Manifest V3, webRequest, and ad blockers
-
@luetage
Said:Even if Vivaldi somehow managed to keep extensions relying on manifest v2 functional, these extensions will disappear from the webstore…
There is no problem if they are not in the Chrome webstore.
You could download uBO from Github:
I celebrate and am grateful that Vivaldi has an ad-blocker built-in, but the Dev team should do everything possible to keep the MV2 operative so we can continue to use the original uBO.
-
@barbudo2005 As long V2 is supported in the blink core, officially or with caveats
-
@barbudo2005 , yes, you can install any extensión you want from extern sources, but they don't update automaticly in this manner, you must do it by hand every x time.
-
@Catweazle Should be also said that update schedule for borked-by-v3 extensions will be a lot slower.
Not too much reason hassle for constant updates if fewer people can get them. -
@Hadden89 , anyway, sooner or later a Vivaldi Store is going to be a must
-
@Catweazle Yes, but not for the adblocking matter. Just to have a certified list without the unreleated clutter which is in the Chrome Store
-
@Hadden89 , yes, Google is less and less a reliable source.
-
Said:
they don't update automaticly in this manner, you must do it by hand every x time.
Have no doubt that uBO users would do anything to keep it operational.
Said:
As long V2 is supported in the blink core, officially or with caveats.
Of course, I do not expect that the Dev team to work miracles.
-
@julien_picalausa: I have a crazy idea. Why not integrate Ublock origin within Vivaldi? I noticed that the current Vivaldi ad blocker and tracker is relatively less efficient and effective compare to Brave shields and Ublock origin itself.
MV3 from what I heard (correct me if I am wrong), will limit the powers of any adblock even the legendary UBO. Sure your adblock will survive but looking at its current state idk how well it might do in the future. Why not work with the UBO team?
-
@AryanDevasagayaum , not entirely correct, the Vivaldi blocker is as efficient as you want, depending on the filter lists you add. In fact it essentially has the same filters as uBO. What is missing is the possibility of the settings that uBO has and of intervening on the page through the context menu to block a certain element, which offers you the extension and that the Vivaldi blocker (for the moment) does not have..
-
@Catweazle said in Manifest V3, webRequest, and ad blockers:
the Vivaldi blocker is as efficient as you want, depending on the filter lists you add.
Not true, Vivaldi doesn't understand all the syntax in the filters possible with uBO, that's why uBO it's better, because Vivaldi can't actually parse everything in the lists.
-
@iAN-CooG That’s true, Vivaldi’s adblocker doesn’t understand Adblock Plus pseudo selectors, but these aren’t a ublock invention, ublock just supports them. I reckon Vivaldi could introduce them too.
-
@iAN-CooG , it is clear that in the Vivaldi blocker there is room for improvements, which will surely be implemented, in any case it is not a bad idea to also use Pi Hole or Portmaster in the OS to complement it (Blokada, F-Droid version, in Android). We will see anyway what happens in January with that new invention of Google and how to deal with it.
-
Perhaps throwing a vote towards Improve ad blocker rule compatibility would be a good idea.
-
To be honest, the only way to avoid stuff like that is diversification and giving the user the ability to pick and mix. Meaning, I would be happy to see additional web engine support, like Gecko and Webkit
-
@datacenter On a scale from 1 to 420, how likely do you think it is Vivaldi will support all major engines on all major operating systems with all features?
-
@luetage: Well, this is not some kind of a crazy new idea by any means and if it was possible 10 years ago (e.g. Opera supporting 3 engines)... I would say 637 on the scale
-
@datacenter , I think that the possibillity to implement this converge to zero, with the small Vivaldi team.
It might have been possible if they had decided to implement a multi-engine from the beginning, but now after 6 years using Blink, by the way the best and fastest engine there is, it would mean redesigning Vivaldi from scratch, losing 6 years of development, or in other words, the end of Vivaldi. You can't do this just like that by simply putting more engines into a browser, this requires long development. Avant Browser tried a few years ago with a Tri motor and like the others with attempts to use a different engine, they have left this and thicken the list of more than 70 discontinued and abandoned browsers that already exist.
The engine is by far the most complex part of a browser, it's not a simple app or API you can add or modify, it's similar to the intent to change the kernel with another one in the OS -
@catweazle:
I am sure they have thought of that during the design stage of the browser and believe the possibility to use multiple engines is there.
I do agree they need more people, but from technical perspective this should be quite feasable. -
@datacenter , it isn't. Maybe a big company with several hundred of devs can do this with several month of work, but not a small company like Vivaldi.
Take a look what is need to maintan one engine for five different OS
https://yngve.vivaldi.net/sooo-you-say-you-want-to-maintain-a-chromium-fork/