Orion (https://orionbrowser.com) is a WebKit-based browser for Mac, Linux, iPadOS and iOS that supports both Chrome and Firefox extensions natively ⟩ including uBlock Origin.
We have no plans to drop extension support. Content blocking is a feature, not a loophole, and we think users should have full control over what runs in their browser.
I'm a devoted Kagi user and really want to use Orion but keep running into perf issues and jank that frustrate me enough to switch back to something else. My most recent attempt was this past week.
You all seem to maintain a very fast pace of development (the changelogs are always chock full of cool stuff) but the problems I am hitting have remained broken for ages. Some examples include:
* The app hangs for 1~2 sec partway through typing a URL/search, when using the back button, or during other navigation
* The 1Password extension fails to fill usernames and passwords most of the time, regardless of which version I install. It works fine in Safari, Chrome, Firefox.
* Your built-in ad blocking triggers anti-ad-blocking measures on many news/blog sites now, resulting in the entire page being blocked.
I don't know your business, but maybe pausing new features and pushing for stability/perf/quality of life for a while (a la macOS Snow Leopard) would make sense.
Any idea if that browser will ever go open source? I don't mind flatpaks but would rather just have some of my tools installed on my distro (which can be monumental to maintain).
I am also strongly perturbed by the misrepresentation, especially with no real package support. An alpha flatpak that posts "coming soon" is a bad first impression.
What about the glaring memory issues that is a pinned thread in your forum? It’s had one comment by a staff member over 5 or so months?
I loved Orion and have been using as a daily driver almost since day 1 including paying for it but now it’s completely unusable. I’ve since moved to Firefox.
The fact that a pinned thread was silent for months concerns me about the future of Orion. It honestly hurts to see.
Literally this. Every response initially was "we don't see that and we let it sit for weeks". Now there's just no response from devs. I was unable to browse past more than 1 or 2 pages before memory ballooned to 30gb.
Why do you have quite a number of glaring UX issues? I want to love Orion, but even something as basic as the tabs theming is driving me away.
By default is it almost impossible to distinguish which tabs i active in some situations. I think the browser automatically tints the window based on the dominant color of the page you are viewing, which means if I am viewing youtube for example, the whole browser windows is tinted a bit darker, in such a way that I can't easily make out outline of the currently selected tab.
Such a bummer for what should have been an easlity changeable behavior with settings: I do not want any tinting, and I want hight contract mode
Then again, our laptop battery only lasts 1/3 as much on MacOS.
I know, I know. The community keeps pretending this isn’t an issue for the last, hum, 15 years? But it is, and for people that are looking for a tool and not for a statement, it quickly drives them away from Firefox back to Chrome browsers.
I've used Firefox across devices, across the years. This just isn't my experience, at all, remotely. And I have had to use Chrome (now it is Edge) for many work functions, so I do have the A/B comparisons. I'm not doubting your experience, fine, but I also know I'm not "pretending" anything in my own experience.
doesn't happen in my case (OnePlus 15/Android 16, Firefox background usage allowed in some "smart" mode whatever that means, doesn't suck the battery in background although it's on most of the time).
Anything to back those claims up? I use Firefox and didn't really notice this (although I am rarely on battery), and other than Google Meet making my machine throttle (and I blame that on Google not on Mozilla), I don't use Chrome for anything else for my browsing.
This isn't the gotcha you think it is. Every time I try Vivaldi I am right back at Firefox and I am surely not alone. I have never understood the obsession with tree style tabs or vertical tabs. I don't need to customise my browser at all and I like supporting engine diversity.
The motivation for vertical tabs is pretty straightforward, screens are mostly wider than they are tall, browsers are often used in fullscreen mode, yet much of the web does not use much of the screen's width. So it's a better use of screen space to put tabs on the side than on top.
Ok, but not every use case is so primitive? I do need my custom shortcuts and what not, so it is exactly the correct "gotcha" I think it is even if that's beyond your understanding.
went from Firefox to Vivaldi, never looked back for many years
on Android phone tried many, most recently was using Kiwi Browser, then for some time Firefox until they fucked up UI, so moved to Cromite, though my phone broke (never buy Google Pixel again, first broken phone after 15 years with smartphones and various brands including very low budget), so now I am on my old phone which for some reason doesn't support Cromite, so I am back at Firefox temporarily
The classic 'those guys did something bad, so I am going to go with the guys who are absolute assholes doing several orders of magnitude more bad things now instead' response.
That usually means that whoever utters it was just looking for a sycophantic excuse to go with the bigger threat because it is more convenient to them (for now).
It's remarkable how often this happens, isn't it? One incident of someone not living up to standards is suddenly an opportunity to abandon standards and go with known bad actors. It's like people giving up on the MSM and immediately latching onto propaganda Youtubers instead.
As a user at least I have an option to use ublock origin extension in Firefox. So I'm somewhat grateful I can still browse the net peacefully and safely.
Firefox and Firefox-derivative browsers have and continue to be seriously sluggish and memory and energy hogs. This should not be swept under the rug.
Even today it is difficult for me to use Firefox, Mullvad, etc. When I used to use them, almost every time my machine became slow the solution was to kill Firefox.
EDIT: It's true folks, I would love to be able to use Firefox as my primary browser. But all my experience with it (and I used it for more than a decade) has been dogged by its sluggishness.
I use Firefox mobile pretty much exclusively. I haven't noticed any meaningful performance difference between it & Chrome. It also seems to perform fine on my Fedora laptop.
Mobile is different. I rarely even use mobile. I do however use a lot of tabs on desktop, and Firefox is found very wanting in the performance department.
I don't even think its about number of tabs. Just yesterday and today, Mullvad browser takes minutes to load a set of about 7 pinned tabs (with no other tabs) on startup, whereas Helium (which is based on Chromium) loads in a second or two close to a hundred tabs.
This does not make sense. Firefox would be taking minutes to open a page that Chrome opens within a second or two. And if Chrome was doing aggressive pre-fetching, then it should be using more memory, no? And yet the opposite is the case.
uBo is the only reason I find browsing the web at all tolerable anymore. As a test I turned it off to view this article and almost crashed my browser with a dozen auto play video ads
This would mean I would find the energy to get over anything that is holding me on chrome, like saved passwords etc.
I personally consider uBlock Origin as an Internet infrastructure component. I have no ... _no_ idea whatsoever how some people use the Internet without it.
uBlock Origin Lite with MV3 works perfectly fine on Chrome. I don't notice a difference to the classic uBlock Origin, it even has a element zapper nowadays.
It's quite possible that we're just not meant to view the web. Those companies that even maintain websites might intend for us to really view things on their phone app. The garbage you see on the website is then not just some parasitic draining of your spiritual health, but a disincentive designed to convince you to stop using the web altogether.
I just tested and apparently their site is extremely flaky. I tried for several minutes to get info but nothing except one time (changing store location, refreshing). Then it started working fine for a while, updating when I changed location. I cleared cookies out each time and that didn't cause/fix it. So it's not intentional to push you to the app, just a shit site (not just because of this issue, but its extreme slowness on mobile).
It doesn't have to be a deliberate decision by upper management with the express purpose of pushing you towards the app. That's quite unlikely, some flunky would have anonymously published the email or memo dictating that policy were it so.
But in the same way that an individual human might do something with a subconscious purpose and plausibly claim they weren't aware that's why they were doing the thing, so too can a organized group of people do something when it suits their collective purpose. The group drifts into a behavior which is advantageous, someone in upper management is pleased with it even though the drift wasn't steered, and encourages more of the same. As that process iterates, it becomes clear why they go in that direction all without some Senior VP telling everyone at a department-wide meeting to go in that direction.
Just remember that Google is essentially an advertising company and that they were always going to squeeze this opening closed as soon as they could get away with it.
I do fear for a future were even Firefox ends up caving in. Ladybird browser might be our only hope until something legal comes along to block functionality.
Because Mozilla, at least from the outside appears to have been horribly mismanaged for the past 20-25 years and only survived because the ad money kept rolling in.
I'm not knocking Mozilla for taking money from Google, it was a smart move. Most users would use Google anyway, so Mozilla pocketing billions by making users preferred search engine the default didn't really hurt anyone. Some of that money should however have gone into a trust or some type of investment so that funding for browser development would be safe if the ad money ever dried up.
Maybe someone at Mozilla knows something I don't, but there doesn't seem to be much planning for the future.
There is a meme that Google financially supports Firefox development as some soft of strategy whereby having an "alternative" to Chrome gives Google some sort of "protection"
This does not make any sense and there is zero evidence to support it
Firefox's value to Google could be as a source for browser development. As part of the agreement between Google and Mozilla, perhaps Google gets more than just search traffic from Firefox, perhaps it also gets collaboration with Mozilla on software development. There is a history of such collaboration. Google CEO did not want competition from Mozilla on a browser. Chrome was originally written by ex-Mozilla developers using components of Firefox^1
Why "ad money"? That's a very uncharitable interpretation and for anyone not aware of the situation it's misleading. They're not paid for ads or by ads, they're paid by Google to continue being a viable alternative to Chrome. Is every Google employee getting "ad money" every month, or a salary?
The payment is more accurately described as a protection tax.
In this particular context there really isn't any difference. Technically Mozilla isn't in the business of delivering ads, but their revenue is mostly supported by ad money from Google, and Google, being an ad giant, can simply cut that stream off. The common sentiment seems to be that this would spell a life and death situation for the company and for the browser as a whole, which essentially makes Firefox a hostage to the whims of an ideologically hostile corporate entity.
I wouldn't say so. They're not offering their cloud at the same scale other competitors. Not sure when the last was I saw advertising for unlike AWS, Azure.
Felt more like their cloud services were more of a side product for when "the cloud" was the trendy buzzword and a way to justify their infrastructure costs. That and keeping a leg in the egg & spoon race.
I'm with you on the first one and that's the closest reason why you could call Firefox payment "ad money". But the rest are not too strong. Google makes a lot of non-ad money too, even if it's a smaller portion than ads. You don't call airlines "banks" just because they make all of their money from currency-like "miles", and even fly at a loss [0].
What I want to say is that calling it "ad money" makes Firefox look bad when it shouldn't.
As in my reply further below, Q1 2026 you can see Google makes 70% of revenue from Ads, the non-ad money you refer to is only 1/3. But if you look at net income, 85% of the net income from Google comes from Services (including Ads).
The Airlines story is taken out of context and different from Google, Delta for example in the Q1 2026 filing you can see they have a revenue of $15.8bn, of which ticket sales is $10.7bn ! Loyalty program income is just $1bn. However the net income supports the story The Atlantic ran, which just means that out of the $1bn, they are getting more net income from their mileage programs, than income from out of $10.7bn ticket sales, because the operating expense of flying airplane is quite high from fuel, etc.
So on one side, Google has 70% revenue from Ads, and even more % if you count net income. On the other side, Airlines - like Delta - have 70% of their revenue from passenger, but relatively speaking less net income from ticket sales if you consider net income.
You are not comparing the same thing. If you just compare revenue, Airlines cannot be called Banks because they still make 70% of their revenue from passenger ticket sales, just as how Google is an Ad company because their main revenue is 70% ads!
If you compare net income, the airlines story can have an angle, but the Google story doesn't, because their net income from Ads is way higher!
When someone says that all money a company pays is "money from their main segment", that's intentionally misrepresenting. In this case what's important is what the money is for, not from. Calling it "Firefox had ad-money coming in" can only be bad faith, the usual social media rage bait.
Now everyone comes out of the woodwork with "well akshully" because there's an interpretation where they can plausibly claim "technically I'm right" despite knowing they are sending the wrong message.
Basketball player LeBron James made more money from endorsements than sports, gas stations make more money from selling coffee and food than gas, and fast-food giant McDonald's makes more money from rent than from fast-food. If you called a gas station "a grocery store" you'd be technically right but also practically and pointlessly wrong.
Well thought out commentary... Let's dig deeper and at least we make it more interesting conversation, not a blurb.
Wouldn't it be technically no because Google's revenue isn't 100% from ads? They're making almost $120bn from cloud, subscriptions and devices for example. It could be cloud money. And if Google gets ad money so whatever it pays becomes ad money, then it's ad money all the way down.
FYI last fiscal results from Q1 of Alphabet, Google Cloud made $20bn revenue Q1 2026, up from Q4 2025 of $17bn. It's a bit misleading to include "subscriptions, platforms, and devices" in cloud.
Q1 2026 Google's revenue totalled $109bn, of which $77bn is Ads, so 70% of its revenue is Ads. It's common knowledge that Google is an Ads company.
I googled the money they made from cloud, subscriptions, platforms, and devices, then approximated almost $120bn in a year. The precise number mattered less than the fact that it's a ton of it already, enough to cover a lot of payoffs.
> It's a bit misleading to include
I didn't "include in" anything, it was an enumeration of things that aren't ads. "Google makes $Q from X and Y", not from "X included in Y".
You found something that's technically correct (a clear enumeration and addition) to be misleading. I think you now accidentally understand what was my initial objection. A lot of other people in the thread don't because that's how social media works, they go with the prevailing opinion for the sweet sweet likes, or go against it and get squeezed out.
Making Firefox even less desirable by "googlifying" it pushes Firefox users away and kills its image of a viable competitor. That's exactly what Google is paying for.
Why would Google destroy the cover they have for keeping control over Chrome and 70% of internet users, just to squeeze a bit more ad revenue from what, 2% of users?
Copying Chrome at the expense of loosing even more of their user share has been Firefox's MO for the last decade. It doesn't have to make sense to be reality.
If Mozilla operates from revenue derived from selling www traffic to an advertising company running a "search engine", then it is 100% possible and realistic that Mozilla's browser could be optimised for advertising
Mozilla literally advocates for an "online advertising ecosystem"
At present Firefox is designed to send search traffic to Google by default
Mozilla can only see its continued existence through support from advertising. It does not just partner with advertising compaines, it actually acquired an adtech company
Google has a history of "shaking the cushions" by targeting their advertising customers and Chrome. It's reasonable to forsee that they could also target the agreement with Mozilla, i.e., Firefox
Maybe Mozilla breaks its partnership with Google, who knows. But based on a long history of Mozilla advocacy for online ads and working with online advertising companies, it seems 100% committed to online advertising as a "business model" regardless of whether it partners with Google or another "search engine"
It's giving Sony. Similar situation where you have a media business and also make some of the distribution channels including engineering of devices used to consume the content.
"We won't be able to provide / maintain this functionality indefinitely due to the complexity and tech debt, as well as the security risks it entails (we've actually found a number of bugs that are specific to MV2 lately)."
Poor little Google doesn't have the resources to support mv2.
But when your browser has a 2% market share worldwide, some developers won't bother to test on it. And if your setup is even more obscure (I use Firefox on Linux with an adblocker and third-party cookies blocked and DRM disabled and autoplaying video disabled and so on) making you rare even among that 2%, sometimes sites won't have tested with your specific configuration.
It's useful to have a second browser around, as a fallback when a site is broken. Uploading images when creating a listing on ebay is broken, but I don't have to figure out which element of my setup is breaking it, I can just switch to the other browser.
Edge user here. For one, chromium is faster than firefox, any given page will load about 20% faster, another reason is edge workspaces feature, I've grown to like it, which seems to be some sort of chromium feature that everyone bakes in weird ways if at all, and I'm still running ublock origin on edge without any funky bypasses.
Then there's a fact that a bunch of sites/webapps straight up refuse to work on firefox and they ask you to install chrome or something. And lastly chromium the most popular browser flavor and as a web dev it helps to see pages through "the same eyes" as my users/customers.
That's about it, the only reason I use firefox every day is their superior picture-in-picture player, chromium one is waaay inferior.
I'm hardcore FF, and it used to be a bit slower than Chrome, but nowadays the difference is barely noticeable. And on very large pages (e.g. big tables), Chrome is a lot slower than FF.
Give Vivaldi a try. I used edge on windows and android ever since it started used chromium, and switched to Vivaldi on Linux and android 8 months ago. Generally quite happy with it - not really missing any features from edge.
I switched over to Edge from Firefox because it was simply much better at managing its memory on my laptop. With Firefox I had to be far more cautious about having too many things running at once. WSL2 would often be killed to free up memory.
Recently I found they added the ability to auto-sort and group tabs via Copilot, probably the only thing I've found the non-GitHub copilot to be genuinely useful for.
There are 2 reasons why I'm using chromium (with ublock origin lite) over Firefox:
1. Chromium is significantly faster (maybe 5 to 10x faster on certain tasks mostly around canvas but anything that requires fast ui really). Every time I use Firefox it feels like it has some kind of serious problem. If chrome was this slow I would stop working and start investigating what part of my computer is broken. This experience hasn't changed over span of 10 years, 3 OSes and several computers.
2. Neverending caching issues on Firefox. It just caches too aggressively which makes development really annoying to a point where anytime I encounter issue on Firefox my first thought is "Is this Firefox caching issue?". On chrome when I change button color and I don't see it, I know I made a mistake. If I change button color on Firefox, my first thought is, is this Firefox caching issue? When I develop web I have very quick update loop and I really can't be questioning browser. I cannot work like this. Firefox is unusable for me.
> It just caches too aggressively which makes development really annoying to a point where anytime I encounter issue on Firefox my first thought is "Is this Firefox caching issue?".
This is a non-issue, if the devtools is opened, checkbox for "disable cache" is is checked by default.
> When I develop web I have very quick update loop and I really can't be questioning browser. I cannot work like this. Firefox is unusable for me.
How can you be developing front-ends and not have the devtools open while doing your quick edit-test cycle?
Ctrl + shift + R would solve your second problem at all times.
And I don't think your first point is quantified correctly and I am sure there is no data to back it up. But I understand the appeal of trying to quantify your personal experience.
I can back up their first point a tiny bit with regards to canvas. The primary product of our company is heavily canvas-based so I’ve always noticed that canvas on Firefox on macs is slower than on Chrome but it used to be in the 2-3x range and nowadays is more in the 1.5x range. They’ve made great improvements and I’ve never noted anything close to 5-10x slowdowns.
On Windows Firefox and Chrome canvas has performed equally well at least for the past ten years. Got no data for linux tho.
Is that a rhetorical question suggesting those people are wrong, or are you asking for, e.g., the technical reasons some software only works with Chrome in the mix?
1. Firefox's ctrl-f search doesn't highlight all instances of a found item on the right hand side. It sounds petty, but its a gigantic timesaver for looking through research documents
2. Firefox's tab crash recovery isn't as solid. I use chrome with fully persistent tabs, and its a gigantic pain if I can't re-open them
If I could find a way to fix these I'd swap in a heartbeat
You need to click "highlight all" to highlight all occurrences. It's the checkbox to the right of the search box. If you enable it for the first time, you may need to hit enter in the search bar again for it to show up (it remembers the setting and works instantly the next search)
> 2. Firefox's tab crash recovery isn't as solid. I use chrome with fully persistent tabs, and its a gigantic pain if I can't re-open them
I normally have 5-50 tabs open (so perhaps on the lower end), but I can't recall the last time I crashed a tab in the last 3 years. I also use persistent/pinned tabs and never noticed issues.
Its not the tabs themselves crashing, its when firefox (or my pc as a whole - I'm a developer and its a frequent occurance) crashes, firefox isn't as good as chrome at remembering what tabs were previously open
This isn't the 90's anymore where browsers behave wildly differently for the same page content. If you're not using absolute, bleeding age web APIs, Firefox and Chrome work identically. In my experience, there are exactly 3 types of websites that work differently between Firefox and Chrome: The Toy Hobby Experiments (who are just demoing some bleeding-edge API feature), The Monopoly-Bootlicking Liars (who reject my request based on UserAgent string alone, and when I spoof a Chrome UA the site works perfectly), and the Evil Monopolist Themselves (a few of Google's own sites run notably slower on Firefox, most notably Google Cloud Console).
Actually, I opted in for tracking. Knowing my interests, Google suggests good articles on their Android app feed.
Also, there are a few parts of Firefox that still look ancient, like the bookmarks and history managers, as well as the PDF viewer, where the buttons are too small to click easily. Unfortunately, those are unusable for a Gen Zer.
I keep chromium installed mostly to run virtual tabletop software (specifically Foundry VTT), because webgl performance in firefox is not great (though it has improved somewhat in the last couple of years). There are also a few sites (mostly restaurants for some reason) that just refuse to work properly in firefox, so I sometimes fall back to chromium. I wish I could drop it like a bad habit, because frankly Google's shenanigans piss me off on a semi-regular basis.
Gecko, WebKit and—hopefully—Ladybird are the true alternatives. I used to think this was too extreme. But the ad vendor dragging ad blockers out of the engine flipped my view.
On mobile, Opera is the only usable browser. It supports text reflow on zoom, and also I can choose the download folder for each file. Allows me to keep porn and non-porn downloads separate.
I'm a Firefox user for about 20yrs (since Firefox 3);
but too often I have to use Chrome, as so many sites only work properly on it; Firefox is really buggy or laggy on those websites;
For a time, all those AI chat web pages were just very slow on Firefox even with very little context, whereas Chrome only gets laggy when there is a lot of context.
Are you really sure it’s not because of an add-on?
If I remember correctly, Mozilla has said that about 95% of all pages that don’t work aren’t due to Firefox, but to an add-on.
I use Firefox exclusively and don’t usually notice that pages don’t work. When that happens, as I said, it’s almost always an add-on that’s to blame. And I dont notice its buggy or laggy. So could be good check your addons next time.
Here are some cases where Firefox really sucks: some of them are specific CSS styles, some are downgraded features, and some of them I just don't know why. As I mentioned here, the ChatGPT web and Gemini web used to be very laggy for no reason—or maybe it was just a bug for me?
I don't think any of this is caused by add-ons, though.
But it's getting better, and most of those problems are just gone;
Same here, but when a site completely fails in Firefox I either A) use my phone because mobile Firefox occasionally works or B) use Ungoogled Chromium.
Not using many extensions on my case, but Google meet remains unusable for a long time, sound is horrible during meetings. Chrome on the other hand works fine
Ok but if you use it only for testing, and not for your ‘real’ browsing, then probably the fact that they track what you are doing is not that important, even if it’s still a nuisance. Or not?
only reason I can think of is synchronization among devices since you can't find same decent browser you could use on Android phone and desktop, Firefox ain't decent browser on neither of those, on desktop Vivaldi with customization and stability is superior, on Android Firefox actually ain't THAT bad since good browsers with extensions support are not that common, I would recommend Cromite, though there is also Helium and Ultimatum
Firefox will also disable V2 sooner or later. BUT. Chrome then will still have uBlock Origin lite. Firefox won't, because mozilla banned that extension from store.
Yeah, pissing off the ecosystem is a great way to drive users to your competitors. Requiring users to manually install and update a popular extension is a subpar experience.
It seems they spent so much of their budget on the CEO's salary that they couldn't afford an extension review team.
Quoting open-paren comment (2024):
> As far as I can tell, there are maybe two reviewers that are based in Europe (Romania?). The turn around time is long when I am in the US, and it has been rife with this same kind of "simple mistake" that takes 2 weeks to resolve.
Even if their review is flawed with false positive rejections, you'd think they have checks to require approvals from up the chain for poster child extensions that without which FF would be nothing.
Why wouldn't someone anyone cobble together a v3 version between the uncertain future date in which v2 was deprecated and when it became unavailable. There appears to be no possible future in which google has better adblocking.
I switched from Firefox to Chrome a couple of years back because Firefox always dragged its feet when it came to implementing important developer features. Like, DataView was excruciatingly slow in Firefox; WebGPU support didnt go anywhere; and they initially refused to implement import maps. I consider the latter to be an essential tool as it allows me to work without the need for build systems. Also, chrome dev tools worked far better.
Since Chrome blocked ublock, I switched to Edge. Not sure where I will go next, but I dont think it will be Firefox since they are always years late.
I hope Firefox never drops MV2. I have a lot of other extensions that use it other than uBlock. Can't believe Google really went through with it. We are truly in the end times of "personal" computing, very sad to see :/
MV3 itself isn't what breaks uBlock Origin, it is the bundled removal of capabilities that Chrome decided to do. Firefox MV3 supports full WebRequest "scopes" while Chrome only supports declarativeNetRequest.
I wonder what will Vivaldi do. They say that their built-in content blocker is "good enough" that you supposedly don't need uBO (I very much disagree) but they also keep MV2 extensions working to this day.
How is it half of HN is convinced Firefox can compete with Chrome in its entirety and the other half is convinced nobody can possibly maintain a single additional API version on Chromium?
It's about the tech stack, IMO. Chromium is a moving target to maintain compatibility with, which is difficult for a team that doesn't have much C++ experience.
As a counter example, Brave is heavily invested in C++ and Rust, and I believe they could handle that work much better.
Sure but even Vivaldi has a few C++ folks on the dev team, how many more is it to maintain an existing API to changes in the codebase, especially when any of the hard parts of that work only need be done once among all of the forks.
Even if they don't want to handle it directly, this is the kind of thing a single sponsor can pay Igalia for, who have shown the ability to make entire new Chromium subsystems like MathML. There is no shortage of C++ browser developers in the world to do maintenance work.
Wouldn't it be possible to write some kind of local proxy server with MITM for HTTPS that modifies scripts and supplies the missing functionality for ublock origin?
partially, but it couldn't replicate all functionally. A lot of uBO rules apply to elements on the DOM. Like hiding a div with ID "#ads". That div often isn't sent as pure HTML, but is instead added to the page via JS code executing. At the MITM-level you won't be able to have rules that apply to the rendered DOM.
That said, selector based ad-blocking is still supported in MV3. So might be possible to get most of the functionality with both a MITM-level blocker and an MV3 selector based blocker.
So, what's next?
Will Chrome ship with hard coded DNS, so that DNS based adblockers will stop working as well?
Where (and when) does my rights what to display on my devices end?
Ship has already sailed, it's called DoH. Please note, that it is to make your DNS safer and has absolutely nothing to do with removing your ability to resolve DNS in whatever way you want to(cough adblock cough).
I guess I just missed that?!
I'm running a mix of Adguard and nextdns blockers on some of my mobile devices, and both are apparently handling the DoH issue for you; by just blanket blocking the resolvers and/or ports, to force a fallback....
I need a Beer.
MV3 is actually a faster but less capable version.
With MV2, every request must be filtered with slow, JIT, garbage-collected JavaScript code. In MV3, filtering is handled by native browser code using the list provided by extensions. UserScripts could be used to modify the DOM, but that requires power users to manually enable it.
The uBlock Origin Lite FAQ said In general, uBOL will be less effective at dealing with websites using anti-content blocker or minimizing website breakage because many filters can't be converted into DNR rules (see log of conversion for technical details).[1]
I use uBO lite with Safari on macOS/iOS and maybe I just don't know what I'm (not?) missing, but it seems fine? I rarely see ads. Is uBO lite for Chrome that much worse than uBO?
Normies don't care much about ads, trackers and all that nuisance. I find it astonishing when you see them dodging all that crap while browsing the Internet
Ungoogled Chromium (https://ungoogled-software.github.io/) will 99.9% likely patch MV2 back in if they remove it (as there's already support and they will never remove it) and Ungoogled Chromium based Helium (https://helium.computer/) even ships with uBlock Origin by default.
And then there's still Firefox and all of its forks.
Best of luck to Big Tech as people will move on elsewhere.
I would recommend folks check out Helium (https://helium.computer) it’s fast, basically just ungoogled chromium, and has full support for ublock origin.
This meant they added to Blink all the Gecko features uBlock Origin used?[1] Or they said they could maintain MV2 after Google removed it fully? Or they supported it so far?
They said We'll keep support for MV2 extensions for as long as possible. But other developers said this and meant they would support MV2 until Google removed it.
They bundle uBlock Origin into their Chromium fork, I expect that if it became too difficult to support the APIs needed on MV2, they'd integrate the features more directly into the browser.
Switched back over to Firefox a few weeks ago, it's as pleasant as I remember it being.
Unfortunately sometimes my Intel Arc B580 has a driver quirk where all the windows freeze and unlike Chromium based browsers I can't open Task Manager and kill the GPU Process and have it restart and have everything keep working, but rather have to kill the whole browser and restart it and hope the tabs load back correctly - thankfully haven't had many issues with losing those (only once or twice in the past year, but those were fucking annoying).
Either way, I explored both Edge as my daily driver for a year or so and also Safari on my Mac - both are actually fine as far as the user experience is concerned, but in the end I still come back to Firefox. It's a browser, it doesn't feel user hostile, it does its job well enough. Also personally I like its devtools more.
I have been using UBlock Origin Lite on Chrome for a while, and while it's not perfect and needs a bit of manual tweaking here and there, it's been mostly good for me
If they were willing to make exceptions then I would hope the list isn't closed. I view this as the best of the possible worlds not the best of all imaginable worlds.
They would add the most popular fork if uBlock Origin was abandoned is plausible. They would add a no reputation developer's proof of concept is unlikely I think.
Good! Give everyone the push they need to break the web homogeny of Chrome everywhere.
I'm tired of all the (mostly technical) people whining that they need Chrome, and only Chrome can browse the internet. Then you ask them for a site that doesn't work and conveniently "it was some time back and I don't remember the details".
I've been using FF since before it was called Firefox. In the last 10 years I've not come across any site that doesn't work with Firefox - online shopping, social media, banking, custom line-of-business internal apps, ERP apps... you name it.
And, TBH, if I did, I'd just visit that one site with Chrome, and still use FF daily.
I switched to FireFox like 8 years ago, but to be completely honest there are maybe 2-3 very important sites that straight up do not work for me at all with FireFox. Like, completely unusable, not just weird graphical issues.
But I'm wondering if you are doing something wrong. I just tried nebula in Firefox 151.0.3 and it works flawlessly. Full screen works, all buttons in the player work.
I also tried it on Firefox for Android and it works.
I used FireFox for the same reasons, for years. Every time I started Chrome, it was a breath of fresh air. Everything was just slightly faster to react, to switch tabs, to scroll, to interact.
I kept reading posts about how the FireFox team was increasing performance, yet it never seemed to really impact it. Maybe because I often have several windows with a dozen tabs each (yes, one of those people.)
These days I have given up, and I haven't tried it for about two years now, maybe more. Is it any better? Does anyone know, for real, not a marketing blog post?
It still lives on the Dock, next to Safari and Chrome. I can't bear to remove the icon.
And Mozilla seems way off in the weeds with its product and corporate strategy. At this point, I'd pay for a non-Chromium, highly performant, privacy-first browser.
> Every time I started Chrome, it was a breath of fresh air. Everything was just slightly faster to react, to switch tabs, to scroll, to interact.
Well, with unblockable ads coming to Chrome, that will no longer be true.
There is no world in which browsing on Chrome with ads is faster than browsing on Firefox without ads.
> Is it any better? Does anyone know, for real, not a marketing blog post?
Well, since moving from ads to no-ads results in roughly a 30% performance increase, you can expect Firefox with uBlock origin to beat out anything in Chrome.
> And Mozilla seems way off in the weeds with its product and corporate strategy.
> Well, with unblockable ads coming to Chrome, that will no longer be true.
You've been arguing strongly (condescendingly, really) against people making (what you see as) uneducated claims about Firefox. Yet there you are, doing the same with Chrome.
Meta's ad manager breaks maybe once a year on Safari, so I have to boot up Chrome. Also recently there's been an odd bug on more than one sites (at least Zoho mail and, again, Meta) where the top 20 or so pixels are hidden behind the tab bar. Again works in Chrome. But mostly Safari has been fine.
- Chrome is safer due to the proper sandboxing of tabs.
- Try watching anything on YouTube on Firefox - for me even 360p stream (on 12c, mostly idle Linux PC) stutters to the point of being unwatchable. None of the is/browser settings work. Yeah, I realise YouTube is owned by Google
That's just my first two (just look it up, don't take my word for it), to show your "whining" claim is just an uneducated hostility not bound in facts.
this sounds like a weird driver issue. in 30 years of watching content on YouTube, I've never seen it stutter unless I was using some weird low power PC.
'Then you ask them for a site that doesn't work' - For me it was Youtube. Debian 13, Gnome, apt update && apt install firefox, try playing a video. It's always noticebly slower, and last time it didn't even play at all. It might be skill issue or Google malicious behavior or both, but I'm ashamed to say installing Chrome was easier than troubleshooting. I'm slowly growing balls to sacrifice my comfort and migrate nontheless. But I'm tired of people pretending it's just as good and easy to use. Also, if anyone's wondering, gaming on linux still sucks, just a bit less.
> 'Then you ask them for a site that doesn't work' - For me it was Youtube. Debian 13, Gnome, apt update && apt install firefox, try playing a video. It's always noticebly slower, and last time it didn't even play at all. It might be skill issue or Google malicious behavior or both, but I'm ashamed to say installing Chrome was easier than troubleshooting. I'm slowly growing balls to sacrifice my comfort and migrate nontheless. But I'm tired of people pretending it's just as good and easy to use.
These are very different experiences we have. I've been using FF on Linux and on Windows since before the first day I found Youtube, and have not yet had a period where it doesn't work.
It's not pretending when tens of thousands are browsing that self-same site just fine over the period you had problems.
I've used Debian, Mint, Ubuntu, Fedora, Arch, Slackware and more. In none of them did I need to do anything specific to make FF work on youtube.
> Also, if anyone's wondering, gaming on linux still sucks, just a bit less.
What am I doing wrong? All the games I want to play just seem to work without issue, including new AAA titles, with exceptions for things that use kernel level anticheat that I wouldn't play anyway specifically because of that.
Arc Raiders, Helldivers 2, Factorio, etc just fine. I'm even involved in some alpha / beta testing for a couple of new games.
Just running fedora + proton (wine). I just use the regular steam client like anyone else.
You do realize that people have stuff to do and want their browser to be both 1) fast and 2) compatible with all websites?
Firefox is slower than Chromium, and always will have some compatibility issues, because all websites are made with Chromium in mind.
You can pretend all you want that "well ackshually standards exist and all website makers should use things from the standard", but it's not realistic, everyone will just stick with what works on Chromium.
Also projects like Ungoogled Chromium exist, but for some reason Firefox fanboys conveniently ignore them and pretend that all Chromium-based browsers are evil and Firefox is our last bastion of hope (it isn't and also it sucks)
Chromium is technically faster but in practice it doesn’t matter if you don’t have an adblocker. Adblocking significantly lowers render and JS load and lessens memory pressure. It varies site to site, but keep in mind that ads have to be fetched and then displayed. That’s not free.
Firefox with uBlock origin is basically as fast as a web browser can get.
Because it doesn’t work just as well, because the blocking is less dynamic and filter lists are more out of date. For simple ad blocking scenarios it’s fine, but it will actually miss some ads on some websites.
uBO lite struggles with dynamically inserted ads. I’m not sure if it works with YouTube midrolls, I haven’t tried it. I did try paramount plus months ago though, which uBlock handles but Lite doesn’t. That’s not really an intended use case for an adblocker though, IMO, so maybe it’s fine. And, maybe it’s improved by now.
This can be done but it’s not sophisticated enough for many ads. Websites are smart and will smuggle ads through known-good domains that you can’t block. You really need to be able to navigate the dom and use JS heuristics to identify ads and popups.
I'll take slower and safer anytime over the jungle of ads and the dangers it exposes users to. If something doesn't work properly on FF I open up Chrome, use the site and then close it.
And to be honest FF is working fine for me, haven't run into anything too slow to my taste so far.
IME, ads introduce a 30% or more performance penalty, the only way Chrome is "faster" is if you view ads on FF.
So, sure, if you don't want to block ads, Chrome just might be slightly faster. But the browser that never fetches ads in the first place is always going to be faster.
People are also too lazy to go vote and then cry when someone gets elected that they didn't want to. Sometimes participating in society means not always taking the easiest path.
It won't matter if dozens of nerds use Firefox, Chromium is just better in every way and that's the reason for it's popularity. No amount of "voting" will change that.
Manifest V3 doesn't prevent anyone from blocking ads, as proven by uBO Lite. And yet misinformation about MV3 takes place in every Chromium vs Firefox debate.
Neat! I rate this sentence at 7/10 on my scale of shit American companies say. The top score is currently held by Palantir with their X bio "Software that dominates."
The only reason I use Chrome is because its dev tools are better, and for whatever reason, webgl wigs out on Ubuntu 26.04 in Firefox. It's mostly the lag issue though...
The university I work at is heavily dependent on Google and its products, so I use Vivaldi for work. Otherwise, it's Firefox. I've been using it since the beginning and see no reason to change. If a site doesn't work with it, than I don't visit that site.
IMHO it's quite brave that a Google employee working in that area would let his real name be published, and an illuminating view of how they (don't) think.
Being the maintainer of such a big open-source application as Chrome used to grant dictatorial power: maintaining a fork represented too much work. It only happened in the most awful situations, such as Oracle acquiring OpenOffice.
But that was before LLM-driven development, I think that now the game has changed, and maybe Google hasn't got the leverage it thinks it has.
Opera was a strong contender to become my main browser (luckily firefox copied the most useful feature, it's vpn), if ublock is deactivated, I will let it go without a second look.
The solution then is to run the equivalent of a PiHole on your private network and then configure your portable devices to always use that PiHole as their DNS service via self hosted VPN
Just about obligatory mention of Pale Moon here. Have had a relatively clean internet experience for years with the old Firefox uBlock extension in combination with eMatrix. *Includes a disclaimer because I don't use Youtube and other assorted "social" media websites.
Only need Firefox ESR for a handful of websites giving me no option when specifying a Linux/Mozilla user agent instead of the native one for those doesn't work.
It looks like crunch time is here.
Personaly I have never watched add's on the net, by useing alternative browsers for 99% of my time, doing things like downloading a browser to do online banking, and then uninstalling it.
Even as a child I didn't like advertisements, and have never owned a TV, for the simple reason that NO advertisement has ever shown me something I wanted, and could have.
I have learned to let the net do it's thing, and provide me with work making things that people want, or show a lead to
a product if I search (think~tractor part)
but the rest is alien and very unpleasant for me to encounter.
So, consider this a layman explanation of why this change is bad from someone who spends their time securing end-users.
This change is good for the majority of users, but is actually bad for large enterprise customers and highly-regulated customers. It puts more control and onus of responsibility on to Google, rather than the end-user. So, we will expect to see better enforcement of controls from Google for the lowest-hanging-fruit that some aspects of MV2 exposed.
What's that, you say? MV2 changes? Well there's 3 things.
1. Remote code execution. The ability for someone to just yeet commands into your browser. A little harder to do directly.. Still very possible, just with extra steps.
2. Removing the ability for extensions to access network requests directly, which is what adblockers often relied on. It also means malicious extensions could snoop on your requests. They still can, just with extra steps.
3. Background persistence, an extension could stay alive, maintain state, run timers, keep connections open, and coordinate across tabs. So this shuts off the "background persistence" piece -- but helps with ensuring better isolation. Still possible, but now requires yeeting your data to an external provider instead of keeping the state contained locally.
Those 3 changes are incredibly powerful, and will impact many, many Enterprise security tools. Tools that now instead will result in products like "Island Browser", and "Enterprise Chrome" being rolled out to supplement the functionality that MV2 gave us.
This change goes against the US and Australian government's hardening advice, and reduces the overall efficacy of security controls we're able to implement within our web browsers natively.
Here's the Australian Government's control relating to it:
> Control: ISM-1485; Revision: 1; Updated: Sep-21; Applicable: NC, OS, P, S, TS; Essential 8: ML1, ML2, ML3
> Web browsers do not process web advertisements from the internet.
And if you're wondering about what incentives there are that led to this change, you can read this letter written to the Chairman of the FTC by a US Senator back in 2020. This letter is linked to from the same CISA document I shared earlier.
You should read it in full, and consider what incentives the Senator was referring to -- and how they also apply in this scenario.
Those Enterprise Chrome products I mentioned earlier? Chrome's change has now put some of this functionality which was previously possible with an extension, behind the Enterprise Chrome Premium SKU: https://chromeenterprise.google/products/chrome-enterprise-p...
Yet another reason to also perform ad blocking at the network level (e.g. DNS). I’ve found AdGuard Home very easy to maintain. Using Firefox and Orion browsers too.
Actually the main killer feature of UbO for me is cosmetic filtering with element picker, if I wanted just any ad blocker I could use various browsers with built-in adblockers supporting lists.
> Cronin further explained why MV2 extensions are no longer allowed in supported Chrome versions as maintaining the associated functionality indefinitely is no longer possible. He cited growing technical difficulties and implementation complexities as well as security concerns.
You know what else is a security concern? Ads. The amount of mental gymnastics is insane. It's honestly insulting.
This feels more like a gradual tightening of extension APIs under Manifest V3 than a sudden “kill switch.” uBlock isn’t going away, but its capabilities are definitely being reshaped...
It's all an excuse to try to neuter adblockers. The push for killing MV2 was suspiciously accelerated at the same time that youtube started implementing much more invasive anti-adblock techniques that really needed a full content blocker support (at least until people found new clever workarounds).
I expected some kind of fallout from Google nuking uBo. I've heard pretty much nothing so far.
PM of Orion here.
Orion (https://orionbrowser.com) is a WebKit-based browser for Mac, Linux, iPadOS and iOS that supports both Chrome and Firefox extensions natively ⟩ including uBlock Origin.
We have no plans to drop extension support. Content blocking is a feature, not a loophole, and we think users should have full control over what runs in their browser.
I'm a devoted Kagi user and really want to use Orion but keep running into perf issues and jank that frustrate me enough to switch back to something else. My most recent attempt was this past week.
You all seem to maintain a very fast pace of development (the changelogs are always chock full of cool stuff) but the problems I am hitting have remained broken for ages. Some examples include:
* The app hangs for 1~2 sec partway through typing a URL/search, when using the back button, or during other navigation
* The 1Password extension fails to fill usernames and passwords most of the time, regardless of which version I install. It works fine in Safari, Chrome, Firefox.
* Your built-in ad blocking triggers anti-ad-blocking measures on many news/blog sites now, resulting in the entire page being blocked.
I don't know your business, but maybe pausing new features and pushing for stability/perf/quality of life for a while (a la macOS Snow Leopard) would make sense.
No, you don't support Linux. I just tried to download it and got a "coming soon". Please don't post misleading things to HN :(.
Kagi has a good rep; misleading comments like this hurts it.
> No, you don't support Linux
Here you go, official beta flatpak:
https://orionbrowser.com/download/oriongtk-early-beta
Any idea if that browser will ever go open source? I don't mind flatpaks but would rather just have some of my tools installed on my distro (which can be monumental to maintain).
They said the plan was they would if enough people paid for it to sustain development.[1]
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46554890
I am also strongly perturbed by the misrepresentation, especially with no real package support. An alpha flatpak that posts "coming soon" is a bad first impression.
What about the glaring memory issues that is a pinned thread in your forum? It’s had one comment by a staff member over 5 or so months?
I loved Orion and have been using as a daily driver almost since day 1 including paying for it but now it’s completely unusable. I’ve since moved to Firefox.
The fact that a pinned thread was silent for months concerns me about the future of Orion. It honestly hurts to see.
Literally this. Every response initially was "we don't see that and we let it sit for weeks". Now there's just no response from devs. I was unable to browse past more than 1 or 2 pages before memory ballooned to 30gb.
Why do you have quite a number of glaring UX issues? I want to love Orion, but even something as basic as the tabs theming is driving me away.
By default is it almost impossible to distinguish which tabs i active in some situations. I think the browser automatically tints the window based on the dominant color of the page you are viewing, which means if I am viewing youtube for example, the whole browser windows is tinted a bit darker, in such a way that I can't easily make out outline of the currently selected tab.
Such a bummer for what should have been an easlity changeable behavior with settings: I do not want any tinting, and I want hight contract mode
I will consider Orion only when it is open source.
While you can install the Firefox uBlock Origin extension in Orion on iOS, it doesn't block any ads.
This has been reported for some time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43203237
Could you please clarify?
They can’t modify webkit on ios. They also don’t appear to contribute upstream. So it’s just not supported.
A closed source browser from supporters of largest war in Europe since ww2.
Look, we're having a good time on Firefox since November 9, 2004. Come join us!
Firefox did similar 10 years ago when they discontinued XPCOM and XUL
Then again, our laptop battery only lasts 1/3 as much on MacOS.
I know, I know. The community keeps pretending this isn’t an issue for the last, hum, 15 years? But it is, and for people that are looking for a tool and not for a statement, it quickly drives them away from Firefox back to Chrome browsers.
I've used Firefox across devices, across the years. This just isn't my experience, at all, remotely. And I have had to use Chrome (now it is Edge) for many work functions, so I do have the A/B comparisons. I'm not doubting your experience, fine, but I also know I'm not "pretending" anything in my own experience.
Firefox on Android 16, it sucks the battery up in background mode (even with permission to use background turned off).
If I manually close it no issue.
I believe you.
I also do not, and have never, experienced this. I've been using Pixel phones since the 3a in 2019/2020.
doesn't happen in my case (OnePlus 15/Android 16, Firefox background usage allowed in some "smart" mode whatever that means, doesn't suck the battery in background although it's on most of the time).
Anything to back those claims up? I use Firefox and didn't really notice this (although I am rarely on battery), and other than Google Meet making my machine throttle (and I blame that on Google not on Mozilla), I don't use Chrome for anything else for my browsing.
Right after they reach at least ~80% of customization Vivaldi offers!
This isn't the gotcha you think it is. Every time I try Vivaldi I am right back at Firefox and I am surely not alone. I have never understood the obsession with tree style tabs or vertical tabs. I don't need to customise my browser at all and I like supporting engine diversity.
The motivation for vertical tabs is pretty straightforward, screens are mostly wider than they are tall, browsers are often used in fullscreen mode, yet much of the web does not use much of the screen's width. So it's a better use of screen space to put tabs on the side than on top.
> I don't need to customise my browser
Ok, but not every use case is so primitive? I do need my custom shortcuts and what not, so it is exactly the correct "gotcha" I think it is even if that's beyond your understanding.
went from Firefox to Vivaldi, never looked back for many years
on Android phone tried many, most recently was using Kiwi Browser, then for some time Firefox until they fucked up UI, so moved to Cromite, though my phone broke (never buy Google Pixel again, first broken phone after 15 years with smartphones and various brands including very low budget), so now I am on my old phone which for some reason doesn't support Cromite, so I am back at Firefox temporarily
Why not Vivaldi on android as well, and benefit from sync etc? That's what I've been doing for about 8 months now. Generally quite happy.
no extensions, cant live without uBlock Origin and few others
Was that the year they fired the Rust team to focus on paying their executives?
Laura Chambers. Name and shame.
Let's not exchange crap behaviour. I think google would win hands down. Firefox at least has adblocking.
The classic 'those guys did something bad, so I am going to go with the guys who are absolute assholes doing several orders of magnitude more bad things now instead' response.
That usually means that whoever utters it was just looking for a sycophantic excuse to go with the bigger threat because it is more convenient to them (for now).
It's remarkable how often this happens, isn't it? One incident of someone not living up to standards is suddenly an opportunity to abandon standards and go with known bad actors. It's like people giving up on the MSM and immediately latching onto propaganda Youtubers instead.
Not at all. Firefox is a trap to keep motivated people from banding together to create a real user-respecting alternative.
As a user at least I have an option to use ublock origin extension in Firefox. So I'm somewhat grateful I can still browse the net peacefully and safely.
No it doesn't. Unlike Brave, Firefox needs an extension to block ads just like Chrome.
Yes, though it has the most powerful and customizable adblocker available.
or even since 2002 when it started as Phoenix
https://website-archive.mozilla.org/www.mozilla.org/firefox_...
I never went back to Firefox after they killed the Pimpzilla theme.
Firefox and Firefox-derivative browsers have and continue to be seriously sluggish and memory and energy hogs. This should not be swept under the rug.
Even today it is difficult for me to use Firefox, Mullvad, etc. When I used to use them, almost every time my machine became slow the solution was to kill Firefox.
EDIT: It's true folks, I would love to be able to use Firefox as my primary browser. But all my experience with it (and I used it for more than a decade) has been dogged by its sluggishness.
I use Firefox mobile pretty much exclusively. I haven't noticed any meaningful performance difference between it & Chrome. It also seems to perform fine on my Fedora laptop.
Mobile is different. I rarely even use mobile. I do however use a lot of tabs on desktop, and Firefox is found very wanting in the performance department.
I don't even think its about number of tabs. Just yesterday and today, Mullvad browser takes minutes to load a set of about 7 pinned tabs (with no other tabs) on startup, whereas Helium (which is based on Chromium) loads in a second or two close to a hundred tabs.
My Firefox currently has 33 tabs open (way more than usual). It opens in seconds on my 9 year old i7-7700k desktop.
Firefox is only sluggish because Chrome uses your data to prefetch pages.
This does not make sense. Firefox would be taking minutes to open a page that Chrome opens within a second or two. And if Chrome was doing aggressive pre-fetching, then it should be using more memory, no? And yet the opposite is the case.
uBo is the only reason I find browsing the web at all tolerable anymore. As a test I turned it off to view this article and almost crashed my browser with a dozen auto play video ads This would mean I would find the energy to get over anything that is holding me on chrome, like saved passwords etc.
Agree. The web is literally unusable without uBlock Origin. It should be a standard browser feature at this point, like popup blockers.
I personally consider uBlock Origin as an Internet infrastructure component. I have no ... _no_ idea whatsoever how some people use the Internet without it.
In addition to uBlock Origin, I also have a few piholes (two locations), and I use NoScript as well. It's nice to have multiple layers of defense.
it _is_ a browser feature for e.g. brave, vivaldi and (experimental, afair) firefox.
Popup blockers were also a differentiator, once.
The difference is that the biggest popup offender was not the same company behind the browser everyone uses...
Just imagine if Netscape and MS made all their money from popups at the time.
You are 100% correct and if uBlock Origin didn't exist I would dedicate my life to creating it.
Firefox thankfully offers sync and imports your Chrome data.
Makes switching easy.
uBlock Origin Lite with MV3 works perfectly fine on Chrome. I don't notice a difference to the classic uBlock Origin, it even has a element zapper nowadays.
It's quite possible that we're just not meant to view the web. Those companies that even maintain websites might intend for us to really view things on their phone app. The garbage you see on the website is then not just some parasitic draining of your spiritual health, but a disincentive designed to convince you to stop using the web altogether.
Like Home Depot not showing the item location in store from the website, only the app.
I only use the Home Depot website, and it shows the location for me. Maybe it’s regional or something
Yeah not sure what they're talking about, that's how I do it too
I just tested and apparently their site is extremely flaky. I tried for several minutes to get info but nothing except one time (changing store location, refreshing). Then it started working fine for a while, updating when I changed location. I cleared cookies out each time and that didn't cause/fix it. So it's not intentional to push you to the app, just a shit site (not just because of this issue, but its extreme slowness on mobile).
It doesn't have to be a deliberate decision by upper management with the express purpose of pushing you towards the app. That's quite unlikely, some flunky would have anonymously published the email or memo dictating that policy were it so.
But in the same way that an individual human might do something with a subconscious purpose and plausibly claim they weren't aware that's why they were doing the thing, so too can a organized group of people do something when it suits their collective purpose. The group drifts into a behavior which is advantageous, someone in upper management is pleased with it even though the drift wasn't steered, and encourages more of the same. As that process iterates, it becomes clear why they go in that direction all without some Senior VP telling everyone at a department-wide meeting to go in that direction.
Just remember that Google is essentially an advertising company and that they were always going to squeeze this opening closed as soon as they could get away with it.
I do fear for a future were even Firefox ends up caving in. Ladybird browser might be our only hope until something legal comes along to block functionality.
Firefox haven't caved in so far. Why do u think it might in future?
Because Mozilla, at least from the outside appears to have been horribly mismanaged for the past 20-25 years and only survived because the ad money kept rolling in.
I'm not knocking Mozilla for taking money from Google, it was a smart move. Most users would use Google anyway, so Mozilla pocketing billions by making users preferred search engine the default didn't really hurt anyone. Some of that money should however have gone into a trust or some type of investment so that funding for browser development would be safe if the ad money ever dried up.
Maybe someone at Mozilla knows something I don't, but there doesn't seem to be much planning for the future.
There is a meme that Google financially supports Firefox development as some soft of strategy whereby having an "alternative" to Chrome gives Google some sort of "protection"
This does not make any sense and there is zero evidence to support it
Firefox's value to Google could be as a source for browser development. As part of the agreement between Google and Mozilla, perhaps Google gets more than just search traffic from Firefox, perhaps it also gets collaboration with Mozilla on software development. There is a history of such collaboration. Google CEO did not want competition from Mozilla on a browser. Chrome was originally written by ex-Mozilla developers using components of Firefox^1
1.
https://web.archive.org/web/20121018180015/https://www.compu...
https://web.archive.org/web/20200805000248/https://blogs.wsj...
> the ad money kept rolling in
Why "ad money"? That's a very uncharitable interpretation and for anyone not aware of the situation it's misleading. They're not paid for ads or by ads, they're paid by Google to continue being a viable alternative to Chrome. Is every Google employee getting "ad money" every month, or a salary?
The payment is more accurately described as a protection tax.
In this particular context there really isn't any difference. Technically Mozilla isn't in the business of delivering ads, but their revenue is mostly supported by ad money from Google, and Google, being an ad giant, can simply cut that stream off. The common sentiment seems to be that this would spell a life and death situation for the company and for the browser as a whole, which essentially makes Firefox a hostage to the whims of an ideologically hostile corporate entity.
> Technically Mozilla isn't in the business of delivering ads
They weren't back then but are now: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/advertising/mozilla-anonym-raisi...
> Google, being an ad giant
Isn't Google also a cloud giant?
I wouldn't say so. They're not offering their cloud at the same scale other competitors. Not sure when the last was I saw advertising for unlike AWS, Azure.
Felt more like their cloud services were more of a side product for when "the cloud" was the trendy buzzword and a way to justify their infrastructure costs. That and keeping a leg in the egg & spoon race.
So your conclusion is based on advertising that you personally have noticed / haven't noticed?
GCP is growing faster than either AWS or Azure, roughly 60% a year. AWS seems to have stagnated in growth. Azure is a clown car.
Still wouldn't touch GCP with a 10-foot pole.
Too much dependency in Google[0].
--
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48396596
While the nuance is important, money from Google is ad money:
So yes, Google gives Firefox money for political reasons. Made from ads, so they can sell ads, including to Firefox users.I'm with you on the first one and that's the closest reason why you could call Firefox payment "ad money". But the rest are not too strong. Google makes a lot of non-ad money too, even if it's a smaller portion than ads. You don't call airlines "banks" just because they make all of their money from currency-like "miles", and even fly at a loss [0].
What I want to say is that calling it "ad money" makes Firefox look bad when it shouldn't.
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/09/airlines-b...
You're mis-representing things here.
As in my reply further below, Q1 2026 you can see Google makes 70% of revenue from Ads, the non-ad money you refer to is only 1/3. But if you look at net income, 85% of the net income from Google comes from Services (including Ads).
The Airlines story is taken out of context and different from Google, Delta for example in the Q1 2026 filing you can see they have a revenue of $15.8bn, of which ticket sales is $10.7bn ! Loyalty program income is just $1bn. However the net income supports the story The Atlantic ran, which just means that out of the $1bn, they are getting more net income from their mileage programs, than income from out of $10.7bn ticket sales, because the operating expense of flying airplane is quite high from fuel, etc.
So on one side, Google has 70% revenue from Ads, and even more % if you count net income. On the other side, Airlines - like Delta - have 70% of their revenue from passenger, but relatively speaking less net income from ticket sales if you consider net income.
You are not comparing the same thing. If you just compare revenue, Airlines cannot be called Banks because they still make 70% of their revenue from passenger ticket sales, just as how Google is an Ad company because their main revenue is 70% ads!
If you compare net income, the airlines story can have an angle, but the Google story doesn't, because their net income from Ads is way higher!
When someone says that all money a company pays is "money from their main segment", that's intentionally misrepresenting. In this case what's important is what the money is for, not from. Calling it "Firefox had ad-money coming in" can only be bad faith, the usual social media rage bait.
Now everyone comes out of the woodwork with "well akshully" because there's an interpretation where they can plausibly claim "technically I'm right" despite knowing they are sending the wrong message.
Basketball player LeBron James made more money from endorsements than sports, gas stations make more money from selling coffee and food than gas, and fast-food giant McDonald's makes more money from rent than from fast-food. If you called a gas station "a grocery store" you'd be technically right but also practically and pointlessly wrong.
Technically yes
Well thought out commentary... Let's dig deeper and at least we make it more interesting conversation, not a blurb.
Wouldn't it be technically no because Google's revenue isn't 100% from ads? They're making almost $120bn from cloud, subscriptions and devices for example. It could be cloud money. And if Google gets ad money so whatever it pays becomes ad money, then it's ad money all the way down.
Where did you get the $120bn figure?
FYI last fiscal results from Q1 of Alphabet, Google Cloud made $20bn revenue Q1 2026, up from Q4 2025 of $17bn. It's a bit misleading to include "subscriptions, platforms, and devices" in cloud.
Q1 2026 Google's revenue totalled $109bn, of which $77bn is Ads, so 70% of its revenue is Ads. It's common knowledge that Google is an Ads company.
> FYI last fiscal results from Q1
I googled the money they made from cloud, subscriptions, platforms, and devices, then approximated almost $120bn in a year. The precise number mattered less than the fact that it's a ton of it already, enough to cover a lot of payoffs.
> It's a bit misleading to include
I didn't "include in" anything, it was an enumeration of things that aren't ads. "Google makes $Q from X and Y", not from "X included in Y".
You found something that's technically correct (a clear enumeration and addition) to be misleading. I think you now accidentally understand what was my initial objection. A lot of other people in the thread don't because that's how social media works, they go with the prevailing opinion for the sweet sweet likes, or go against it and get squeezed out.
> Is every Google employee getting "ad money" every month
Yes. You can think of it like "blood money".
> Firefox haven't caved in so far. Why do u think it might in future?
Because pretty much all their revenue comes from Google.
I think Google will try to annoy Firefox users into using Chrome instead via things like needless captchas.
Things like https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2026/06/mozilla-firefox-android-... do not bode well either... :(
All the more reason to keep using Firefox.
Donate if you can!
https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/donate/
Donations to Mozilla Foundation do not support Firefox development. But payments for services to Mozilla Corporation do.[1]
[1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/products/
Those also don't go to just Firefox development but also to cushy executive salaries.
Last I heard was that there is no way to be sure that donations to the Mozilla Foundation go to Firefox.
They will do both. Firefox has zero leverage to do anything and is on life support with Google's money.
Making Firefox even less desirable by "googlifying" it pushes Firefox users away and kills its image of a viable competitor. That's exactly what Google is paying for.
Why would Google destroy the cover they have for keeping control over Chrome and 70% of internet users, just to squeeze a bit more ad revenue from what, 2% of users?
Copying Chrome at the expense of loosing even more of their user share has been Firefox's MO for the last decade. It doesn't have to make sense to be reality.
Firefox has around 2% share, it hasn't been a viable competitor for a long time.
Mozilla Foundation is more interested in spending money on anything else than making Firefox genuinely better.
If money gets short, the first thing they would cut would be a browser.
If Mozilla operates from revenue derived from selling www traffic to an advertising company running a "search engine", then it is 100% possible and realistic that Mozilla's browser could be optimised for advertising
Mozilla literally advocates for an "online advertising ecosystem"
At present Firefox is designed to send search traffic to Google by default
Mozilla can only see its continued existence through support from advertising. It does not just partner with advertising compaines, it actually acquired an adtech company
Google has a history of "shaking the cushions" by targeting their advertising customers and Chrome. It's reasonable to forsee that they could also target the agreement with Mozilla, i.e., Firefox
https://web.archive.org/web/20121018180015/https://www.compu...
https://web.archive.org/web/20200805000248/https://blogs.wsj...
Maybe Mozilla breaks its partnership with Google, who knows. But based on a long history of Mozilla advocacy for online ads and working with online advertising companies, it seems 100% committed to online advertising as a "business model" regardless of whether it partners with Google or another "search engine"
It's giving Sony. Similar situation where you have a media business and also make some of the distribution channels including engineering of devices used to consume the content.
The thing is that they shouldn't be able to get away with it.
Good news is there are many viable Firefox forks currently and I’m sure some of them could take the wheel. It is open source, after all.
It would be a shame to lose the Mozilla foundation/Firefox but it wouldn’t be the end of the browser.
> Ladybird browser might be our only hope
God help us.
Maybe after few another "we are switching from language X to language Y" blogposts.
"We won't be able to provide / maintain this functionality indefinitely due to the complexity and tech debt, as well as the security risks it entails (we've actually found a number of bugs that are specific to MV2 lately)."
Poor little Google doesn't have the resources to support mv2.
Why are people on HN still using Chrome? (or Edge, or Opera…)
I don't, 99.9% of the time.
But when your browser has a 2% market share worldwide, some developers won't bother to test on it. And if your setup is even more obscure (I use Firefox on Linux with an adblocker and third-party cookies blocked and DRM disabled and autoplaying video disabled and so on) making you rare even among that 2%, sometimes sites won't have tested with your specific configuration.
It's useful to have a second browser around, as a fallback when a site is broken. Uploading images when creating a listing on ebay is broken, but I don't have to figure out which element of my setup is breaking it, I can just switch to the other browser.
Some pages do not work in Firefox, so I keep a copy of Chrome around.
It’s a bit like with Internet Explorer which back in its day was also needed for some stubborn sites.
Me too. Many government or banking sites only work properly on Chrome. Anything with Docusign is Chrome-only.
Name and shame?
Apple. The school manager and business manager block Firefox users.
Netflix.
This is not true. I'm a Firefox user and it works perfectly fine in Firefox.
Windows or Linux?
You brought it up, you specify where it doesn't work.
Netflix doesn't serve maximum res for Linux and Firefox due to DRM related reasons. Chrome on Linux usually resolves or at least amends the issue.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/netflix-1080p...
Yes, but: "This add-on is not actively monitored for security by Mozilla. Make sure you trust it before installing."
Edge user here. For one, chromium is faster than firefox, any given page will load about 20% faster, another reason is edge workspaces feature, I've grown to like it, which seems to be some sort of chromium feature that everyone bakes in weird ways if at all, and I'm still running ublock origin on edge without any funky bypasses.
Then there's a fact that a bunch of sites/webapps straight up refuse to work on firefox and they ask you to install chrome or something. And lastly chromium the most popular browser flavor and as a web dev it helps to see pages through "the same eyes" as my users/customers.
That's about it, the only reason I use firefox every day is their superior picture-in-picture player, chromium one is waaay inferior.
> Edge user here. For one, chromium is faster than firefox, any given page will load about 20% faster,
I'm skeptical; You're probably measuring Chromium + ads against FF + ads.
The only fair test is testing agains FF + uBlockOrigin. And there, FF wins hands down.
I'm hardcore FF, and it used to be a bit slower than Chrome, but nowadays the difference is barely noticeable. And on very large pages (e.g. big tables), Chrome is a lot slower than FF.
Give Vivaldi a try. I used edge on windows and android ever since it started used chromium, and switched to Vivaldi on Linux and android 8 months ago. Generally quite happy with it - not really missing any features from edge.
I switched over to Edge from Firefox because it was simply much better at managing its memory on my laptop. With Firefox I had to be far more cautious about having too many things running at once. WSL2 would often be killed to free up memory.
Recently I found they added the ability to auto-sort and group tabs via Copilot, probably the only thing I've found the non-GitHub copilot to be genuinely useful for.
There are 2 reasons why I'm using chromium (with ublock origin lite) over Firefox:
1. Chromium is significantly faster (maybe 5 to 10x faster on certain tasks mostly around canvas but anything that requires fast ui really). Every time I use Firefox it feels like it has some kind of serious problem. If chrome was this slow I would stop working and start investigating what part of my computer is broken. This experience hasn't changed over span of 10 years, 3 OSes and several computers.
2. Neverending caching issues on Firefox. It just caches too aggressively which makes development really annoying to a point where anytime I encounter issue on Firefox my first thought is "Is this Firefox caching issue?". On chrome when I change button color and I don't see it, I know I made a mistake. If I change button color on Firefox, my first thought is, is this Firefox caching issue? When I develop web I have very quick update loop and I really can't be questioning browser. I cannot work like this. Firefox is unusable for me.
> It just caches too aggressively which makes development really annoying to a point where anytime I encounter issue on Firefox my first thought is "Is this Firefox caching issue?".
This is a non-issue, if the devtools is opened, checkbox for "disable cache" is is checked by default.
> When I develop web I have very quick update loop and I really can't be questioning browser. I cannot work like this. Firefox is unusable for me.
How can you be developing front-ends and not have the devtools open while doing your quick edit-test cycle?
Ctrl + shift + R would solve your second problem at all times.
And I don't think your first point is quantified correctly and I am sure there is no data to back it up. But I understand the appeal of trying to quantify your personal experience.
I can back up their first point a tiny bit with regards to canvas. The primary product of our company is heavily canvas-based so I’ve always noticed that canvas on Firefox on macs is slower than on Chrome but it used to be in the 2-3x range and nowadays is more in the 1.5x range. They’ve made great improvements and I’ve never noted anything close to 5-10x slowdowns.
On Windows Firefox and Chrome canvas has performed equally well at least for the past ten years. Got no data for linux tho.
Yup, or open dev tools and enable "disable cache". This applies only while dev tools is open
Is that a rhetorical question suggesting those people are wrong, or are you asking for, e.g., the technical reasons some software only works with Chrome in the mix?
I'm betting there are a lot of people here using Chrome as their "daily driver".
To people who like Chrome, or some of its features (I love their bookmarks), I say: try Helium. Or Iridium. Or even Brave.
Which one isnt going to get unmaintained first.
Brave, then, I imagine.
Because Chrome is the better browser, lelz.
I'll bite: why is it better? Did you try Safari or Firefox or Brave, and find deficiencies you can't live with?
For me the two reasons I can't live without are
1. Firefox's ctrl-f search doesn't highlight all instances of a found item on the right hand side. It sounds petty, but its a gigantic timesaver for looking through research documents
2. Firefox's tab crash recovery isn't as solid. I use chrome with fully persistent tabs, and its a gigantic pain if I can't re-open them
If I could find a way to fix these I'd swap in a heartbeat
Firefox has added highlighting of search terms in the page's scroll bar quite a few versions ago, if you want to give it another spin for that.
Weird, it still only highlights a single occurrence for me if I ctrl-f something, is there a setting for this or something?
You need to click "highlight all" to highlight all occurrences. It's the checkbox to the right of the search box. If you enable it for the first time, you may need to hit enter in the search bar again for it to show up (it remembers the setting and works instantly the next search)
Apparently I'm just a moron and have never seen it has settings in 10+ years. Thanks!
Do these Firefox extensions help?
I haven't used this, as I didn't know it was a feature I needed until you mentioned it.
- https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/find-in-page-...
Tab Session Manager allows you to dump tabs to groups for restoration later, with auto-save at regular intervals. Works quite well!
- https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tab-session-m...
There's also Simple tab groups which allows creation of file backups at regular intervals https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/simple-tab-gr...
Thanks for this, I'll go have a look
> 2. Firefox's tab crash recovery isn't as solid. I use chrome with fully persistent tabs, and its a gigantic pain if I can't re-open them
I normally have 5-50 tabs open (so perhaps on the lower end), but I can't recall the last time I crashed a tab in the last 3 years. I also use persistent/pinned tabs and never noticed issues.
Its not the tabs themselves crashing, its when firefox (or my pc as a whole - I'm a developer and its a frequent occurance) crashes, firefox isn't as good as chrome at remembering what tabs were previously open
Locked down computers that still let you install extension.
Since it underpins so much of the modern browser ecosystem it becomes a primary target for webapps to work.
As such, if you want to be sure a website will work you use chrome.
Since chrome has such a market share, developers feel justified testing primarily for chrome.
Self-fulfilling cycle.
This isn't the 90's anymore where browsers behave wildly differently for the same page content. If you're not using absolute, bleeding age web APIs, Firefox and Chrome work identically. In my experience, there are exactly 3 types of websites that work differently between Firefox and Chrome: The Toy Hobby Experiments (who are just demoing some bleeding-edge API feature), The Monopoly-Bootlicking Liars (who reject my request based on UserAgent string alone, and when I spoof a Chrome UA the site works perfectly), and the Evil Monopolist Themselves (a few of Google's own sites run notably slower on Firefox, most notably Google Cloud Console).
Don't know, but I have uninstalled it a few minutes ago.
Find me a browser that doesn't have ai shoved into it... and no I don't mean 10 year old versions of iceweasel.
Firefox has a single switch to turn off all AI functionality. Does Chrome have it?
Work forces me to on the work laptop. But Ublock Origin Lite is good enough for that use-case. I use firefox everywhere else.
Actually, I opted in for tracking. Knowing my interests, Google suggests good articles on their Android app feed.
Also, there are a few parts of Firefox that still look ancient, like the bookmarks and history managers, as well as the PDF viewer, where the buttons are too small to click easily. Unfortunately, those are unusable for a Gen Zer.
On lower end cpus (N100) chromium/brave benchmarks 10-20% faster than Firefox.
Even if you factor in all the ad bloat that uBlock lite can’t block?
Brave has built-in blocking, it's literally one of their main selling points.
I keep chromium installed mostly to run virtual tabletop software (specifically Foundry VTT), because webgl performance in firefox is not great (though it has improved somewhat in the last couple of years). There are also a few sites (mostly restaurants for some reason) that just refuse to work properly in firefox, so I sometimes fall back to chromium. I wish I could drop it like a bad habit, because frankly Google's shenanigans piss me off on a semi-regular basis.
That's pretty irrelevant isn't it? Shouldn't all users demand privacy, especially from ads?
All users should demand privacy, but they don’t.
Take a look at Firefox’s market share, or Brave’s etc.
Won’t Brave follow Google’s lead on this?
Gecko, WebKit and—hopefully—Ladybird are the true alternatives. I used to think this was too extreme. But the ad vendor dragging ad blockers out of the engine flipped my view.
Brave has its own ad blocker engine built-in rather than as an extension, and it can reuse uBlock's lists
https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust
I use brave on my phone and I can't really tell the difference from desktop browser+UO, so I guess it works well enough.
Brave, like Vivaldi, I think, have developed their own ad blocker.
No idea if they will fight to keep UBlock Origin accessible or not.
I think and certainly hope that Helium will fight the good fight.
> Won’t Brave follow Google’s lead on this?
They said they could offer limited MV2 support even after it’s fully removed from the upstream Chromium codebase.[1]
[1] https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/
Because they don't bother to learn the history, worse, they are also worshipping Electron crap, which is basically Chrome.
uBlock Origin Lite works perfectly, so I have no complaints?
It doesn't protect from important tracking cases and will eventually allow ads, as the advertisers adjust: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...
On mobile, Opera is the only usable browser. It supports text reflow on zoom, and also I can choose the download folder for each file. Allows me to keep porn and non-porn downloads separate.
I'm a Firefox user for about 20yrs (since Firefox 3);
but too often I have to use Chrome, as so many sites only work properly on it; Firefox is really buggy or laggy on those websites;
For a time, all those AI chat web pages were just very slow on Firefox even with very little context, whereas Chrome only gets laggy when there is a lot of context.
Are you really sure it’s not because of an add-on? If I remember correctly, Mozilla has said that about 95% of all pages that don’t work aren’t due to Firefox, but to an add-on. I use Firefox exclusively and don’t usually notice that pages don’t work. When that happens, as I said, it’s almost always an add-on that’s to blame. And I dont notice its buggy or laggy. So could be good check your addons next time.
Here are some cases where Firefox really sucks: some of them are specific CSS styles, some are downgraded features, and some of them I just don't know why. As I mentioned here, the ChatGPT web and Gemini web used to be very laggy for no reason—or maybe it was just a bug for me?
I don't think any of this is caused by add-ons, though.
But it's getting better, and most of those problems are just gone;
Still, I keep Chrome around just in case.
Same here, but when a site completely fails in Firefox I either A) use my phone because mobile Firefox occasionally works or B) use Ungoogled Chromium.
https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium
Really hoping the uBlock will continue to work on that project...
How many extensions do you use on laggy FF?
Not using many extensions on my case, but Google meet remains unusable for a long time, sound is horrible during meetings. Chrome on the other hand works fine
So use Chrome for Google services and Firefox for everything else?
only site that was slow on firefox was google meet, but then it turned out someone documented how google had code to explicitly do that. ouch.
Ex-bosses used it so had to test shit on them.
Ok but if you use it only for testing, and not for your ‘real’ browsing, then probably the fact that they track what you are doing is not that important, even if it’s still a nuisance. Or not?
only reason I can think of is synchronization among devices since you can't find same decent browser you could use on Android phone and desktop, Firefox ain't decent browser on neither of those, on desktop Vivaldi with customization and stability is superior, on Android Firefox actually ain't THAT bad since good browsers with extensions support are not that common, I would recommend Cromite, though there is also Helium and Ultimatum
Firefox will also disable V2 sooner or later. BUT. Chrome then will still have uBlock Origin lite. Firefox won't, because mozilla banned that extension from store.
> Firefox will also disable V2 sooner or later.
Source?
> Firefox won't, because mozilla banned that extension from store.
It's unbanned; the author chose to not put it back. https://www.ghacks.net/2024/10/01/mozillas-massive-lapse-in-...
Yeah, pissing off the ecosystem is a great way to drive users to your competitors. Requiring users to manually install and update a popular extension is a subpar experience.
It seems they spent so much of their budget on the CEO's salary that they couldn't afford an extension review team.
Quoting open-paren comment (2024):
> As far as I can tell, there are maybe two reviewers that are based in Europe (Romania?). The turn around time is long when I am in the US, and it has been rife with this same kind of "simple mistake" that takes 2 weeks to resolve.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41710183
Even if their review is flawed with false positive rejections, you'd think they have checks to require approvals from up the chain for poster child extensions that without which FF would be nothing.
There is currently no plan to deprecate V2 manifest in Firefox.
And Firefox version of V3 supports browser.webRequest blocking (the part that adblockers need to work properly)
> Firefox will also disable V2 sooner or later.
Got a source for that, or is that just unfounded speculation?
Well given a long enough timeline, everything will be disabled at some point.
Why wouldn't someone anyone cobble together a v3 version between the uncertain future date in which v2 was deprecated and when it became unavailable. There appears to be no possible future in which google has better adblocking.
I switched from Firefox to Chrome a couple of years back because Firefox always dragged its feet when it came to implementing important developer features. Like, DataView was excruciatingly slow in Firefox; WebGPU support didnt go anywhere; and they initially refused to implement import maps. I consider the latter to be an essential tool as it allows me to work without the need for build systems. Also, chrome dev tools worked far better.
Since Chrome blocked ublock, I switched to Edge. Not sure where I will go next, but I dont think it will be Firefox since they are always years late.
I hope Firefox never drops MV2. I have a lot of other extensions that use it other than uBlock. Can't believe Google really went through with it. We are truly in the end times of "personal" computing, very sad to see :/
MV3 itself isn't what breaks uBlock Origin, it is the bundled removal of capabilities that Chrome decided to do. Firefox MV3 supports full WebRequest "scopes" while Chrome only supports declarativeNetRequest.
I wonder what will Vivaldi do. They say that their built-in content blocker is "good enough" that you supposedly don't need uBO (I very much disagree) but they also keep MV2 extensions working to this day.
Vivaldi said We will keep Manifest v2 for as long as it’s still available in Chromium.[1] They kept it before now because it was little effort.
[1] https://vivaldi.com/blog/manifest-v3-update-vivaldi-is-futur...
They can only support MV2 extensions as long as Google continues to maintain them.
Their tech stack is heavily JavaScript-focused, as their entire UI is written in JavaScript.
How is it half of HN is convinced Firefox can compete with Chrome in its entirety and the other half is convinced nobody can possibly maintain a single additional API version on Chromium?
It's about the tech stack, IMO. Chromium is a moving target to maintain compatibility with, which is difficult for a team that doesn't have much C++ experience.
As a counter example, Brave is heavily invested in C++ and Rust, and I believe they could handle that work much better.
Sure but even Vivaldi has a few C++ folks on the dev team, how many more is it to maintain an existing API to changes in the codebase, especially when any of the hard parts of that work only need be done once among all of the forks.
Even if they don't want to handle it directly, this is the kind of thing a single sponsor can pay Igalia for, who have shown the ability to make entire new Chromium subsystems like MathML. There is no shortage of C++ browser developers in the world to do maintenance work.
Can't Chromium-based browser developers work together to fork the entire thing? Ideally becoming independent of Google altogether.
It would be much spent and not much gained in their eyes.
Wouldn't it be possible to write some kind of local proxy server with MITM for HTTPS that modifies scripts and supplies the missing functionality for ublock origin?
partially, but it couldn't replicate all functionally. A lot of uBO rules apply to elements on the DOM. Like hiding a div with ID "#ads". That div often isn't sent as pure HTML, but is instead added to the page via JS code executing. At the MITM-level you won't be able to have rules that apply to the rendered DOM.
That said, selector based ad-blocking is still supported in MV3. So might be possible to get most of the functionality with both a MITM-level blocker and an MV3 selector based blocker.
I thought the AdGuard folks were looking doing just that!
So, what's next? Will Chrome ship with hard coded DNS, so that DNS based adblockers will stop working as well? Where (and when) does my rights what to display on my devices end?
Ship has already sailed, it's called DoH. Please note, that it is to make your DNS safer and has absolutely nothing to do with removing your ability to resolve DNS in whatever way you want to(cough adblock cough).
How does DoH remove any capabilities of what the resolver can respond to queries with? I block ads via a DoH resolver.
I guess I just missed that?! I'm running a mix of Adguard and nextdns blockers on some of my mobile devices, and both are apparently handling the DoH issue for you; by just blanket blocking the resolvers and/or ports, to force a fallback.... I need a Beer.
Don't worry. Once their telemetry shows that DoH is working for enough users they'll push to remove the fallback for security reasons.
> my rights
There's no such thing in the Google realm
AdGuard MV3 works fine. Still switch to FF if you can, more diversity in the ecosystem benefits everyone.
wasn't mv3 a dumbed down version? So it "does not work just fine" as some ads slip through?
MV3 is actually a faster but less capable version.
With MV2, every request must be filtered with slow, JIT, garbage-collected JavaScript code. In MV3, filtering is handled by native browser code using the list provided by extensions. UserScripts could be used to modify the DOM, but that requires power users to manually enable it.
What ads are slipping through?
My browser combo: Firefox Developer Edition + uBo + Privacy Badger + Facebook Containers
One time setup, it’s synced to Mozilla account for later reinstalls
Caution?: mozilla sync doesn't guarantee storage space? They claim you need another instance running?
>from our experience, uBO Lite does not seem to be as good as the original non-Lite version
In what way? I've never noticed a difference.
The uBlock Origin Lite FAQ said In general, uBOL will be less effective at dealing with websites using anti-content blocker or minimizing website breakage because many filters can't be converted into DNR rules (see log of conversion for technical details).[1]
[1] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...
I use uBO lite with Safari on macOS/iOS and maybe I just don't know what I'm (not?) missing, but it seems fine? I rarely see ads. Is uBO lite for Chrome that much worse than uBO?
Moved to Firefox. Thank you Firefox.
Finally Firefox will get a 30% usage share!
I'm confident that Mozilla corporate will find some way to self-sabotage before that happens.
That is my fear. Or get distracted on some ancillary product that takes resources away from FF development.
Just keep making a browser that isn’t shit. That’s your only job!
Normies don't care much about ads, trackers and all that nuisance. I find it astonishing when you see them dodging all that crap while browsing the Internet
Ungoogled Chromium (https://ungoogled-software.github.io/) will 99.9% likely patch MV2 back in if they remove it (as there's already support and they will never remove it) and Ungoogled Chromium based Helium (https://helium.computer/) even ships with uBlock Origin by default.
And then there's still Firefox and all of its forks.
Best of luck to Big Tech as people will move on elsewhere.
I would recommend folks check out Helium (https://helium.computer) it’s fast, basically just ungoogled chromium, and has full support for ublock origin.
> full support for ublock origin
This meant they added to Blink all the Gecko features uBlock Origin used?[1] Or they said they could maintain MV2 after Google removed it fully? Or they supported it so far?
They said We'll keep support for MV2 extensions for as long as possible. But other developers said this and meant they would support MV2 until Google removed it.
[1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
They bundle uBlock Origin into their Chromium fork, I expect that if it became too difficult to support the APIs needed on MV2, they'd integrate the features more directly into the browser.
Switched back over to Firefox a few weeks ago, it's as pleasant as I remember it being.
Unfortunately sometimes my Intel Arc B580 has a driver quirk where all the windows freeze and unlike Chromium based browsers I can't open Task Manager and kill the GPU Process and have it restart and have everything keep working, but rather have to kill the whole browser and restart it and hope the tabs load back correctly - thankfully haven't had many issues with losing those (only once or twice in the past year, but those were fucking annoying).
Either way, I explored both Edge as my daily driver for a year or so and also Safari on my Mac - both are actually fine as far as the user experience is concerned, but in the end I still come back to Firefox. It's a browser, it doesn't feel user hostile, it does its job well enough. Also personally I like its devtools more.
I have been using UBlock Origin Lite on Chrome for a while, and while it's not perfect and needs a bit of manual tweaking here and there, it's been mostly good for me
Does Brave track or does Brave fork on this?
It seems as if they will track it (https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/), with an exception for a selected few extensions (AdGuard AdBlocker, NoScript, uBlock Origin, and uMatrix).
The few exceptions being the ones we want. So.. a good outcome.
We want forks or better extensions impossible?
If they were willing to make exceptions then I would hope the list isn't closed. I view this as the best of the possible worlds not the best of all imaginable worlds.
Perhaps good was overkill. Less bad?
They would add the most popular fork if uBlock Origin was abandoned is plausible. They would add a no reputation developer's proof of concept is unlikely I think.
I've found Brave's built in ad blocking to be good enough on its own.
Good! Give everyone the push they need to break the web homogeny of Chrome everywhere.
I'm tired of all the (mostly technical) people whining that they need Chrome, and only Chrome can browse the internet. Then you ask them for a site that doesn't work and conveniently "it was some time back and I don't remember the details".
I've been using FF since before it was called Firefox. In the last 10 years I've not come across any site that doesn't work with Firefox - online shopping, social media, banking, custom line-of-business internal apps, ERP apps... you name it.
And, TBH, if I did, I'd just visit that one site with Chrome, and still use FF daily.
> In the last 10 years I've not come across any site that doesn't work with Firefox
I have. The dominos pizza website (at least in Ireland) basically never works with Firefox. I normally end up using Safari for that particular site.
Additionally, lots of stuff doesn't work when Advanced Tracking Protection is on, enough that if I have any issues my first step is disabling that.
Did you ever click 'report broken website' button? It's there specifically for those cases.
where is this button?
Fox years with no changes, seemingly.
I switched to FireFox like 8 years ago, but to be completely honest there are maybe 2-3 very important sites that straight up do not work for me at all with FireFox. Like, completely unusable, not just weird graphical issues.
Such as?
accuweather.com was the biggest one, though it looks like they fixed it sometime in the last month.
I now daily drive firefox, there are unfortunately plently of broken sites. Nebula's video player is broken in widescreen for example.
Interesting. I also use Firefox and Nebula works fine for me. Do you have any extensions that may be causing that?
I keep firefox as a backup browser after more than 25y of on again off again use.
It simply does not work well on a lot of sites including government or bank websites. Wish it did.
But I'm wondering if you are doing something wrong. I just tried nebula in Firefox 151.0.3 and it works flawlessly. Full screen works, all buttons in the player work. I also tried it on Firefox for Android and it works.
Do you have any other websites that don't work?
For me it's speed.
I used FireFox for the same reasons, for years. Every time I started Chrome, it was a breath of fresh air. Everything was just slightly faster to react, to switch tabs, to scroll, to interact.
I kept reading posts about how the FireFox team was increasing performance, yet it never seemed to really impact it. Maybe because I often have several windows with a dozen tabs each (yes, one of those people.)
These days I have given up, and I haven't tried it for about two years now, maybe more. Is it any better? Does anyone know, for real, not a marketing blog post?
It still lives on the Dock, next to Safari and Chrome. I can't bear to remove the icon.
And Mozilla seems way off in the weeds with its product and corporate strategy. At this point, I'd pay for a non-Chromium, highly performant, privacy-first browser.
> Every time I started Chrome, it was a breath of fresh air. Everything was just slightly faster to react, to switch tabs, to scroll, to interact.
Well, with unblockable ads coming to Chrome, that will no longer be true.
There is no world in which browsing on Chrome with ads is faster than browsing on Firefox without ads.
> Is it any better? Does anyone know, for real, not a marketing blog post?
Well, since moving from ads to no-ads results in roughly a 30% performance increase, you can expect Firefox with uBlock origin to beat out anything in Chrome.
> And Mozilla seems way off in the weeds with its product and corporate strategy.
Agreed.
> Well, with unblockable ads coming to Chrome, that will no longer be true.
You've been arguing strongly (condescendingly, really) against people making (what you see as) uneducated claims about Firefox. Yet there you are, doing the same with Chrome.
I really don't think so. Firefox performance is really that bad. I sadly had to stop using it.
Sadly same here. firefox ran FoundryVTT poorly in the browser, like 12 fps, on Linux. Chromium had 0 issues with it, 60 no problem.
> Every time I started Chrome, it was a breath of fresh air. Everything was just slightly faster to react
Are you opening "several windows with a dozen tabs each" in Chrome? If not, then it's hardly a fair comparison.
Meta's ad manager breaks maybe once a year on Safari, so I have to boot up Chrome. Also recently there's been an odd bug on more than one sites (at least Zoho mail and, again, Meta) where the top 20 or so pixels are hidden behind the tab bar. Again works in Chrome. But mostly Safari has been fine.
> whining
- Chrome is safer due to the proper sandboxing of tabs.
- Try watching anything on YouTube on Firefox - for me even 360p stream (on 12c, mostly idle Linux PC) stutters to the point of being unwatchable. None of the is/browser settings work. Yeah, I realise YouTube is owned by Google
That's just my first two (just look it up, don't take my word for it), to show your "whining" claim is just an uneducated hostility not bound in facts.
> - Try watching anything on YouTube on Firefox - for me even 360p stream (on 12c, mostly idle Linux PC) stutters to the point of being unwatchable.
I'm literally watching Lowko videos right now, on a computer made in maybe 2010, running Linux Mint and FF.
Just look it up :))))
this sounds like a weird driver issue. in 30 years of watching content on YouTube, I've never seen it stutter unless I was using some weird low power PC.
'Then you ask them for a site that doesn't work' - For me it was Youtube. Debian 13, Gnome, apt update && apt install firefox, try playing a video. It's always noticebly slower, and last time it didn't even play at all. It might be skill issue or Google malicious behavior or both, but I'm ashamed to say installing Chrome was easier than troubleshooting. I'm slowly growing balls to sacrifice my comfort and migrate nontheless. But I'm tired of people pretending it's just as good and easy to use. Also, if anyone's wondering, gaming on linux still sucks, just a bit less.
> 'Then you ask them for a site that doesn't work' - For me it was Youtube. Debian 13, Gnome, apt update && apt install firefox, try playing a video. It's always noticebly slower, and last time it didn't even play at all. It might be skill issue or Google malicious behavior or both, but I'm ashamed to say installing Chrome was easier than troubleshooting. I'm slowly growing balls to sacrifice my comfort and migrate nontheless. But I'm tired of people pretending it's just as good and easy to use.
These are very different experiences we have. I've been using FF on Linux and on Windows since before the first day I found Youtube, and have not yet had a period where it doesn't work.
It's not pretending when tens of thousands are browsing that self-same site just fine over the period you had problems.
I've used Debian, Mint, Ubuntu, Fedora, Arch, Slackware and more. In none of them did I need to do anything specific to make FF work on youtube.
Google makes google-owned properties perform worse on Firefox on purpose and you fell for it.
> Also, if anyone's wondering, gaming on linux still sucks, just a bit less.
What am I doing wrong? All the games I want to play just seem to work without issue, including new AAA titles, with exceptions for things that use kernel level anticheat that I wouldn't play anyway specifically because of that.
Arc Raiders, Helldivers 2, Factorio, etc just fine. I'm even involved in some alpha / beta testing for a couple of new games.
Just running fedora + proton (wine). I just use the regular steam client like anyone else.
The only negative experience I've had is with google sites.
No.
You do realize that people have stuff to do and want their browser to be both 1) fast and 2) compatible with all websites?
Firefox is slower than Chromium, and always will have some compatibility issues, because all websites are made with Chromium in mind.
You can pretend all you want that "well ackshually standards exist and all website makers should use things from the standard", but it's not realistic, everyone will just stick with what works on Chromium.
Also projects like Ungoogled Chromium exist, but for some reason Firefox fanboys conveniently ignore them and pretend that all Chromium-based browsers are evil and Firefox is our last bastion of hope (it isn't and also it sucks)
Chromium is technically faster but in practice it doesn’t matter if you don’t have an adblocker. Adblocking significantly lowers render and JS load and lessens memory pressure. It varies site to site, but keep in mind that ads have to be fetched and then displayed. That’s not free.
Firefox with uBlock origin is basically as fast as a web browser can get.
uBO Lite exists and blocks ads just as well as uBO. Why do people pretend it doesn't exist?
Because it doesn’t work just as well, because the blocking is less dynamic and filter lists are more out of date. For simple ad blocking scenarios it’s fine, but it will actually miss some ads on some websites.
I've yet to see any ads on uBO Lite so I'll assume it's false, unless you give an example
uBO lite struggles with dynamically inserted ads. I’m not sure if it works with YouTube midrolls, I haven’t tried it. I did try paramount plus months ago though, which uBlock handles but Lite doesn’t. That’s not really an intended use case for an adblocker though, IMO, so maybe it’s fine. And, maybe it’s improved by now.
> It varies site to site, but keep in mind that ads have to be fetched and then displayed. That’s not free.
Move your ad blocking to a different layer. Like say, network level.
This can be done but it’s not sophisticated enough for many ads. Websites are smart and will smuggle ads through known-good domains that you can’t block. You really need to be able to navigate the dom and use JS heuristics to identify ads and popups.
You could, but at the very least you'd need to MITM all HTTPS, and that means installing your own CA on all devices
I'll take slower and safer anytime over the jungle of ads and the dangers it exposes users to. If something doesn't work properly on FF I open up Chrome, use the site and then close it.
And to be honest FF is working fine for me, haven't run into anything too slow to my taste so far.
> Firefox is slower than Chromium,
IME, ads introduce a 30% or more performance penalty, the only way Chrome is "faster" is if you view ads on FF.
So, sure, if you don't want to block ads, Chrome just might be slightly faster. But the browser that never fetches ads in the first place is always going to be faster.
For some bizarre reason you think that you can't block ads on Chromium. uBO Lite exists and blocks ads just as well as uBO.
People are also too lazy to go vote and then cry when someone gets elected that they didn't want to. Sometimes participating in society means not always taking the easiest path.
It won't matter if dozens of nerds use Firefox, Chromium is just better in every way and that's the reason for it's popularity. No amount of "voting" will change that.
Manifest V3 doesn't prevent anyone from blocking ads, as proven by uBO Lite. And yet misinformation about MV3 takes place in every Chromium vs Firefox debate.
That sounds like the apple fanboys "but it just works, why wouldn't I like a monopoly"
Surprised they still have this page on their site:
> https://about.google/company-info/philosophy/
> 1. Focus on the user and all else will follow.
> 6. You can make money without doing evil.
Hah
> 6. You can make money without doing evil
implies that they're doing it for fun then I guess?
you make some money without doing evil and some more in other ways
Technically, you can make money without doing evil.
I heard they actually changed to this wording from the original, which for a long time was "Don't be evil."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil
You heard? It was a fairly big controversy when they did get around to removing it.
Or obligation.
> You can make money without doing evil.
Neat! I rate this sentence at 7/10 on my scale of shit American companies say. The top score is currently held by Palantir with their X bio "Software that dominates."
> 6. You can make money without doing evil.
You can but well, it's more profitable the other way around....
Google only moves fast and breaks things that matter.
Their sunsetting of manifest v2 appears fast to me and updating some corporate philosophy has apparently no business impact.
See if you can raise it as an issue. There's clearly a grave errors on the page.
Archive it before they memoryhole it.
Yeah I'd expect someone here will note it and page will get a "deserved" update
"You can make money without doing evil [but that's not what we do]"
What is evil about this?
The only reason I use Chrome is because its dev tools are better, and for whatever reason, webgl wigs out on Ubuntu 26.04 in Firefox. It's mostly the lag issue though...
The year is 2030. Content's been blocked by age verification and overreach, but the ads still remain.
The university I work at is heavily dependent on Google and its products, so I use Vivaldi for work. Otherwise, it's Firefox. I've been using it since the beginning and see no reason to change. If a site doesn't work with it, than I don't visit that site.
IMHO it's quite brave that a Google employee working in that area would let his real name be published, and an illuminating view of how they (don't) think.
Being the maintainer of such a big open-source application as Chrome used to grant dictatorial power: maintaining a fork represented too much work. It only happened in the most awful situations, such as Oracle acquiring OpenOffice.
But that was before LLM-driven development, I think that now the game has changed, and maybe Google hasn't got the leverage it thinks it has.
A browser engine maintained by AI with less human oversight sounds like a recipe for disaster.
If I stop having a way to block ads I will stop using the internet. They are so evil.
Opera was a strong contender to become my main browser (luckily firefox copied the most useful feature, it's vpn), if ublock is deactivated, I will let it go without a second look.
Since when does firefox have vpn,?
The solution then is to run the equivalent of a PiHole on your private network and then configure your portable devices to always use that PiHole as their DNS service via self hosted VPN
Pihole is great for DNS filtering but doesn’t hide elements, no filtering and script blocking.
DNS ad blocking is useful. It does not replace browser ad blocking.
Mitchell baker dropped the ball (or was compromised) in that she did not ship firefox with an adblocker when they had the chance to stifle google
Chrome: uBlock Origin is dead.
Any other browser with uBlock Origin: Chrome is dead.
Adtech company insists on ramming more unwanted ads down your throat
thank god for firefox
Could brave browser continue their add block rampage?
uBlock Origin Lite works just as well. I don't see any ads anywhere. My experience has not changed one yota.
People just like to rage against Google.
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/...
It's even available on iOS, I have it running in Safari
AdGuard works fine for me, on YouTube as well.
Just about obligatory mention of Pale Moon here. Have had a relatively clean internet experience for years with the old Firefox uBlock extension in combination with eMatrix. *Includes a disclaimer because I don't use Youtube and other assorted "social" media websites.
Only need Firefox ESR for a handful of websites giving me no option when specifying a Linux/Mozilla user agent instead of the native one for those doesn't work.
I hope not, I switched from chrome to edge so I can continue using ublock origin.
It looks like crunch time is here. Personaly I have never watched add's on the net, by useing alternative browsers for 99% of my time, doing things like downloading a browser to do online banking, and then uninstalling it. Even as a child I didn't like advertisements, and have never owned a TV, for the simple reason that NO advertisement has ever shown me something I wanted, and could have. I have learned to let the net do it's thing, and provide me with work making things that people want, or show a lead to a product if I search (think~tractor part) but the rest is alien and very unpleasant for me to encounter.
Here is the guy who builds the browser I use https://www.stoutner.com/about/
git https://gitweb.stoutner.com/?p=PrivacyBrowserAndroid.git;a=s...
download https://www.stoutner.com/privacy-browser-android/changelog/
So, consider this a layman explanation of why this change is bad from someone who spends their time securing end-users.
This change is good for the majority of users, but is actually bad for large enterprise customers and highly-regulated customers. It puts more control and onus of responsibility on to Google, rather than the end-user. So, we will expect to see better enforcement of controls from Google for the lowest-hanging-fruit that some aspects of MV2 exposed.
What's that, you say? MV2 changes? Well there's 3 things.
1. Remote code execution. The ability for someone to just yeet commands into your browser. A little harder to do directly.. Still very possible, just with extra steps.
2. Removing the ability for extensions to access network requests directly, which is what adblockers often relied on. It also means malicious extensions could snoop on your requests. They still can, just with extra steps.
3. Background persistence, an extension could stay alive, maintain state, run timers, keep connections open, and coordinate across tabs. So this shuts off the "background persistence" piece -- but helps with ensuring better isolation. Still possible, but now requires yeeting your data to an external provider instead of keeping the state contained locally.
Those 3 changes are incredibly powerful, and will impact many, many Enterprise security tools. Tools that now instead will result in products like "Island Browser", and "Enterprise Chrome" being rolled out to supplement the functionality that MV2 gave us.
This change goes against the US and Australian government's hardening advice, and reduces the overall efficacy of security controls we're able to implement within our web browsers natively.
CISA's own guidance on this is pretty straightforward (aptly named Securing Web Browsers and Defending Against Malvertising for Federal Agencies): https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/CISA%20CEG%...
Here's the Australian Government's control relating to it:
> Control: ISM-1485; Revision: 1; Updated: Sep-21; Applicable: NC, OS, P, S, TS; Essential 8: ML1, ML2, ML3 > Web browsers do not process web advertisements from the internet.
And if you're wondering about what incentives there are that led to this change, you can read this letter written to the Chairman of the FTC by a US Senator back in 2020. This letter is linked to from the same CISA document I shared earlier.
You should read it in full, and consider what incentives the Senator was referring to -- and how they also apply in this scenario.
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/011420%20Wyden%20...
Those Enterprise Chrome products I mentioned earlier? Chrome's change has now put some of this functionality which was previously possible with an extension, behind the Enterprise Chrome Premium SKU: https://chromeenterprise.google/products/chrome-enterprise-p...
"removing Effectively-dead code" nice euphemism for directly killing a feature people desperately want ...
uBlock Origin Lite gives an identical browsing experience, ad-free. What is all the fuss about?
Your comment was redundant.[1] And contradicted in the uBlock Origin Lite FAQ.[2] And in the article.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48472424
[2] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...
Boycott evil companies.
People still using that POS? :)
Yet another reason to also perform ad blocking at the network level (e.g. DNS). I’ve found AdGuard Home very easy to maintain. Using Firefox and Orion browsers too.
Actually the main killer feature of UbO for me is cosmetic filtering with element picker, if I wanted just any ad blocker I could use various browsers with built-in adblockers supporting lists.
So much for blocking at network level.
> Cronin further explained why MV2 extensions are no longer allowed in supported Chrome versions as maintaining the associated functionality indefinitely is no longer possible. He cited growing technical difficulties and implementation complexities as well as security concerns.
You know what else is a security concern? Ads. The amount of mental gymnastics is insane. It's honestly insulting.
Clamping down on adblocking was always the plan and anyone who suggested differently was knowingly lying.
Google : "You will own nothing and like manifest v3"
smiling smugly from planet firefox
Totally not a monopoly on the browser space /s
uBlock Origin lite exists. And in couple years usage I see no difference from non lite version.
The author of both appears to disagree.
This feels more like a gradual tightening of extension APIs under Manifest V3 than a sudden “kill switch.” uBlock isn’t going away, but its capabilities are definitely being reshaped...
It's all an excuse to try to neuter adblockers. The push for killing MV2 was suspiciously accelerated at the same time that youtube started implementing much more invasive anti-adblock techniques that really needed a full content blocker support (at least until people found new clever workarounds).
Especially since they put no effort into removing even extensions they know are malicious (and who work very well within the MV3 restrictions): https://palant.info/2025/01/20/malicious-extensions-circumve...
It is a "kill switch" - uBlock Origin will no longer work in Chrome 151 (July 28, 2026).
I'm far more faithful to Ublock Origin than I am any specific browser.
Sadly I don't think that's the general case, I've been on FF for decades but there isn't a universe where I use a browser without UBO at this point.
>but there isn't a universe where I use a browser without UBO at this point.
One wouldn't need to be loyal to UBO... a simple with-and-without comparison would be enough for anyone with a functioning brainstem.