Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This is the key differentiator Mozilla seems to deliberately avoid understanding. Chrome is a perfectly okay browser from almost every perspective: standards, functionality, performance, etc. What Chrome is not good at and can never be good at while it's owned by an advertising company is respecting user choice to disable advertising and choose privacy models that exclude the browser company.

Features and bugfixes are important, but they're table stakes for an everyday browser. They aren't enough to sell it.



Now that Google blocked uBlock origin, that's a good reason to keep using Firefox. It amazes me how much worse the web is on Chrome.


Chrome has uBlock Origin Lite. It blocks ads even on YouTube.


There are quite a few browser that don't ever need extensions to block ads. There's thus no reason for me to use Firefox (and I don't want to, until it's managed by Mozilla).


[flagged]


I didn't downvote you, but your vague mentioning of some browsers "that don't ever need extensions to block ads" is not helpful at all and sounds wrong to me. There are only three major browser engines in the world, and only Firefox's one blocks ads reliably.


Well, I dont see ads in my non-FF browser. Don't know what else I could say. And, to be precise, FF doesn't block anything by itself. It just relies on an the job of unpaid volunteers to block ads.



There are quite a few Chromium browsers with an inbuilt adblocker. Mine is one of these. My world isn't going to end with UBo.


Which ones?


Ok, now I'm pretty sure you're trolling. Bye.


Your're just not giving enough details for a refute, so I had to dig links about all browsers I could find. You're trolling, since you only give vague, general statements, which don't move the discussion.


Brave ships with an ad blocker built in i believe.



I don't need any MV2 extension, so I don't really care.


So, you're fine with the ads and tracking.


Brave has built in ad / tracking blocking without using MV2. If MV2 vanished in Brave you could still have blocking without using uBlock Origin



Almost nobody cares about anything other than ad blocking and to top it off the reply to the comment you linked is even mentioning that they were only talking about ad block...


You may be right, but I have no trust in Brave. Not just due to their shady decisions in the past but also because they would have to fight a huge ad industry on a tiny budget with their built-in ad blocker. At least if it's an add-on, the community would be able to help easier.


https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=EbNar#44578751

Besides, using that together with a DNS blocker does a wonderful job, whether you believe it or not.


The discontinued support of MV2 means that all ads will eventually adapt and your anti-ad measures stop working.


I think you don't understand the difference between an extension (for which manifest version matters) and an intrinsic feature (for which the manifest means nothing). It's either that, or you want to convince people that FF the only way. No, it isn't. Deal with it.


> Features and bugfixes are important, but they're table stakes for an everyday browser. They aren't enough to sell it.

One of the reasons I've moved to Chrome is because of the memory problems with Mozilla that I've been experiencing for years. Every so often I look up other people who've been having the same issues. They seem to have been reported for years, but there's often a surprising amount of hostility from Firefox fans whenever they get mentioned.

As an aside, both Firefox and Chrome made their browsers significantly worse when they changed the order of windows in the windows menu from chronological to alphabetical.


Floorp is basically Firefox without the memory issues.

You might want to check it out.


> Chrome is a perfectly okay browser from almost every perspective

No, it isn't. They killed adblock, and have a business model of throttling other browsers to force people to Chrome (Youtube throttling) and doing digital fingerprinting with exclusive-only Chrome finger prints as seen here on HN the other day.

Firefox has anonym, where it sells your 'anonymous data'

https://lifehacker.com/tech/why-you-should-disable-firefox-p...

I just looked, go to Settings -> type advert and you'll see

Website Advertising Preferences Allow websites to perform privacy-preserving ad measurement This helps sites understand how their ads perform without collecting data about you. Learn more

It comes pre-checked for you.

I use Chromium for dev stuff, but now; there's no ublock origin.


I tried to be clear about how Chrome is fine in most respects except for the incentives conflict, and you've simply pointed out symptoms stemming from that fundamental issue. Are we actually disagreeing or do you just dislike how I phrased it?


You were very clear. PP seems to be in agreement with you in spite of objecting to the first line and ignoring the rest.


"ublock origin lite" works well


Not on Google's own websites such as Youtube.


It blocks Youtube's ads just fine.

You might've tried it during an arms race moment. YT is constantly changing it's anti-blocking measures, and uBO and uBO Lite are constantly responding. uBO had the same issue.

uBO Lite does lack custom filters and custom filter lists. It also doesn't have sync, but uBO didn't do sync well anyway. Also sync is far less useful without custom filters.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: