Solved Support Extensions
-
No manpower to support the extension, or no plans at all to support the extension
-
@hhs66317 are you asking a question, or making a statement? I expect that Vivaldi Android will support extensions at some point in the future, we just need to be patient.
-
Android Vivaldi support custom filters. So no need of ublock origin. Duckduckgo tracker radar along with energized blu filter is more than enough to block ads and trackers. https://github.com/EnergizedProtection/block
Only Firefox in android support full extentions. But it's android market share only 0.47% and it used by niche group of power users/privacy conscious users. The average user does not care about fingerprinting, tracking. I think Vivaldi should focus on features and user-friendly ui, day to day usable browser.
-
@balachandarsmr Extension support is not ad blocking.
It's powerful added features to any websites with userscripts (Greasemonkey, Violentmonkey, Tampermonkey), it's user stylesheets, and infinite other stuff. -
@balachandarsmr said in Support Extensions:
Android Vivaldi support custom filters. So no need of ublock origin.
uBlock Origin has a lot of functionality that is missing in Vivaldi's native blocker. I don't expect any browser to ever catch up to parity with dedicated extensions when it comes to blocking, it took many years for uBO to reach the polished solution that it is now. Not to mention, there's nothing comparable to uMatrix.
@balachandarsmr said in Support Extensions:
I think Vivaldi should focus on features
This is number 1 feature request for Vivaldi Android and it's not even close. Of the top 5 extensions, extension support makes up for half of the votes, meaning it's equal to the next 4 combined, and it's also more than double number 2.
@jesus2099 said in Support Extensions:
Extension support is not ad blocking.
And then there's all the additional functionality beyond blocking that extension support would bring, which is one reason it is so popular.
@balachandarsmr said in Support Extensions:
Only Firefox in android support full extentions.
I'm not sure that's factually accurate, on both counts. Firefox & its market share are irrelevant anyways. What matters is Vivaldi, and this is the feature the community wants most, without question.
-
If chromium Dev's make some changes upstream it would be easy for other chromium forks to support extensions. But It's still in proposal.
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1074710 -
@balachandarsmr said in Support Extensions:
Android Vivaldi support custom filters. So no need of ublock origin. Duckduckgo tracker radar along with energized blu filter is more than enough to block ads and trackers. https://github.com/EnergizedProtection/block
By the way, even if you don't mention that Ublock supports more complex filtering rules than the implementation in Vivaldi, the built-in blocker has very poor optimization, if you add a couple of hundred thousand filtering rules to it, the whole browser starts to lag terribly. Interestingly, the browser continues to lag, even if you disable the blocker, but leave the filtering lists active. With ublock in kiwi, yandex and firefox so many filters don't create problems. I have created a bug report VAB-2624, but I'm not sure if it will be taken care of.
-
Firefox with extensions takes 400 plus mb ram (sometimes 500 mb) and drains battery more than other chromium browsers. So I switched to Vivaldi after trying all chromium derivatives from brave to bromite. Tried Adguard and it's https filtering slows down browsing speed significantly. Though Kiwi browser support extensions it is running on outdated chromium 77. It's not secure.
I used energized blue filter on Vivaldi which has 226k filtering rules, a default filter in blokada and the browser doesn't lag, loads pages normally with normal speed. -
@tverye said in Support Extensions:
if you add a couple of hundred thousand filtering rules to it, the whole browser starts to lag terribly.
I have not experienced this. I have well over 300,000 filters in Vivaldi Android, and that's assuming that it deduplicates the filters like uBlock Origin does. If it doesn't do that, it's closer to 400,000 filters. If I noticed any performance difference when I did that, it was reduced loading times on certain news sites that are loaded with more ads than content -- you know those punk pages that make you click next a dozen times to read the whole thing. Mostly, it's similar enough that I don't really notice anything; but it's certainly not lagging terribly.
If turning off blocking doesn't resolve the issue, I'd make sure to test in a clean/new profile. If that works fine, then I'd disable all extensions on my default profile to see if that resolves the issue, and if so start enabling them one-by-one until I find the culprit.
This doesn't change the fact that UBO still exceeds the native blocker in functionality, and the native blocker doesn't do anything similar to uMatrix. Just that I've not experienced any lag due to using the native blocker, and definitely not terrible lag.
-
@BoneTone said in Support Extensions:
If turning off blocking doesn't resolve the issue, I'd make sure to test in a clean/new profile. If that works fine, then I'd disable all extensions on my default profile to see if that resolves the issue, and if so start enabling them one-by-one until I find the culprit.
It seems to me that you forgot that we are in the thread about the mobile browser.
-
@tverye said in Support Extensions:
@BoneTone said in Support Extensions:
If turning off blocking doesn't resolve the issue, I'd make sure to test in a clean/new profile. If that works fine, then I'd disable all extensions on my default profile to see if that resolves the issue, and if so start enabling them one-by-one until I find the culprit.
It seems to me that you forgot that we are in the thread about the mobile browser.
No, I didn't. I did, however, misunderstand your post. I read it like you were comparing uBlock's performance to the native blocker's performance -- so I assumed you were on the desktop since you couldn't be using uBlock on Vivaldi Android. Still, my experience with the native blocker is on Android, as I stated. On the desktop I don't use the native blocker, instead I use a combination of extensions including uBlock Origin & uMatrix.
I've got those >300,000 (assuming deduplication) filters active right now, while writing this post and my previous posts. There's no perceivable lag, and that's way more than a couple hundred thousand filters. Without deduplication it's almost 400,000, I just don't know if Vivaldi dedupes the filters or not, on Android. So if you're having serious lag issues, I would try to figure out what other things you have going that could possibly be interfering at the time of use.
I'll add that a very large profile isn't an issue either, as I've synced >130,000 bookmarks and I never delete my history (going back to 2016 on the desktop). I also currently have 560 tabs open, so Vivaldi Android is rather capable when it comes to performance.
-
@balachandarsmr said in Support Extensions:
If chromium Dev's make some changes upstream it would be easy for other chromium forks to support extensions. But It's still in proposal.
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1074710I believe one of the changes has been made, at least in the development branch, which is decoupling !is_android from !enable_extensions. But yeah, it'll be great when this all gets sussed out, as there are a lot of unnecessary logic tests in core that downstream devs have to change before they even get to the work of actually supporting extensions, and then have to merge all those changes in again every time they pick up the next Chromium build. It's a lot of unnecessary work that was based on poor assumptions during the initial Chromium development. It'll remove a lot of extraneous roadblocks to supporting extensions once all these changes are finally made. It's a shame this big wasn't filed last year when these were discovered, as we could be much further along by now if it had been. Maybe Kiwi thought it a competitive advantage at the time, that doesn't matter now that the source is open, I dunno.
-
Vivaldi seems it doesn't support all ublock syntax. Websites give adblock warning. But ublock origin extension doesn't give adblock warning. Vivaldi built-in adblock is limited. It does cosmetic filtering but doesn't bypass anti adblock scripts, it won't block CNAME cloaking-based tracking as ublock origin extension.
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/ublock-origin-125-now-blocks-cloaked-first-party-scripts-firefox-only/
So extension is the only solution.Why I want extensions
- For Ublock origin
- To remove Google amp
- To translate webpages
- To preview pdf In browser without downloading
-
Here is another reason to support extension:
For some reasons Keepass2android doesn't work with vivaldi mobil (works with firefox). Now this would be easy to resolve with extension, because of course there are bridges for stuff like that.
I really like the vivaldi mobile but no extension is always the deal breaker when I try again. Supporting extension would also lift some burden from vivaldis developers because with one feature they would suddenly support much more features as they could ever program themselves.
-
i'd love this option.
-
Need extension support for mobile
-
Right now only the Kiwi Browser has a FULL support for extensions. It's not something like Firefox did with their very limited extension support.
If Kiwi can do it, Vivaldi can. Being both a Chromium-based browser, the only thing that holding Vivaldi from implementing it is that they just don't want to.
Extensions allow us to harden our browsers much better. And some productivity extensions are better used in browser VS their android app counterpart.
So I hope Vivaldi will have a change of heart. Extensions support are the holy grail of Vivaldi Mobile browser.
-
@jasongo and Firefox 68.11.0.
Find out your ABI / CPU architecture to know which APK to install:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.kgurgul.cpuinfo
https://developer.android.com/ndk/guides/abisTemporarily allow non Play Store APK install and install 68.11.0:
-
@jasongo said in Support Extensions:
Right now only the Kiwi Browser has a FULL support for extensions.
Yandex browser supports extensions too. It's based on latest chromium. But Kiwi is based on chromium 77 which is outdated and has security vulnerabilities.
It's not something like Firefox did with their
very limited extension support.Iceraven, a fork of Firefox supports more than 100 addons.
https://github.com/fork-maintainers/iceraven-browser/releases -
@jesus2099 said in Support Extensions:
@jasongo and Firefox 68.11.0.
After 68.11.0 Mozilla fixed tons of security vulnerabilities. Use this browser if you are willing to being hacked.