Technology

59999 readers

2831 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

468

Google's "Manifest V2" Chrome extension phaseout next month is expected to impact the original uBlock Origin extension, which still uses the V2 framework and has 37 million users (www.theregister.com)

submitted 6 months ago by ForgottenFlux to c/technology

98 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The new MV3 architecture reflects Google's avowed desire to make browser extensions more performant, private, and secure. But the internet giant's attempt to do so has been bitterly contested by makers of privacy-protecting and content-blocking extensions, who have argued that the Chocolate Factory's new software architecture will lead to less effective privacy and content-filtering extensions.

For users of uBlock Origin, which runs on Manifest V2, "options" means using the less capable uBlock Origin Lite, which supports Manifest V3.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] pyre 11 points 6 months ago (3 children)

it wasn't marketing wank. it was a significant performance difference. people forget Firefox 3.x but i remember. it was fireslug more like.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

Exactly, i went from firefox to chrome because the performance. Got back to firefox a couple of years ago because the performance didn't mather between those two.

[–] Grabthar 2 points 6 months ago

I dunno man. I quickly learned to avoid Chrome at all costs because of the performance. Even when it was supposedly "good", it was always a massive memory hog. Never had that issue with Firefox, and if it ended up taking a few seconds longer here and there to load a page, it would pale in comparison to the overall hit to the system from Chrome. Like being penny wise and pound foolish.