this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2025
908 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

63375 readers
5900 users here now

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


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The latest Edge Canary version started disabling Manifest V2-based extensions with the following message: "This extension is no longer supported. Microsoft Edge recommends that you remove it." Although the browser turns off old extensions without asking, you can still make them work by clicking "Manage extension" and toggling it back (you will have to acknowledge another prompt).

At this point, it is not entirely clear what is going on. Google started phasing out Manifest V2 extensions in June 2024, and it has a clear roadmap for the process. Microsoft's documentation, however, still says "TBD," so the exact dates are not known yet. This leads to some speculating about the situation being one of "unexpected changes" coming from Chromium. Either way, sooner or later, Microsoft will ditch MV2-based extensions, so get ready as we wait for Microsoft to shine some light on its plans.

Another thing worth noting is that the change does not appear to be affecting Edge's stable release or Beta/Dev Channels. For now, only Canary versions disable uBlock Origin and other MV2 extensions, leaving users a way to toggle them back on. Also, the uBlock Origin is still available in the Edge Add-ons store

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 40 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (5 children)

Ok maybe off topic, why does a web browser have to be one of the most complicated software artifacts on earth? So expensive to write and maintain that only a few orgs with huge developer resources can do it?

What would it look like to start from scratch with a massively simplified standard for specifying UIs, based on all we've learned since html/css was invented? A standard that a few developers could implement in a few weeks using off the shelf libraries. Rather than reimplement every bizarre historical detail in html/css, have a new UI layout system that's simple and consistent, and perhaps more powerful.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Basically browsers are big because they are operating systems for web hosted applications with huge attack surfaces and lots of legacy compatibility requirements amassed over 3 decades.

A rewrite isn't the answer. Putting limits on browser functionality is. JavaScript was the turning point IMHO.

[–] Matriks404 1 points 2 hours ago

I think it could be sensible to come out with a subset of modern web tech stack, and just use that. There could be even a lightweight web browser just for this subset. The problem is of course on agreeing with what would be included.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

If you don't want to be compatible with what millions of websites are written in (because that's the complicated part), you now have to convince all of them to invest lots of money to migrate to your new web standard... Good luck...

[–] [email protected] 4 points 16 hours ago

You don't have to replace the html web. If a new system was sufficiently fun to create with, people might use it for all kinds of cool new projects. Kind of like Flash used to be. You'd go there for a specific thing you heard about.

A new web free of cruft might turn out to be cheaper to develop for, and that might appeal to the corporate types. Maybe useful for intranet type apps where the browser is specified anyway and you have a captive audience.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 20 hours ago

What would it look like to start from scratch with a massively simplified standard for specifying UIs, based on all we've learned since html/css was invented?

Probably a lot better. The difficult, and expensive, part is getting everyone to migrate over to this new standard, not because it'd be unfeasible but because companies don't want to spend any time or money on things that they don't think will make them profit.

What we'd need is, for example, the EU realizing that Google's attempted monopoly on the internet is dangerous and requiring a certain standard for private consumer-facing websites to get the ball rolling.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 14 hours ago

Probably a lot like Gemini web. No, not the AI bauble.

[–] balder1991 3 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

I feel like this sort of thing should be more modular. Maybe on Linux we could in theory have multiple packages that could have different implementations and the browser UI would just use the underlying packages with their specific extras on top.

That would also align well with the Unix philosophy of each component “doing one thing well” and composing small tools to achieve complex tasks.

Splitting things add a different level of complexity (public APIs, deprecations, different versions, etc.) but it would make the web much more free, since we could have different individuals maintaining different packages and no organization would have too much control over the web.

I believe this is possible because we have very complex stuff such as entire Desktop Environments on Linux that are made up of multiple packages and each package just do a well defined thing and build on top of each other to create a “whole” experience in the end.