How will Vivaldi deal with Google's Manifest V3?
-
@wolden, it' not depends only the Webstore, if they offer Mv2 extensions, when most webpages include Google APIs which invalide Mv2 extensions.
-
@Catweazle
Yes, true.
And, all Chrome based browsers try to put former Addon code into their own browser skin, after asking the Addon dev (hopefully). -
Said:
I wait what comes out of all this manifest mess.
There are no uncertainties or doubts. The cards of the poker hand are already open on the table.
There are only 3 alternatives:
1.- uBOL: Simple and efficient even on YT. Gorhill quality.
2.- Adguard: The closest to the potential of uBO. My choice for July 1.
3.- Improved built-in adblocker: That will undoubtedly improve with time, with uBO's features as its north. How long will it take? 6 months, 1 year, who knows?
Said:
What I really miss in MV3 Adblockers is a whitelist button, so I don't have to put each site onto the whitelist manually.
You don't have to.
Allowlist:
-
@barbudo2005
I may try Adguard at a later time, too. Thanks.
But I found how to not filter a page with uBo Lite, just shifting the bar to the left margin.
-
@Catweazle said in How will Vivaldi deal with Google's Manifest V3?:
@wolden, it' not depends only the Webstore, if they offer Mv2 extensions, when most webpages include Google APIs which invalide Mv2 extensions.
Can you give more information about this? Since when can websites interfere with extensions?
@barbudo2005 said in How will Vivaldi deal with Google's Manifest V3?:
3.- Improved built-in adblocker: That will undoubtedly improve with time, with uBO's features as its north. How long will it take? 6 months, 1 year, who knows?
Exactly my point, I would like to get more clarity. If Vivaldi ends up not supporting MV2 extensions, then at least improve the adblocker, but not a word about this either.
-
@wolden said in How will Vivaldi deal with Google's Manifest V3?:
You dropped the part where it says....
No, I did not drop this part. They basically say ''they may or may not extend support for MV2.'' Brave said they they will at least try to support a couple of popular adblockers for as long as possible. No such word from Vivaldi, we need clarity.
@wolden said in How will Vivaldi deal with Google's Manifest V3?:
So, everything depends on upcoming Google code. Do you really expect each and every Chrome based Browser to maintain a seperate own Store for MV2 Addons?
I believe Brave won't open its own extension store, I assume it will let you sideload extensions via GitHub. And if Chromium is patched, it may stop Google from disabling MV2 extensions, so then you don't even need to reinstall extensions that already work. Actually, now that I think of it, why not open a small extension store like the one from Opera?
https://addons.opera.com/en/extensions/category/privacy-security/?order=popular
-
-
@barbudo2005 said in How will Vivaldi deal with Google's Manifest V3?:
Said:
I do not know why this is endlessly discussed if Vivaldi will keep MV2.
Don't you understand? It's crystal clear. There is a user who:
- Is not willing to understand
- Does not want to understand
- Is not interested to understand
- Is not in the mood to understand
- Is not willing to spend 5 minutes to read the posts
Let's see how I put it so that it is well understood and once and for all.
Ding Ding Ding Nailed It, Give The Doctor A Exploding Cigar.
-
This post is deleted! -
@Catweazle said in How will Vivaldi deal with Google's Manifest V3?:
What Mozilla said
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2024/03/13/manifest-v3-manifest-v2-march-2024-update/
"And even if we re-evaluate this decision at some point down the road, we anticipate providing a notice of at least 12 months for developers to adjust accordingly and not feel rushed." There is nothing safe on the Mozilla side, either.
Looking into my Brave Browser setup, MV2 is supported only for 4 addons: NoScript
, uBlock Origin, uMatrix, AdGuard. To be installed direct by Brave.There's no need for Vivaldi to be ashamed of how they handle the change, and to get nerved by a certain someone, who tries to test it's LLM (there's no KI, really) while always advertising the same story. Luckily, there is a button in this forum to get rid of that.
Good night for now.
-
I belive all adblockers should be burn with fire. Why? Becouse they change original website, and the owner of the portal can block adblocker users.
Vivaldi can use beter solution. Blacklist webpage adresses or picture urls on proxy level, not html render level.
I have problems with webpages that open up in new tab without my permission. When I have my personal proxy blacklist, I will see only blank webpage that don't iritate my nerves and don't waste mobile internet data plan.
-
@wolden said in How will Vivaldi deal with Google's Manifest V3?:
There's no need for Vivaldi to be ashamed of how they handle the change, and to get nerved by a certain someone...
Fact of the matter is that many people agree with me, that's probably what unnerves you. I expected more from Vivaldi as the number one ''power browser''. With only 3 months to go, it seems a lot like they won't support MV2, OK cool, but what about improving the built-in adblocker? It's because of people like you that I keep advertising the same story, because it seems you still don't get it.
-
@neonix1 said in How will Vivaldi deal with Google's Manifest V3?:
I belive all adblockers should be burn with fire. Why? Becouse they change original website, and the owner of the portal can block adblocker users.
Vivaldi can use beter solution. Blacklist webpage adresses or picture urls on proxy level, not html render level.
I assume this is some April Fools joke? I have been using adblockers for the last 15 years or so without any major problems. It's because of adblockers that most websites load smoothly. Of course if there were only static ads (no animation) and without the tracking, I wouldn't even be using adblockers. So the online advertising industry brought this upon themselves.
-
Honestly, I don't care that much about MV2 anymore, as long as Vivaldi's adblocker will be improved, surely it will do the job almost like uBO.
For me the YouTube ads are the biggest problem...
-
@pilis00 Easier said than done. The amount of work and continued maintenance that uBO has taken over a period of years is prodigious to say the least. I don't see Vivaldi in the eleventh hour getting close.
It'll be up to us to either truly settle (use what's built-in). step up to something somewhat better (uBO Lite or Adguard MV3), or investigate other methods (DNS, the paid Adguard)
-
@pilis00, the Vivaldi adblocker for sure will be improved in the future, but not as equivalent to uBO. On the other hand, which is way more important is that it works perfekt against trackers, that means, despite you'll see maybe one or another ad in YT, you are save against trackers,
In most other pages, the adblocker works fine.
You can improve more the adblocking, using the Portmaster app on desktop. To watch YT videos without ads, there are several posibilitiesm you can edit the URL of the Video to embed, means....youtube.com/watch?v=xxxxxxxxedit to
....youtube.com/embed/xxxxxxxxAlso searching the Video with Andisearch and watch it there in the search result, sandboxed with random proxy
Another possibility is to copy the Video URL and open it with the SMplayer on the desktop
-
@rseiler is there any huge difference between Adguard's MV3 addon, and Adguard's Windows app?
Is the blocking "better" in the Windows app?
-
@pilis00 said in How will Vivaldi deal with Google's Manifest V3?:
@rseiler is there any huge difference between Adguard's MV3 addon, and Adguard's Windows app?
Is the blocking "better" in the Windows app?
Adguard MV3 is a very heavy adblocker and not easy on CPU and RAM.
It uses constantly 300 MB RAM all the time just for waking up the service worker.
If you add that to the existing resources Vivaldi uses, it is not a "light" Chromium browser because a whole GUI is built on top of Chromium, you basically end up with a chromium browser which needs x2 the resources Brave+Shields use for example.
Even Gecko based browsers with uBO end up being lighter on resources.
About the app, I have a lifetime license for it, but honestly I have ended up not using it, because it needs even more resources than Adguard MV3.
Maybe I am spoiled because uBO is so easy on resources:) And being spoiled, I want it all, a good and an easy on resources ad blocker.
So my only hope is a miracle to happen and Vivaldi's ad blocker to support all the syntax Brave Shields and uBO support. -
@electryon said in How will Vivaldi deal with Google's Manifest V3?:
So my only hope is a miracle to happen and Vivaldi's ad blocker to support all the syntax Brave Shields and uBO support.
At least just that, if they won't support uBO anymore.
-
@electryon said in How will Vivaldi deal with Google's Manifest V3?:
Adguard MV3 is a very heavy adblocker and not easy on CPU and RAM.
It uses constantly 300 MB RAM all the time just for waking up the service worker.Wow, this sounds very bad, I have never heard of an extension using so much RAM? Then Adguard definitely is no option for me.
@electryon said in How will Vivaldi deal with Google's Manifest V3?:
So my only hope is a miracle to happen and Vivaldi's ad blocker to support all the syntax Brave Shields and uBO support.
So you're saying that Brave Shields is more advanced? Didn't know about this, I guess I should check this out.
And by the way, I know that uBlock Lite and Vivaldi's adblocker do successfully block most ads/trackers, but that's not the problem. You also sometimes need to block/unblock specific scripts and need to be able to block page elements/objects in order to get rid of all annoyances, and/or make the webpage load correctly, I believe that's what certain people don't get.
