Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Adolph (captainepoch@stereophonic.space)'s status on Wednesday, 16-Jul-2025 13:21:00 JST Adolph
   Since in Chrome 139 Google will make the final changes to make Chrome unusable with ads, I wonder how Brave will handle the removal of the necessary APIs for uBlock Origin to work on Chromium-based browsers.
   • Embed this notice
     gentoobro (gentoobro@shitpost.cloud)'s status on Wednesday, 16-Jul-2025 13:20:59 JST gentoobro

     in reply to

     My understanding is that part of it is arbitrary limits placed on the APIs. Brave will just raise those limits. As for the other removed or changed parts, they might try to maintain those former APIs for some time, but Google will pour infinity developers into the project to make sure that it's a losing compatibility and maintenance battle.

     The solution is for people to stop using chromium-based browsers, even if the alternative isn't a whole lot better.

     ✙ dcc :pedomustdie: :phear_slackware: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Phantasm (phnt@fluffytail.org)'s status on Wednesday, 16-Jul-2025 16:18:37 JST Phantasm

     in reply to

     • :umu: :umu:
     @captainepoch @a1ba
     There's WebKit, but barely anything uses that now and extensions basically don't exist.
   • Embed this notice
     Adolph (captainepoch@stereophonic.space)'s status on Wednesday, 16-Jul-2025 16:18:39 JST Adolph

     in reply to

     • :umu: :umu:
     @a1ba I agree with you, but at some point, Firefox will not be able to keep up with the level of development required to be a competitive browser. I already am experiencing issues with some websites and have to move to a Chrome browser to see them correctly.
     
     LadyBird might be the only option as an alternative for this, but who really knows...
   • Embed this notice
     :umu: :umu: (a1ba@suya.place)'s status on Wednesday, 16-Jul-2025 16:18:40 JST :umu: :umu:

     in reply to

     • :umu: :umu:
     @captainepoch I don't make distinction between Chrome and Chromium, both are the same with just different icon.
   • Embed this notice
     :umu: :umu: (a1ba@suya.place)'s status on Wednesday, 16-Jul-2025 16:18:41 JST :umu: :umu:

     in reply to
     @captainepoch I don't have too much faith in those soft forking browsers.
     
     Would it be Vivaldi, Brave (ew) or, I dunno, Edge (eeew :blobcatnauseated: ), they're all downstreams of original Chrome which is developed by hostile entity
   • Embed this notice
     T man :sex: :puffgiga: :puffpowerroll: (theorytoe@ak.kyaruc.moe)'s status on Wednesday, 16-Jul-2025 16:21:42 JST T man :sex: :puffgiga: :puffpowerroll:

     in reply to

     • :umu: :umu:
     • Phantasm
     @captainepoch @a1ba @phnt
     but even then, does ladybird really have the funds to match the development cycle requirements of a browser?
     
     like sure stuff like webkit exists but it breaks/misbehaves on certain sites especially with newer features from the web ""r&d"" sector
   • Embed this notice
     Phantasm (phnt@fluffytail.org)'s status on Wednesday, 16-Jul-2025 23:01:55 JST Phantasm

     in reply to

     • :suya:
     • :umu: :umu:
     • T man :sex: :puffgiga: :puffpowerroll:
     @newt @theorytoe @captainepoch @a1ba It's one thing to maintain a browser stack from the 90's and write one completely from scratch.
     
     >And I mean, how much do you really require from a glorified document renderer?
     
     Run megabytes of Javascript without breaking a sweat. That's the current minimal requirement.
   • Embed this notice
     :suya: (newt@stereophonic.space)'s status on Wednesday, 16-Jul-2025 23:01:57 JST :suya:

     in reply to

     • :umu: :umu:
     • T man :sex: :puffgiga: :puffpowerroll:
     • Phantasm
     @theorytoe @phnt @captainepoch @a1ba as it turned out, mozilla wasn't spending that much money on Firefox. Chances are, a dozen or so motivated dudes can keep a browser engine afloat just fine. And I mean, how much do you really require from a glorified document renderer?