• slazer2au@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    167
    ·
    28 days ago

    Mozilla is the maker of the famous Firefox browser which has been using its own web engine called “Gecko” since forever, and hence, is not affected at all by these moves from Google.

    You answered your own question. It doesn’t effect FF.

    But, I do agree they should use the downgrade in functionality of V3 as a point for advertising FF.

    • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      61
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      28 days ago

      What good would advertising “Still supporting Manifest V2” do for your average user? They also wouldn’t want to openly advertise that “Your ad block still works with us”.

        • TriflingToad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          28 days ago

          that’s also probably a factor in why they don’t say anything, big moneypants might say something

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            25 days ago

            No, big moneypants is getting sued for monopoly practices, which means Mozilla’s search revenue may dry up. I’m guessing they don’t want to ruin their chances with a competitor should they need to find another search partner.

            • TriflingToad@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              25 days ago

              sure, that’s also probably a factor in why they don’t say anything, new big moneypants might say something

    • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      28 days ago

      Didn’t they remove XUL extensions to make their extension interface compatible with inferior chrome web extensions?

      • Fisch@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        28 days ago

        I just did a quick online search and it seems like the reason for removing that was that it was way too much work to maintain and stopped them from implementing performance improvements for Firefox. Apparently it was also a lot of work for extension developers, since they had to update their extensions constantly.

        That’s just what I read tho, I wasn’t there when XUL extensions where still a thing.

      • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        28 days ago

        Yes, after twenty years of refusing to stabilize any part of that interface.

        Chrome is absolutely the villain in this context. But Mozilla has been fucking itself over since the single-digit version numbers.

      • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        27 days ago

        i wouldn’t say inferior… mozilla extensions were more performant and flexible, web extensions (ie the initial chrome format - now a standard that most browsers use) are easier to develop, and thus there were a lot more of them

  • thingsiplay@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    28 days ago

    Mozilla is silent about Firefox in general, not just about Manifest v2 and v3. I assume there is nothing new to report. Mozilla already stated somewhere they will support V2 and the extensions will work as before. But I don’t understand why Mozilla does not use this moment from marketing standpoint to market the Firefox Extension Manifest V2 the hell out of it.

  • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    28 days ago

    Because it doesn’t make sense for all Firefox marketing material to be how shit chrome is. Save that bullshit for American president elections

    • banazir@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      28 days ago

      It will be exciting to see Kamala and Trump debate whether Gecko or Blink should be the industry leader.

      • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        28 days ago

        Kinda off topic, but I find it weird that Kamala is usually referred by first name, and trump by surname.

        • Malgas@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          28 days ago

          I think it’s because that’s the more distinctive part of her name. “President Harris” sounds kind of generic, like the fictional president from an action movie.

          It may start to constitute a pattern that the same was true of Hillary Clinton, though in that case it was likely that just saying “Clinton” might cause confusion with Bill.

          Also Bernie Sanders is mostly referred to by his first name, so…

      • kbal@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        28 days ago

        Harris can’t deny the popularity of Blink. Trump is a die-hard EdgeHTML advocate.

    • Trilobite@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      28 days ago

      Not saying anything bad about chrome is probably in the contract they have with Google which is most of their income

      • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        28 days ago

        Nah I doubt, it would be a huge lawsuit if google was found to pay competitors for staying quiet about their flaws

        • Trilobite@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          28 days ago

          Sure they could sue but that’s a lose lose situation even if they won Google would not give them money anymore and they need that to stay in Business

  • Karna@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    27 days ago

    … because Mozilla already clarified their position on this last year.

    TL;DR

    No, Mozilla is NOT ditching manifest v2.

    Well what’s happening with MV2 you ask? Great question – in case you missed it, Google announced late last year their plans to resume their MV2 deprecation schedule. Firefox, however, has no plans to deprecate MV2 and will continue to support MV2 extensions for the foreseeable future. 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.

    Source: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2024/03/13/manifest-v3-manifest-v2-march-2024-update/

    • LWD@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      26 days ago

      Did you read the article? Your link supports the point it was making: Mozilla doesn’t mention ad blocking anywhere. It’s immediately brought up in the comments, but Mozilla itself doesn’t want to broach the topic.

      Years ago, Mozilla would explicitly call ad blocking a privacy feature, and proclaim it explicitly.

      Now they don’t.

  • smpl@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    27 days ago

    One of the most controversial changes of Chrome’s MV3 approach is the removal of blocking WebRequest, which provides a level of power and flexibility that is critical to enabling advanced privacy and content blocking features. Unfortunately, that power has also been used to harm users in a variety of ways. Chrome’s solution in MV3 was to define a more narrowly scoped API (declarativeNetRequest) as a replacement. However, this will limit the capabilities of certain types of privacy extensions without adequate replacement.

    Mozilla will maintain support for blocking WebRequest in MV3. To maximize compatibility with other browsers, we will also ship support for declarativeNetRequest. We will continue to work with content blockers and other key consumers of this API to identify current and future alternatives where appropriate. Content blocking is one of the most important use cases for extensions, and we are committed to ensuring that Firefox users have access to the best privacy tools available.

    https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/05/18/manifest-v3-in-firefox-recap-next-steps/

  • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    27 days ago

    Biggest thing I learned from that article is that over 1/3 of users use an adblocker. I did not know adblockers had become so prevalent amongst normies

      • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        27 days ago

        Oh yeah I would never browse the internet unprotected by an adblocker, but knowing that normies are feeling this way now too? That’s something else entirely

  • ZeroHora@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    28 days ago

    Mozilla should spent money to advertise(Is this right? I don’t know verbs fuck) a flaw in Chrome? It’s not like the public cares about it.

    • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      28 days ago

      No, not a flaw in chrome, it has always had flaws even regarding what security oriented extensions like uBO could do.
      Not a flaw in chrome, but that the tools they depended on still work over here.

  • masterofn001@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    28 days ago

    There are thousands of user configurable flags/settings in about:config

    An option for Manifest V3 has been there for quite a while. It wasn’t enabled by default.

    In FF Nightly for Android it is enabled by default along with V2.

  • Matriks404@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    28 days ago

    Well of course they are, after all they are slowly becoming one of these malicious companies it tried to fight with.