Hmmm...they say Brave is faster!

[Catweazle]

@JohnConnorBear , Don't get me wrong either, I understand that a developer can publish their soft where most users expect and this is the Chrome Store, but this can be valid in the case of soft commercial or proprietary, in the case of OpenSource in most cases this point is not so important and can be on Github or on any other page of its own, such as the one I put in the message previous. Apart from publishing in a supposed Vivaldi Store it does not prevent you from also doing it in the Chrome Store. I add that a malicious developer does not deserve to be promoted anywhere and the Chrome Store has already shown that it doesn't care too much about this point.

[luetage]

@Catweazle You want your extensions to appear in the browser you use. You don’t put an extension on chrome web store because you use Firefox. Of course you can make an effort and support more platforms and many people do, but there will always be the browser you actually develop for. I’m sure we’d have quite the amount of extensions over time, if Vivaldi would release their own store, but it wouldn’t be able to stand up to chrome web store. Just take a look at the Opera add-ons site for a peek into the future:

The main advantage is dedicated apis that allow extensions to take advantage of unique browser features. Then you get a heavy amount of 100% ported extensions, that you could as well install from chrome web store. The worst part is the amount of work actual employees have to put into reviewing extension code, which in turn would make releasing on a Vivaldi owned platform probably somewhat frustrating.

[luetage]

@JohnConnorBear Well, the most basic example is the sidebar. Vivaldi could create an api allowing developers to create extensions making use of it natively.

[luetage]

@JohnConnorBear Look, you’re talking about blockers, I was talking about the pros and cons of a dedicated Vivaldi extensions store. I don’t have my mind revolving around adblocking right now, but from what I can recall Vivaldi let us know that they would evaluate possible alternative solutions once manifest version 3 is fully worked out, presented and in testing. Sit back and sip some rum is my general advice ^^

[Catweazle]

@JohnConnorBear , It is not about creating dedicated extensions specifically for Vivaldi, but getting extensions that are useful for Vivaldi from the Chrome Store, to put them in a own store. Thus, the user is prevented from installing extensions that do not work or are even harmful.
The Chrome Store obviously has thousands of extensions, but 3/4 of them are redundant for Vivaldi, nonsense or some even directly spyware or fake.
Don't you think that, for example extensions, developed for Vivaldi by Vivaldi users, as an example the Vivaldi Forum Mod, would not be better in our own Store, instead of one of the competition, which is also far from being reliable?

[luetage]

@JohnConnorBear Vivaldi isn’t just a UI slapped on top of Chromium, that’s where you’re wrong. For example Vivaldi has its own system of syncing browser data. That’s not some GUI display trick, that’s actual code written for this functionality which works independent from the Chromium/Blink base. You can say the same for the upcoming M3 and its family of features.

Saying that Chromium is owned by Google is somewhat misleading too, it’s open source after all and theoretically anyone can contribute and/or fork the project. It’s just that Google is the main force behind it with the bulk of the commits under its belt. Vivaldi can do what they want, if they think its meaningful to introduce e.g. additional APIs that extend or add to the current chrome.extension APIs, no one will stop them.

[Catweazle]

I think that talking about asking the developer of an extension in the case of FOSS, may or may not be necessary (depending on the license) to add it to a supposed repository or not, in the same sense of FOSS.
For example, uBlock Origin is found in any repository that exists, like many others, it is therefore unnecessary to use extensions only from the Chrome Store.
Regarding the need for extensions, it is true that Vivaldi needs less and less, especially now with the inclusion of the ad and tracker blocker, but even so, some specific extensions continue to be needed according to the particular needs of each user.

[Hadden89]

@AgentX said in Hmmm...they say Brave is faster!:

There are various extensions that will never switch from the Chrome store, nor post in multiple stores.

That's true. But would be easier for users to know alternatives which works in Vivaldi and would act as a visual filter for incompatible addons.
In additon, several devs already try to support Vivaldi, so a catalog would be useful even for them.

With Opera you have to install a extension to use extensions from the Chrome store and Vise Versa.

That's opera. Edge support the chrome extensions without addons. It only suggest to use the microsoft store which is fine.

suggesting Vivaldi block the use of certain extensions by the enduser.

That would be a mistake. Some internals said that only malware/spam extensions will be blocked.
Others may show a "fair-use warning" so users can decide.

But the road for a store, I fear, is long. Too early to speak.

[Catweazle]

How does F-Droid in Android do it? It is another repository with OpenSource apps, alternative to Google Store. I think that for the vast majority of apps or extensions OpenSource there is no impediment that anyone can create a repository and add them to it.
Another thing naturally if it is proprietary or commercial extensions or apps, then authorization and an eventual license fee are indeed required.

[musicollector]

@mib2berlin said in Hmmm...they say Brave is faster!:

@musicollector
Hi, it only start faster, if you enable add and tracker blocking Vivaldi is faster on my system. I checked with Page load time 2.0.0 extension.
Disable java script is a fancy idea, some pages are loading in 1/100 second but you can see anything on that page.
Tested with Brave V1.9.72

Cheers, mib

Oh, lol, it doesn't matter to me if it starts faster. If that was the case, I would have dumped Firefox a long time ago - slower than molasses in launching! I am only interested in the performance, which in this case, belongs to Vivaldi.

[musicollector]

@Pesala said in Hmmm...they say Brave is faster!:

@musicollector I don't know why they say that Brave is better regarding privacy. Speed has more to do with your broadband connection than the browser that you use. I cannot tell the difference when it comes to a few hundred milliseconds.

I feel the same way. As a human, I don't see any difference. If it was connected to a scope, maybe. But who cares about milli or microseconds of a difference?

[musicollector]

@Catweazle said in Hmmm...they say Brave is faster!:

I think that this of the benchmark comparisons are quite useless, the difference that there can be in modern browsers is minimal, mostly invisible to the user.
Possibly Brave is a tenth of seconds
faster than Vivaldi, but the question is in which browser I can work faster, and at this point Vivaldi is incomparable.

For me, at this level, speed is no longer the issue. How much control does a user have to make it one's own? That's the rub. Vivaldi is incomparable in that aspect. I am constantly dazzled by all the tweaks one can do without having to go into code.

[Catweazle]

@musicollector , this is the point, even after years I find new things in Vivaldi and more with each update.

[musicollector]

@Catweazle Indeed! No idea what took me so long to discover it!

[Pesala]

@Catweazle As I get older I rediscover things that I have long since forgotten were there.

[Catweazle]

@Pesala , Vivaldi is like the sound that makes a Hand