uBlock Origin developer recommends switching to uBlock Lite as Chrome flags the extension
github.com
Google Chrome users with the uBlock Origin extension installed started noticing that the browser flagged the extension as "soon to be unsupported." Here is why this happens and what to do with it.

~~https://www.neowin.net/news/ublock-origin-developer-recommends-switching-to-ublock-lite-as-chrome-flags-the-extension/~~

EDIT: Apologies. Updated with a link to what gorhill REALLY said:

Manifest v2 uBO will not be automatically replaced by Manifest v3 uBOL[ight]. uBOL is too different from uBO for it to silently replace uBO – you will have to explicitly make a choice as to which extension should replace uBO according to your own prerogatives.

Ultimately whether uBOL is an acceptable alternative to uBO is up to you, it’s not a choice that will be made for you.

Will development of uBO continue? Yes, there are other browsers which are not deprecating Manifest v2, e.g. Firefox.

  • watson387@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    148·
    5 months ago

    I only use Firefox and have for the past few years. Yesterday I tried to schedule an appointment to get my oil changed at the dealer but was unable because the process on the site just flat-out breaks on Firefox. This is not a complaint about Firefox, but the fact that Chrome is so popular that some websites only work with Chrome. I don’t have a Chromium-based browser installed (besides Edge, which I’ve never opened intentionally) and I despise being on the phone (which is why I was trying to schedule online in the first place), so I just didn’t make the appointment. I’ll go somewhere else to get my oil changed. Sorry for the rant but it was extremely frustrating.

    • mox@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      97·
      5 months ago

      Chrome is so popular that some websites only work with Chrome.

      It’s the Internet Explorer problem all over again, but this time from an even more invasive company.

      The more people choosing non-Chomium browsers, the better. Keeping them popular enough that most sites have to support them is the only way to preserve what little agency people still have on the mainstream web.

    • cultsuperstar@lemmy.worldEnglish
      34·
      5 months ago

      Man, you never worked for a large corporation that that had internal web based apps that only work on Internet Explorer and refused to update it.

      • flop_leash_973@lemmy.worldEnglish
        7·
        5 months ago

        I worked somewhere like that back in the 2008-2010 time frame. Thankfully, there was a extension, I believe the name was “IETab”, that would spawn a new tab in Trident (IE’s browser engine). So you could set certain sites to launch in one of those tabs and everything else would use standard Firefox. None of the people I supported were any the wiser. They just thought everything worked in Firefox.

        Granted it was only that seamless because Windows already had that rendering engine built in. There are some extensions that do something similar with Chrome, but because of more modern security standards and whatnot you have to install extension helper applications which is gross.

    • ripcord@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      5 months ago

      Are you sure that it was Firefox itself? I find the few times something like that has come up, it was because of extensions (like adblocl, actually).

      Delta’s website started blocking me due to using Dark Reader, apparently something about detecting that the contents of the page were being altered. And another site worked fine when I disabled unlock; I assume because it was blocking loading some .js that was actually being used for something other than just ads.