this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
884 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37602 readers
435 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] azron@lemmy.ml 112 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So like 8% of the market, mostly from Mozilla?

[–] Rostby@lemm.ee 50 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Soon to increase if they put this in chromium

[–] lostmypasswordanew@feddit.de 46 points 1 year ago

Most people don't give a shit about these things. It might actually decrease if Netflix just tells people to install Chrome to watch Stranger Things

[–] skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's what people said about Manifest v3. Turns out most people don't care.

[–] towerful@beehaw.org 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't care about Manifest V3. I care about ublock origin.
When that stops working, then I'll swap.

[–] skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

uBlock had been castrated by Chrome. It doesn't break entirely, but it's been gimped severely on Chrome. Other Chrome based browsers ignore part of the Manifest V3 restrictions, but as far as I know Chrome and Edge, the most popular Chrome branches, stick with the Google standard.

[–] 823r0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago

uBlock had been castrated by Chrome

No, not yet. Existing extensions that use manifest V2 are still supported.

[–] roon@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Aren't Vivaldi and Brave downstream of chromium though 🤔

[–] laxe@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Vivaldi and Brave can modify Chromium to disable this feature. Chromium is open source after all.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

are they forks? That's what I don't get, who controls the merge controls into Chromium's main branch? It's open source, but who actually says yay or nay on PRs getting in? I assume it's Google, and the others are all forks off, but if it makes it into the main branch or not will really decide if it gets adopted

[–] erwan@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

You can have your own set of patches (and/or config) and still stay up to date with upstream.

You don't need to do a hard fork to modify it for your needs.

[–] beyond@linkage.ds8.zone 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They can, but their very existence increases the Chromium engine's market share and therefore Google's control of the web, allowing them to do stuff like this. Once this is implemented in Chrome then these browsers will just become "Chrome but it can't play netflix/access bank websites/etc" or whatever.

[–] gnuplusmatt@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

Brave calls itself a fork, which I suppose if its truly a fork, they are cherrypicking patches they can use from the chromium base, rather than recompiling with their own patch set on top

[–] takeda@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Goggle standard approach to it, is to integrate it so much with other components that it will be a lot of work to disable it, eventually making it impractical.

The right way would be for those clients to switch to gecko engine.

[–] sadreality@kbin.social 29 points 1 year ago

Well... Normie stream love their 69 chrome versions so that's where we are at... Competition