• Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          38
          ·
          2 days ago

          At large organizations you’re generally not allowed to download much of anything without it passing through IT security and management first. If it’s a no, it will probably stay a no.

          • datavoid@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Just remember,it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than permission!

            • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              Just to be clear, I mean it’s literally managed at the Group Policy level (in Windows server environments at least) and no amount of asking will suddenly give your user account permissions to be able to save files of any kind.

              You generally literally cannot download it without going through IT to get them to approve of and give your account access first.

              • datavoid@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 day ago

                Ya I forgot I have escalated device privileges and an admin account, which I definitely would have used for installing anything. Although I believe I can also skirt the rules using winget on a user account. That will probably get you in trouble however!

          • Flagstaff@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            I work for a non-profit and they are way more lenient about what we would like to install as long as the job gets done.

            • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 day ago

              Then you have bad opsec and security holes.

              This matters more for some industries than others. But this attitude lets a malicious employee install basically whatever they want in service of “the job” and you won’t even know you’re being breached until after it’s all over.

              • Flagstaff@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                15 hours ago

                Well, we still have to get approval. But it just seems like they don’t mind as much. For example, I don’t know how many companies out there would be fine with installations of AutoHotkey and LibreOffice.

        • takeda@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          64
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yeah. What company wouldn’t allow it?

          When I was working for an ad exchange, everyone had adblock installed in their browsers, I found that quite ironic.

          • micka190@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 day ago

            Yeah. What company wouldn’t allow it?

            My IT department uninstalled it from my work laptop, and told me not to reinstall it because - and I quote: “The only browser IT officially supports is Google Chrome.”

            What makes this doubly stupid is that I’m a web developer. I literally can’t test my stuff on another browser…

          • shyguyblue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 day ago

            I used to develop ads (non intrusive things for home depot or go RVing) and i used ad blockers. When testing, i would just run private browsing with plugins disabled…

          • Tetsuo@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            59
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            I would argue it’s a security issue not to have any ad blocking. Many scams online start with popups or fake ads.

            So if you get the opportunity to talk to IT that’s what I would mention.

        • Dave@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          33
          ·
          2 days ago

          Officially only Edge is supported, but Chrome is tolerated. It’s a full MS environment.

      • hunt4peas@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Edge extension store still has it I think. Use it until Edge removes it as well. Then tell the IT to use Firefox highlighting the importance of adblocking.

        • Dave@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          I don’t like my chances of swaying IT. The organisation is too big and I’ll get told I should be using Edge which is the only officially supported browser.

      • dirthawker0@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        19 hours ago

        If you had uBlock origin already, you may have gotten a message through Chrome that it was no longer supported, so it’s been disabled, and gives you the option to remove it. I noticed you don’t have to remove it, and it can be re-enabled. However, I need someone smarter with adblockers than I to say if this is actually helpful and not hazardous.

        • Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          People are saying manifest v2 (the old API that ublock uses) will be gone soon, which I think should effectively make ublock unusable whatever you do unless you stop updating chrome maybe (which could open you up to a ton of security issues) ? Not sure, don’t care since I’ve ditched chrome long ago

    • Ulrich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I just downloaded the Kagi Orion browser and I can install extensions from both Chrome and Firefox web stores!

    • FundMECFS@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Is there any firefox based browser on android where I can have easy gestures for the arrow buttons? All the firefox versions I can find require me to do this in two clicks which for the way I browse is a pain in the arse. Can I fix this somehow?

  • Zzyzx@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    11 hours ago

    It’s really annoying to me that Firefox doesn’t seem to work well on my chromebook, so I’m stuck with Chrome until I need a new computer…

    • Polderviking@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      The best option here is to just tank Chrome’s market share instead of making something that’s obviously not ideal, work.

    • ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      85
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Missing critical features:

      Filter lists only update with the extension, you cannot update them dynamically

      No making your own filters and thus no element picker for blocking annoyances on a webpage (a feature so good apple literally baked it into safari)

      No support for external lists (which means if you back up your own filters into a list you cannot easily reimport)

      No changing behavior on a per site basis

      A number of other features as well that are more strictly power user features but still really handy like dynamic filtering and strict blocking domains.

      If you have the option stop using chrome and edge, they are some of the worst options you could choose. Even outside of adblock and manifest v3 chrome is horrendous for data harvesting bullshit and edge isn’t great. If you don’t have the option because of an overzealous it dept or whatever and are forced to use it ubo lite is your best option probably and my heart goes out to you

      • Pamasich@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        I’m a bit confused as an Adblock Plus user, why did the ublock dev drop those features? ABP uses manifest v3 too and it still has all of those. So it’s clearly not about them being impossible.

        • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          According to Adblock Plus’ own blog post about the matter:

          With Manifest V3, Adblock Plus is required to limit how many filter lists we have available to users. We’ll have the ability to offer up to 100 pre-installed filter lists that you can turn on and off depending on your preferences. From these available filter lists, users will be able to choose 50 that they can keep turned on at any given time. We’re working to ensure that popular filter lists our users love are supported by us, and that any updates to these lists are brought to you by frequent new releases of the extension. This does mean that initially, our users will no longer be able to subscribe to any filter lists outside of what is provided in the extension.

          Re: Element Blocker:

          The Block element feature will continue to exist even after the Manifest V3 version of Adblock Plus officially launches. Manifest V3 does require us to adhere to limits with filter lists and user created blocking rules, so there’s a chance things may change in the future. However, we don’t have details quite yet! If you have any more questions about this or anything else, our support team are the best people to ask at [email protected].

          So this says to me that baked in filter lists are now required, custom lists will not work, and Block Element is probably functioning illegally if it is indeed still functioning though that may change in the future in either direction.

          Changing blocker behavior on specific sites is the only thing in that list that I see UBO disallow and ABP not mention at all. Not sure why that was changed.

          • Pamasich@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            I’ve read that too, but I still have the ability to add a custom list. It says initially, so I assumed they got around that issue by now, considering it isn’t the case for me.

            I technically use Edge which afaik still allows MV2, so in case the extension somehow implements both and defaults to mv2 if available, I’ve decided to install Chrome and get ABP there to test. Even in Chrome, the ability to add a custom list is still there. As are all the other features, like manual updating. With custom list I mean both the ability to add a list per URL, and the ability to add custom arbitrary rules directly.

            I don’t really see why element blocking wouldn’t be possible or allowed under Manifest v3. Like, it’s entirely client-side. Manifest never comes into play there.

            What I can imagine is that custom lists might work that same way too, removing the ads from the page after they’ve already loaded rather than blocking the web request directly which is afaik how adblocking works in mv2. I can’t tell you if that’s the case or not.

          • Pamasich@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 day ago

            Probably because of the Adblock Plus mention. It’s mired in controversy because of its acceptable ads toggle and requiring ad giants to pay for it. So I can imagine people downvoting comments that put it in a positive light compared to other adblockers.

            • ripcord@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              23 hours ago

              You may be right, but whether you hate ABP specifically or not should be irrelevant to the question. The question was why other extensions - like Adblock - can have those feature but uBlock Lite can’t. What’s different?

              I’d also like to know, personally. I’d wondered the same thing.

      • AlternateRoute@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Firefox was stubborn enough not to support H.265 till JUST recently and only on windows… Doesn’t work with my 4k security cameras as well as Chrome or Safari based browsers.

        • ᗪᗩᗰᑎ@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          H.265 is patent encumbered. Blame the 2 or 3(?) patent pool holders (for-profit corporations, unlike non-profit -and-slowly-losing-market-share Mozilla) for not making it free to use for everyone.

          This is why AV1 is preferred, it saves bandwidth and there’s no threat of being sued into oblivion.

      • OpenHammer6677@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        My work uses a web-based interface that’s very annoying to use on Firefox. I’m unfortunately tied to Chrome in the meantime, so uBlock lite is a lifesaver.

  • adarza@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    i was able to load it in a (not chrome) chromium-based browser without issue, just the notice across the addon’s page.

    the ‘lite’ version is also on there, seems to work ‘ok’. adguard and a few others are also there–they must all be mv3, as only the full ubo has the warning notice on its page of those i checked.

    all the mv3 ones run the risk of having updates rejected or delayed by google, especially if they contain code or filter updates (filters must be packed with the addon in mv3) to combat changes google makes to their own sites. firefox or a trusted customized build or maintained fork is the way to go now.

  • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    There’s a way to save your already-installed extension, in “Manage Extensions…” Enable dev mode, then Pack Extension.

    However the browser will probably just refuse to run it soon.

    Vivaldi, for what it’s worth, seems to still run uBlock Origin just fine. I am afraid to uninstall it now to test if it’ll re-install properly.

    My version: 7.1.3570.39 (Stable channel) (64-bit)

    Might be time to finally move to Firefox though, if Vivaldi doesn’t keep Manifest V2 support.

      • Vespair@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        I wish Vivaldi wasn’t Chromium-based, because I think it’s the slickest browser out there.

        But it’s chromium, so it’s time to move on to Firefox regardless.

        Ladybird development can’t happen fast enough.

        • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          By that argument the time was a long time ago then. Vivaldi still works with uBlock so nothing has changed on their end. I think it’s still reasonable to use Vivaldi until they are forced to Manifest 3. Despite being Chromium based they’ve always been privacy focused and vocally pro ad blocking. As far as the cult of Firefox, they’ve been showing their true colors lately. They are no saints and their biggest funder is Google. Never forget to follow the money. I’m not personally convinced that a switch on a purely ideological level is indicated.

  • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    2 days ago

    I really hope some team has been following the changes in Chrome/Chromium by Google to remove Manifest v2, and has been keeping a patchset that will undo the damage? Time to make a hard fork and get some funding to try to keep it going?

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      2 days ago

      Multiple browsers have said they will keep support while the code is still there (in Chromium it’s still there, only disabled for now).

      When it is removed from Chromium, it’s probably going to disappear for most or all major Chromium browsers.

      • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Well I would seriously consider paying money to a team that keeps it there, if Chromium actually removes the code. I hope others will consider it as well. We need to fight this, even if it means paying some money to a foundation to do so.

    • adarza@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      i expect at least the ‘big’ ‘non megacorp’ chromium based ones like vivaldi, opera, brave to keep mv2 as long as it is possible.

      but i can totally see google doing some serious mangling of the codebase to make patching-in mv2 difficult.

      • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 days ago

        There’s the futile hope I suppose that antitrust cases going on against Alphabet might force Google to divest Chrome from its advertising arm, so that there’s no pressure to make this whole thing worse. Hah, in my dreams.

        • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          On paper they gave the keys to the Linux foundation, but since they still pay most of the developers working on it the only thing it might achieve is taking resources away from Servo.

        • adarza@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          that would be funny, won’t happen–but funny af. google loses chrome, new owners revert mv2’s removal and go all-in on user control of their browser experience.

  • jk1006@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    11 hours ago

    I am from Germany and it is just sad how many people use these apps from shit companies without thinking, when suitable alternatives exist everywhere. Just use Firefox, it will work for 99,9% without any flaw. I would love to ditch WhatsApp, but could only convinge a few people to change to Signal. It is as easy as downloading a new app to prevent supporting Meta, but that’s too much effort for many :-(

  • jam_scot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    14 hours ago

    I switched to Firefox many years ago, after their announcement I switched to Waterfox and I’m very happy with it.

  • Pulsar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Webserial is only reason I see to install Chrome. For everything else Firefox works great.

  • DeadButGonnaMakeIt@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Chrome hasn’t been my main browser in a while but I kept it as a backup and because Firefox doesn’t support PWAs and I didn’t want to mess with the extension. Turns out, the extension only takes about 3 minutes to get set up and now Chrome has been uninstalled. And on a random Tuesday, who knew?

  • knexcar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    21 hours ago

    This is probably the single thing that got me to switch to Firefox. Privacy whatever, I don’t care about my data or the morality of my tech company or whatever, but mess with my adblocker and goodbye.