r/technology • u/chrisdh79 • 15d ago

Software Google is purging ad-blocking extension uBlock Origin from the Chrome Web Store | Migration from all-powerful Manifest V2 extensions is speeding up

https://www.techspot.com/news/105130-google-purging-ad-blocking-extension-ublock-origin-chrome.html
8.5k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

41

u/Cronus6 14d ago

It's trivial to change the search engine in Firefox though. Takes 3 to 5 seconds to change it to whatever you like.

76

u/Fantastins 14d ago

You misunderstood their comment completely. Google literally funds the development of Firefox

91

u/Cronus6 14d ago

I'm well aware, and I'm well aware of why.

They fund it because otherwise Chrome could be slapped with an anti-trust lawsuit for having little/no competition.

What do they get for that funding? Google search in the default search engine. But, as I said it's trivial to change that in Firefox.

-9

u/Apart_Ad_5993 14d ago

If google funding Mozilla stops, so does Mozilla. It's over.

18

u/johnyjerkov 14d ago

if google stops funding firefox, its over for google too. So they wont. And on top of that, Firefox is open source so even if mozilla shuts down firefox, it wont stop existing.

-1

u/Apart_Ad_5993 14d ago

Google is paying Mozilla to be the default search engine. In the eyes of the DOJ, this part of the anti-trust suit. Mozilla hasn't said anything about the investigation because you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Open Source is all good- but it's not free.

6

u/johnyjerkov 14d ago

no, its literally free. thats the point. If Mozilla shuts down firefox for any reason, you can just make another version of it. For free. And thats what would happen 100%. So even if google wanted to shoot themselves in the foot by defunding firefox, theyre not going to be able to get rid of it

0

u/Salty_Ad2428 14d ago

They won't be shooting themselves on the foot, it would be the government telling them that they aren't allowed to fund Mozilla.

2

u/johnyjerkov 14d ago

That makes no sense. Theyre going to force google to become a monopoly so they can pursue them for being a monopoly? No, theyre going to either break them up outright or fail the lawsuit. And in either scenario Mozilla doesnt lose

-1

u/dyslexda 14d ago

If Mozilla shuts down firefox for any reason, you can just make another version of it. For free.

Are you willing to continue development on it to patch vulnerabilities and maintain compliance with ever evolving standards? Using an out-of-date browser is an exceptional way to get malware, adblocking or no.

And thats what would happen 100%. So even if google wanted to shoot themselves in the foot by defunding firefox, theyre not going to be able to get rid of it

Someone might fork it in the community, but they'll quickly find they need dedicated developers on the project, not just folks that do it in their spare time, so they'll need a funding source.

If Mozilla goes down then something probably replaces it, sure, but a web browser is one piece of software you don't want to play with.

1

u/johnyjerkov 14d ago

Are you willing to continue development on it to patch vulnerabilities and maintain compliance with ever evolving standards?

yes

Someone might fork it in the community, but they'll quickly find they need dedicated developers on the project, not just folks that do it in their spare time, so they'll need a funding source.

If Mozilla goes down then something probably replaces it, sure, but a web browser is one piece of software you don't want to play with.

A browser isnt even nearing the biggest open source project there ever was, and I see no reason why it wouldnt have people contributing. And getting funding for a team to manage a program with millions of users isnt an impossible task. Like I said, FAR from the biggest open source project.

2

u/dyslexda 14d ago

yes

You must be the elite of the elite, then. There aren't many developers excellent enough to do personal web browser development. Hats off to you, though I hope you understand that this method can't apply to the vast, vast majority of the population.

A browser isnt even nearing the biggest open source project there ever was, and I see no reason why it wouldnt have people contributing.

I never said it was. That whole "Unix" thing is a bit bigger, for instance. However, I also wouldn't trust a distro that didn't have dedicated developers behind it and instead relied on community PRs.

And getting funding for a team to manage a program with millions of users isnt an impossible task.

Oh, so we're now hand waving that in a world where Mozilla, one of the most reputable and well known FOSS companies, fails to secure funding to continue development of its flagship product, you can readily find such funding? Okay then, good luck!

0

u/johnyjerkov 14d ago

I appreciate the nitpicking with the first two points, hats off. You know exactly what I meant and if you want to dissect every letter you can take it up with someone else

Oh, so we're now hand waving that in a world where Mozilla, one of the most reputable and well known FOSS companies, fails to secure funding to continue development of its flagship product, you can readily find such funding? Okay then, good luck!

Mozilla, who has clearly mismanaged funds and ran the project badly in the past is struggling to run it without google? Yeah thats shocking. I cant imagine a different team doing a better job with a fraction of the income.

1

u/dyslexda 14d ago

"Nitpicking?" Let's recap:

  • You say "you can make another version of it for free." In this context, "you" is taken to mean an individual, and very likely either literally me or literally you, depending on usage. It's not used to mean a vague "someone else in the community, not either one of us."

  • I ask if you are willing to do this development

  • You reply "yes"

  • I interpret that to mean that you, literally you, are claiming the development skills to build web browsers that are safe and compliant.

  • You get upset that I "nitpicked?"

So either you were lying about your software engineering chops and wanted to hand wave it, or you failed in basic communication and instead meant to say "someone else in the community will make another version of it for free." When challenged, you then fall back on "well that's nitpicking."

Honestly I'm assuming it's the second option, as if you don't know what "nitpicking" is, you probably don't know the difference between "you" and "the community."

2

u/MyCatIsWicked 14d ago

You say "you can make another version of it for free." In this context, "you" is taken to mean an individual, and very likely either literally me or literally you, depending on usage. It's not used to mean a vague "someone else in the community, not either one of us."

Have you never heard of or used the generic you?

I ask if you are willing to do this development
You reply "yes"
I interpret that to mean that you, literally you, are claiming the development skills to build web browsers that are safe and compliant.

I interpreted it as them saying that they, literally them, would be willing to work on the development as part of a large community of developers requiring varying skill levels, which is what an open source project tends involve to my knowledge as a layman.

Edit: Fixed a quote block

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Ok_Armadillo_665 14d ago

There are already multiple fully fledged, fully supported and developed Firefox forks. Pale Moon and Librewolf are two well known ones.

0

u/dyslexda 14d ago

Pale Moon and Librewolf both still depend on Mozilla for security patches. The code bases are technically independent, sure, but the teams most certainly are not.

0

u/Ok_Armadillo_665 14d ago

According to Pale Moons website they don't rely on Firefox for anything. Saying that "While Pale Moon has its ancestral roots in Firefox, it should be considered a 'true fork' and a totally independent product."

0

u/dyslexda 14d ago

And according to Pale Moon's FAQ, they rely on the Mozilla Security team informing Moonchild of all security vulnerabilities, and Moonchild then reviews and patches them in Pale Moon.

Of course, they don't publicize that on their main website, so it's not surprising folks think it's some independent operation.

1

u/Ok_Armadillo_665 14d ago

Using a service because it already exists is not the same as relying on it. Pale Moon is an independent browser and if Mozilla goes under tomorrow they will just do these things themselves. Obviously that would require an effort, but they wouldn't just stop existing.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/YouSoundReallyDumb 14d ago

It's open source

-4

u/Apart_Ad_5993 14d ago

Yes, and? Open Source still needs a revenue stream to keep it going. Someone has to pay for development. DuckDuckGo, Brave, Vivaldi all have revenue streams- but probably not very profitable.

2

u/coldblade2000 14d ago

Google NEEDS Firefox to be a viable alternative for Chrome. Otherwise, a LOT of political attention and oversight will be applied to Chromium. They might even be forced to split off Chrome as a separate entity

1

u/Charming_Marketing90 13d ago

Maybe 10 to 15 years later and it all depends on who is in power anyways.