becomes less effective. Of course the type of people who use adblockers are also more likely to wonder why their adblocker suddenly became less effective and then switch to a browser where it’s more effective.

          It takes a lot to change the inertia that already exists. People have been predicting the rise of the Linux desktop for at least a decade now and it still hasn’t really caught on.

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

          Tech people are niche but over time we will pre-install what we consider “good” on our grandmas, dads, moms, friends, etc… PCs

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

            Chrome was backed by Google, a multifaceted staple of the Internet ecosystem and rolled out with a ton of marketing behind it.

            I remain skeptical that Firefox could plausibly overtake Chrome. The mere word of mouth of tech enthusiasts simply isn’t enough to make a population majority proactively switch.

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

    I have a Chromebook, what do I need to do to get ubo? From my understanding, Firefox is not supported in the browser so I’d need to get Linux? How does security work with Linux?