Manifest v3 update: Vivaldi is future-proofed with its built-in functionality
-
@barbudo2005 won't the saner chromium forks just behave like the policy is set without your intervention though? that would be the most reasonable approach, very easy patch and better UX
what comes after Chromium removes the API may be more complex, some forks may attempt to just skip the removal, but at some point that will be too costly to keep going -
You wrote: 'so you don’t have to trust an unknown third party and worry that it’s in danger of going away. '
I beg your pardon? We're tallking about uBlock Origin which is NOT and unknown "third party'' and may the the best as and tracker blocker with many useful feature not offer by the Vivaldi built-in blocker...
I like the features of Vivaldi browser but I realize the limit of a browser based on Google stuff and dependant on the Google diktats.
I'm ready to ditch Vivaldi with no uBlock Origin. The "light" version is not an option. Very sad news.
-
@edualc1011 well, "everything built in" is the perfect world, but unfeasible to achieve
good extensions API including well grained permissions system, strict but quick reviews in the official extensions repository and ability to trust whoever you want outside of it would be the best (or the most realistic at least) way to achieve lots of power, even with the ability to take vastly different approaches to the same problemsas content blockers sit in the critical path and affect every single request it is important for them to be performant and implementing them natively, without the need to cross the language barrier with all the costly conversions, is preferred, but not at the cost of not being able to set them up properly, we need a native blocker, but as capable as uBO
-
@edualc1011, the whole web depends on the Google dictat, the browser is a less problem, Chromium is 100% FOSS and can be modified, but not the webstandards optimized for Blink as the main engine in browsers, wich is causing more and more compatibility issues for browsers with other engines. THIS is the real Google dictat, >80% of the websites use Google APIs, even a lot of FOSS and Mozilla send account data to Alphabet, googletagmanager and googleanalytics, Vivaldi don't, despite being Chromium, it's only problem is the dependence of the Chrome store. It's not that Vivaldi support Mv2, when the by Google gutted extensions in the store don't.
-
This is the real problem when individual companies become too powerful and fair competition no longer takes place. History repeats itself (Microsoft vs. Netscape). Mozilla is now financially dependent on Google and would otherwise have disappeared from the market long ago. The user can change their behavior by relying on alternatives.
-
@edualc1011 said in Manifest v3 update: Vivaldi is future-proofed with its built-in functionality:
I beg your pardon? We're tallking about uBlock Origin which is NOT and unknown "third party'' and may the the best as and tracker blocker with many useful feature not offer by the Vivaldi built-in blocker...
uBlock Origin became a such essential tool that you can't imagine safe browsing without it.
-
If what I say below is very silly (as a commercial in my country says) please clarify it for me:
I was checking Floorp at @ybjrepnfr's suggestion and I find it has many more settings possibilities than Firefox since it incorporates many Mods and some extensions are already built in.
So, with gorhill's permission, wouldn't it be possible to incorporate uBO entirely to Vivaldi and let's stop this nonsense?
-
@barbudo2005 said in Manifest v3 update: Vivaldi is future-proofed with its built-in functionality:
So, with gorhill's permission, wouldn't it be possible to incorporate uBO entirely to Vivaldi and let's stop this nonsense?
I don't know how hard it would be to incorporate uBO into Vivaldi when Vivaldi drops Mv2 and make it as efficient as stock uBO version for Firefox. But in case it would be possible I say let's hire gorhill to do it!
-
Said:
….Vivaldi drops Mv2….
Isn't it assumed that when things are done inside the browser they are not affected by the lack of MV2, which would only affect the extensions?
-
@barbudo2005 not sure, maybe you will find answer in previous Manifest V3 blog post: Manifest V3, webRequest, and ad blockers
https://vivaldi.com/blog/manifest-v3-webrequest-and-ad-blockers/
-
Please provide more opinions from users or team members who understand the subject.
-
It's a bummer, not supporting ublock will be a deal breaker. Vivaldis own adblock is worthless at best.... Perhaps time to ditch chromium and rebuild Vivaldi on Gecko...
-
@Gelantious Worthless at best? When the switch to manifest version 3 got serious last year I switched from ublock to the internal adblocker to give it a fair test. I haven't used anything else since. I run a custom set of filter lists and load a bunch of rules from file. Vivaldi's implementation is capable. Moreover ublock will continue to work for the foreseeable future, enough time for Vivaldi to develop additional functionality to make it easier to use for casual users.
-
@Gelantious sagte in [Manifest v3-Update: „Vivaldi ist mit seiner integrierten-in-Funktionalität zukunftssicher] (/post/761761):> Vielleicht ist es Zeit, auf Chrom zu verzichten und Vivaldi auf Gecko wieder aufzubauen...
That wouldn't solve the problem. It would certainly be too elaborate and too expensive And what if development of Gecko is stopped?
-
If ublock ends the v2 version as it becomes hard to maintain and not many people are left to use it, there's nothing you can do. But actively deciding to remove v2 support knowing ublock wont work with your browser anymore is plain stupid.
The most used extension is not working with your browser anymore? Really, that's your strategy for future-proofing vivaldi?
If you want to save costs, remove your own adblocking and just ship vivaldi with ublock builtin.
edit: just tried the 3 sites I visit most with vivaldis adblock enabled and ubo disabled and all of them showed ads or modal popup banners preventing me to scroll. not surprised.
edit2: I now tried 10 sites and saw less ads on 1, on 9 it did not work at all, preventing me from accessing the site completely on 7. I hope this is just a hobby project that didn't bind many company resources because its effect in the real world is close to unrecognizable. Calling it an alternative ready to use is insane.
-
@barbudo2005 integrated as in bundled with would rely on the API
to not be reliant on that they'd need to reimplement the whole engine and the way it communicates with the GUI part at least -
@Mikka maybe you need to adjust the filter lists of the build in adblocker
-
As said before, since I use the Vivaldis own adblocker withadjusted filterlists, I had seen never more an ad, nor cookie advices. The ONLY site is YT where the adblocker cause the "No Permit adblocker" advice and where the script I use do an excelent work instead, getting rid of any crap in YT. I understand that some user prefer to use uBO, which for sure also works well, but also for sure in it's v3 it will be a schadow of that what is until now.
Of course, it would be great if Vivaldi manages to incorporate functionality similar to that of the current uBO and it will surely improve its functionality a lot in the future, which is also necessary, since the extensions in the store, including uBO, do not have it. I have a lot of confidence in our devs, who have already shown that they know very well what they do, with a marginal browser from a small company that plays in the same league as the big ones and even surpasses them in inovation and func
-
I tried using the built-in adblocker for months, writing my own rules for many sites which Vivaldi's built in rules were not covering. It was pretty hellish. Despite giving Vivaldi's content blocker a very big chance, I ultimately ended up installing uBlock Origin (which I previously used with Chrome).
In many cases, it's simply not possible to block content with basic rules because they cannot target dynamically generated CSS attributes designed to thwart them. DOM elements unavailable to basic rules often need to be targeted, and sometimes regular expressions need to target actual page content. This problem is why advanced rules emerged in the first place, and also why uBlock Origin became so successful.
I understand that many sites need ad revenue to exist, so I only use an adblocker where the ads become problematic. But even though I am probably more forgiving than most users with ads, I still think Manifest v3 is going to be a problem for me, and it wouldn't surprise me if the situation becomes so annoying within a couple of months that I end up moving from Vivaldi to Firefox.
Time will tell. I'm not going to do a knee-jerk flounce. If the situation becomes annoying then I will just move on. Like I did almost two years ago when I switched from Chrome to Vivaldi.
-
@oudstand said in Manifest v3 update: Vivaldi is future-proofed with its built-in functionality:
@Mikka maybe you need to adjust the filter lists of the build in adblocker
I've selected all filters that seem relevant, even though many I use in ubo are missing. Not sure where those rule definitions come from that are not working/missing for my tested websites, but I'm in no mood to check if it's the feature gap between ubo and vivaldi or the filter list itself.
Regardless, I thought the point of the vivaldi devs was that their adblock is a ready to use replacement?
