Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | wguaa's commentslogin

>This is annoying for people sending newsletters - even the mighty MailChimp can do no more than offer some tips to shrink your latest newsletter.

I'm so sad that you can't send me more elaborate ads :'( :'(


So to keep using uBlock Origin at its full functionality I'll have to flip a configuration bit on Chrome first?


What makes you think uBlock Origin would continue to be developed for Chrome when it is not compatible?


Lot's of people using chromium or enterprise chrome.

As long as ublock origin (then incompatible with mainline chrome) is not pulled from the webstore, and as long as there is a simple #ifdef that most linux distros can toggle, I am not really affected by the change. I assume that the same holds for most developers, crucially including the people behing ublock.


Or use Firefox.


Happy Firefox user here with uBlock Origin, CSS Exfil protection, ClearURLS, HTTPS Everywhere all installed and working nicely

(bar the addons hickup which meant it was off for a day, but that was no issue)


No thanks.


Why not?


Not sure if Entreprise installs will let you modify anything of Chrome "advanced" settings though.


Really pathetic to see people here defending Mozilla putting ads on the home page of the browser.

What do you think of when the Mozilla Corporation sent the browsing history of users by default to a third party advertisement company?

>Users who receive a version of Firefox with Cliqz will have their browsing activity sent to Cliqz servers, including the URLs of pages they visit.

https://blog.mozilla.org/press-uk/2017/10/06/testing-cliqz-i...


>Chrome wouldn't have gotten anywhere if it wasn't a very good browser. It is good.

It is not only good. When it came out it wiped the floor with the alternatives. Firefox 3, from that time, was absolutely pathetic in terms of performance. I remember sticking to 2 for a while. Even today Chrome is still the best, even if the margin has narrowed. Other browsers are having to adopt Blink to catch up.


Idk about wiped the floor, but it gets subjective.

Immediately before chrome launched, FF was slowly eating into IE's market share. Chrome was good, but so was FF.

I don't think chrome ever had a lead in FF anything like the lead FF had over IE. Mozilla always had to play with a disadvantage. Still do.


Anecdotal but I switched to Chrome when it came out because it's JS engine was (or at least felt) massively faster than Firefox's.


Was it Chrome that came up with tabs? i cant seem to remember if FF had it. If FF didnt have tabs, that is enough for me to say Chrome wiped out the competition.


From Wikipedia (I first saw it using Galeon. I'm probably messing up history here but I think Epiphany was also early with tabs):

The tabbed interface approach was then followed by the Internet Explorer shell NetCaptor in 1997. These were followed by a number of others like IBrowse in 1999, and Opera in 2000 (with the release of version 4 - although a MDI interface was supported before then), MultiViews October 2000, which changed its name into MultiZilla on 1 April 2001 (an extension for the Mozilla Application Suite[8]), Galeon in early 2001, Mozilla 0.9.5 in October 2001, Phoenix 0.1 (now Mozilla Firefox) in October 2002, Konqueror 3.1 in January 2003, and Safari in 2003. With the release of Internet Explorer 7 in 2006, all major web browsers featured a tabbed interface.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tab_(interface)


Opera was the first browser with any significant market share that supported tabs. I vividly remember switching to Opera somewhere in the 2000s for that very reason.

It also had working bookmark syncing way earlier than the others - that was the second reason for me to use Opera in the 2000-2010 timeframe. I eventually switched to Chrome when it got too good to ignore, and lately to Firefox when it got good enough to compete head-to-head with Chrome.


According to this site with a bit of link-documentation, FF was first and the Opera-claim is false.

https://allthatiswrong.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/opera-did-no...


Opera's technology may not have been tabs, but it allowed the rise of tabbed based browsing. It just used the technology of the time (having it's own windowed interface, which incidentally allowed a tab-like arrangement). It's a bit disingenuous to make the claim that Opera was not instrumental in the development of tabbed based browsing, even if it wasn't specifically using the tab technology earliest.


Firefox had tabs before Chrome existed.


FF had tabs. IE had already adopted them. Chrome worked a bit better with lots of tabs. Iirc, pre-chrome, a crash (usually flash) in one tab would crash the browser. Chrome fixed that.


And if birds didn't have wings, that is enough for me to say that squirrels are better at flying.


If memory serves Opera was the first browser that had tabs but they were also in Firefox by the time Chrome released.


yes, I remember Opera being first with tabs too. It was one of the main reasons people chose Opera IIRC


Agree.I used to use Firefox and even Opera back in the day.Then both started lagging, even opening a simple website was always with some issues.Then I thought 'OK', let's try Chrome.It was faster, more compatible with some standards and simply felt better. I don't know how Mozilla managed to screw it up so well..


I've heard of many shitty foods like that spray can cheese that Americans eat, and cringed hard at them, but I've always assumed they can also get good stuff if they want to. If they can't, though, that's honestly very grave.


A lot of American can neither afford the good (usually imported) stuff, nor have never learned to appreciate it either.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: