![]() ![]() Mozilla is trying to do the right thing by implementing Manifest V3 without the problem introduced by Google. They did that change along with the update to Manifest V3. The problem is that Google removed a very important API that is crucial for ad blockers. (Compare to if XUL, while still technically viable, had been killed 10 years ago with a feature flag by fiat and then multiprocess, parallel rendering, and other deliverables related to Gecko Rustification were still as many years away as they actually were.) If anything, keeping XUL extensions around while all this work was being done helped prop up Firefox's user numbers for a while longer. If anyone had stumbled upon working patchsets for those goals stuff through divine revelation and had the ability to say so, then they would have broken things sooner. The real reason is that the work needed for what was eventually delivered in the overhaul that made XUL obsolete was work of the sort that takes a long time to complete. The long, slow decline related to slowness at the core of Firefox had very little to do with extensions (the unwillingness to break them, that is). ![]() The imprimatur that the Firefox team was working under meant that they absolutely could, and very often did, break things from release-to-release. > Remember that decade where Firefox shed market share to Chrome for being too "slow" and "bloated"? Yeah, and it was that way because Mozilla couldn't change a damn thing without half of the entire extensions ecosystem imploding with every release. I tried to build a (non-complicated) extension recently and the service worker API seemed cleaner and modern. I hope FF gets service workers going soon, I haven't followed development closely so I'm not sure what's holding them back besides not wanting to replace Event Pages entirely with it. Content blocking is one of the most important use cases for extensions, and we are committed to ensuring that Firefox users have access to the best privacy tools available.” We will continue to work with content blockers and other key consumers of this API to identify current and future alternatives where appropriate. ![]() To maximize compatibility with other browsers, we will also ship support for declarativeNetRequest. > Mozilla will maintain support for blocking WebRequest in MV3. However, this will limit the capabilities of certain types of privacy extensions without adequate replacement. Unfortunately, that power has also been used to harm users in a variety of ways Chrome’s solution in MV3 was to define a more narrowly scoped API (declarativeNetRequest) as a replacement. > “One of the most controversial changes of Chrome’s MV3 approach is the removal of blocking WebRequest, which provides a level of power and flexibility that is critical to enabling advanced privacy and content blocking features. In fact, though, the qualifier is unnecessary because in a literal sense the majority of users agree, since they aren't choosing Firefox to begin with.įirefox kept support for Event Pages which get direct access to DOM and WebAPIs in the background as well as Web Requests, both of which are not available via Chrome's use of service workers/restricted request API * I'm overconstraining to emphasize the types of discriminating users who install content blockers. Consider that if you put it this way, when asked if Firefox is sufficient/adequate/reliable enough to perform that role on its own, the majority of relevant* users would respond in a way that reveals that the answer is decidedly a "no". human) agent who should act on your behalf and take care of things. ![]() Think of it like hiring an actual live (i.e. Where content blockers like uBlock Origin are concerned, the combination of Firefox + uBlock Origin _is_ the user agent. People who use content blockers often don't (and shouldn't) see things as "my browser" plus "the extensions I use-which my browser should protect me from, not unlike the way it protects me from random pages out on the Web". That's why people take issue with what you're saying. Giving a browser access to see any request you ever make is not good for privacy. To understand what's wrong with this, consider what happens when you change a word: ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |