We will be doing maintenance work on Vivaldi Translate on the 11th of May starting at 03:00 (UTC) (see the time in your time zone).
Some downtime and service disruptions may be experienced.
Thanks in advance for your patience.
Manifest v3 update: Vivaldi is future-proofed with its built-in functionality
-
Look this post and the following:
https://forum.vivaldi.net/topic/79579/manifest-v3-webrequest-and-ad-blockers/192
-
-
@Hadden89 said in Manifest v3 update: Vivaldi is future-proofed with its built-in functionality:
FYI Adguard has an element picker.
I've looked into this and after some reading (from other sources) I gave it a try. It's not bad at all. Above my expectation. A bit of a clunky (meh, maybe I should call it "different") approach to the settings compared to uBO, but overall good to work with. I'll still be using uBO for now, but at least I'll have a backup-plan in case the drop is there. (Unless this will also be "killed" by the next manifest... Who knows. Let's hope not.)
EDIT: Forgot to mention something: I can't get the LifeWire website to work with uBO, but with AG it works fine ... XD
-
uBOL can't have an element picker (this creates a custom filter list), can't have custom filter lists and can't have auto-updated filter lists for quick fixes which handle sites like YouTube (it is custom filter list).
Hill has explained why it is not possible, uBOL operates entirely declaratively, meaning no permanent process is required for filtering. The browser handles CSS/JS injection for content filtering, ensuring that uBOL does not consume CPU or memory resources while blocking content. The service worker process is only active when interacting with the popup panel or options pages.
MV3 service workers shutdown themselves immediately by design. Adguard MV3 tries to bypass this for adding custom filters. BUT... you have an ad blocker that consumes at least 200 MB all the time just for waking up its service worker. Also an ad or a tracker can manage to load until the service worker wakes up.
Vivaldi native ad blocker is currently basically a Adblock Plus clone and comes with ABP filter lists. It can work in various sites, but there is a reason power users have stopped using ABP long time ago. ABP filter lists get detected by many sites and you can't access these sites, sites with "advanced" ads are not supported and you basically can't visit sites with aggressive popups (piracy sites do this), it is a nightmare visiting them.
I am sorry guys this is what we do. Because we love Vivaldi we currently try to find alternatives to uBO in order to keep using Vivaldi. The sad truth is that currently there is no substitute to uBO for Vivaldi. We should be truthful to people asking what to use as a uBO substitute after June. In order to have in their browser an ad blocker that is as powerful as uBO and friendly to CPU or memory resources is them to switch to another browser.
That's the sad reality. I don't believe the native ad blocker could become a uBO substitute in 6 months considering the development of it the last 6 months and a MV3 ad blocker will always have disadvantages, Google made it sure they will be inferior. -
@barbudo2005 said in Manifest v3 update: Vivaldi is future-proofed with its built-in functionality:
Look this post and the following:
https://forum.vivaldi.net/topic/79579/manifest-v3-webrequest-and-ad-blockers/243
Thanks for the info. It is appreciated.
-
@electryon said in Manifest v3 update: Vivaldi is future-proofed with its built-in functionality:
BUT... you have an ad blocker that consumes at least 200 MB all the time just for waking up its service worker.
I did not realize this, so I did a small comparison. All numbers are after a restart of Vivaldi, 5 unopened pages (slumbering in the background) and the extension-page open. I waited a minute to make sure it was stabilized.
AdGuard uses around 200MB MORE RAM than uBlockOrigin. For me its peanuts, but can see that it could become problematic for others. Obviously this is a quick and dirty test on startup, but the difference is large.
- AdGuard: Lowest I've seen: 551MB to 573MB (highest I've seen).
- uBO: Lowest I've seen 339MB to 352MB (highest I've seen).
-
@jrkl75, inbuild blocker+ Web Eraser script only few Kbytes + out of the Google influence.
>Laptop ACER, AMD Ryzen, GPU AMD Radeon RAM 16GB, SSD 512GB -Win11 Home 64 v24H2| Vivaldi last stable|
-
@Catweazle said in Manifest v3 update: Vivaldi is future-proofed with its built-in functionality:
@jrkl75, inbuild blocker+ Web Eraser script only few Kbytes
Great tip, but its not about the inbuild blocker and some script. You probably missed the part where @electryon talks about the build-in blocker. -
@jrkl75, it's about the ABP filter lists in the Vivaldi blocker, this don't convert it in a ABP clone, you are free to use any other filterlist in the settings, even those from uBO. The only drawback is to find the correct combinacion of Filterlists, which certainly is somewhat tricky and is changing sometimes because of new anti- adblock measures of some pages.
At the moment I've only problems with YT in some Videos, but I can scip these with the scripts.
The biggest problem is the dependency of the Chrome Store, extensions from there are controlled by Google and even can delete these from the browser, not possible with inbuild features with local data or sources out of the Chrome Store. This is for me way more important as an ocasional adblock warner or an banner in some few pages.
But anybody to their like. -
@Catweazle said in Manifest v3 update: Vivaldi is future-proofed with its built-in functionality:
@jrkl75, it's about the ABP filter lists in the Vivaldi blocker, this don't convert it in a ABP clone, you are free to use any other filterlist in the settings, even those from uBO. The only drawback is to find the correct combinacion of Filterlists, which certainly is somewhat tricky and is changing sometimes because of new anti- adblock measures of some pages.
At the moment I've only problems with YT in some Videos, but I can scip these with the scripts.
The biggest problem is the dependency of the Chrome Store, extensions from there are controlled by Google and even can delete these from the browser, not possible with inbuild features with local data or sources out of the Chrome Store. This is for me way more important as an ocasional adblock warner or an banner in some few pages.
But anybody to their like.It would be better not advising people to load filter lists with so many invalid and unsupported rules to the native ad blocker because rules in a filter list are designed to "work" together and this can actually break adblocking in various sites.
There is also no point doing that, the unsupported rules are the important ones created by uBO or Adguard that handle for example the sites which detect the ad blocker.
This is the current situation.AdGuard Base filter without easylist
40310 valid / 65 invalid / 4384 unsupportedAdGuard Quick Fixes filter
312 valid / 0 invalid / 224 unsupporteduBlock filters
7540 valid / 23 invalid / 482 unsupporteduBlock filters – Unbreak
1798 valid / 67 invalid / 550 unsupported -
Therefore the first thing that should be implemented in the built-in adblocker is the support of all lists that uBO and Adguard use, which are the "de facto" standard.
-
@barbudo2005, yes, but not so easy. Some times ago I tried it, adding all uBO list I found, but with the result to break almost all websites. Only some few filterlists from uBO can be used without problems.
-
-
@oldK said in Manifest v3 update: Vivaldi is future-proofed with its built-in functionality:
Is this a joke?
There is no need to attack me. Calm down!
Who gives a crap about ublock lite?
Use Adguard if you need extra-settings and features.
-
Then use Adguard if you need extra-settings and features.
I have network wide ad blocking via dns. Does not replace ublock origin.
Or I just use firefox, where Ublock will keep working.
I was hoping vivaldi would make sure to distinct themselves from the chromium base.
But if they just reskin chromium and will adopt manifest v3 eventualy, then it is just another chromium browser.
-
@oldK
Hi, I use uBOL since month and it work fine for me, I never touched the extra features of uBO anyway.
Mozilla Firefox gets a lot of money from Alphabet, if they want to stop M2 they do.
Anyway, this all will happen in 6 month and I think it is a bit to early to choose a different browser now.Cheers, mib
-
Thank you for sharing these scripts!
I'm trying to get out of using uB Lite and Adguard, these tools will help.
-
@pathduck: I'm using AdNauseam so I don't see them but click everytime when I don't see them
-
FWIW, for those who say Vivaldi is too small a team to keep Manifest V2 active in Vivaldi... consider that when Firefox dropped the XUL/XPCOM addon APIs in 2017, Waterfox dev Alex Kontos managed to keep backporting the Mozilla update patches to the Firefox 56 (the last non-Quantum Firefox) code base for five years for Waterfox Classic, as it was renamed) before it became too different from the current Firefox LTS code base for a one-man dev team to handle. Kontos did this while also developing Waterfox Current, which became Waterfox G, which is Waterfox built on the current Firefox LTS base.
The difference between the Firefox code base that completely dropped XUL/XPCOM extensions and one that did not is surely much greater than that between Chromium with Manifest V2 and Manifest V3.
If any other Chromium-based browser that is fully open source does preserve Manifest V2, Vivaldi can simply incorporate those patches directly.
As for the repo that would serve all of the V2 addons... it's not a hurculean task either. For those addons that do not require Manifest V2, the existing Google Web Store will continue to suffice.
There was a third-party addon repo for Waterfox Classic and Pale Moon (which both could use legacy XPCOM/XUL addons after Firefox dropped them) when I last used Classic. Such a repo could (like development of the patches that restore Manifest V2) even be a joint venture between various downstream derivatives of Chromium.
It has always been known that Google does not develop Chromium to serve our needs as web users. They develop it to serve their own needs, and it is likely that this move to limit effective adblocking was part of the goal from the moment they decided to begin the Chrom* development. Chromium is open source, but that does not imply that the development is in any way a community effort, or that anyone's input as to the direction of development will be given an audience.
If Google can simply wave a hand and dictate that maximally effective adblocking is prohibited in Chromium and the Chrome Web Store, and that command is effectively passed on to all of those downstream competitors of Chrome, whether they like it or not, then it really won't matter that the code is open source. Google gets its wish, and they do so while having the handy excuse about Chromium being open source if any government should decide to investigate them for antitrust concerns.
That has probably been the bet from the day they Google decided to make a new browser. They've been playing the very long game here, with the ability to reshape the entire web to serve their corporate interests being the real impetus behind developing Chromium at great expense, then giving it away (in source form as well as in the Chrome product). It's very much the same goal Microsoft had in mind when they developed Internet Explorer at great cost, then gave it away (free as in beer), at a time when it was the norm for browser software to cost money.
Was Google right in assuming that open-sourcing Chromium would not prevent them from having the ability to mould the web to fit their corporate interests? For decades, closed-source shops like Microsoft have acted with total hostility and fear when it comes to open source software, as if even a slight bit of their code being leaked would instantly result in their demise. Google bet on the premise that this is not the case at all, that they could give away nearly all of the source code (the bit that turns Chromium to Chrome is closed source), making them seem like good guys, while still maintaining the same level of control that Microsoft sought decades ago.
Were they right? It's up to devs of Chromium-based browsers to decide.
-
Adblockers aren't the only extensions affected by the removal of Manifest v2 : Violentmonkey, Redirector, LibRedirect, Hover Zoom+, etc...
So, advertising your adblocker instead of working on preserving Manifest v2 isn't gonna cut it.
