Chrome/Chromium via Google intends to make ad-blocking more difficult

[DAMIEN1307]

If what im reading from article below is correct, the "do no evil" people are about to get even more evil, and they say, once again, its for our own good.
many of us here may not be using Google Chrome browser, but many of us DO use Chromium Open Source based browsers.
We may all have to re-think this in near future...I will let the article speak for itself...DAMIEN

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/2 ... ck_change/

[philotux]

I am a Chromium user. If or rather when these changes get implemented I'll definitely switch to Firefox.

[KBD47]

I seriously hope this doesn't happen. Though I'm sure Google would like to solely control whose ads get blocked.

[eddycanuck]

I would like to recommend the Brave Browser - built on FOSS Chromium (which is almost the same as Chrome - obviously). And I am much happier with the Privacy Settings (and philosophy) than with Mozilla lately. Also I do respect Mr Brendan Eich's background as a programmer and businessman based on his development of Mozilla in the first place.

https://brave.com/features/
https://www.howtogeek.com/336493/despit ... t-its-way/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich

It is time to consider alternatives with a new commitment to users privacy.

[AndyMH]

Longtime chrome/chromium user, if this happens I'll be switching to something else - can I import all my bookmarks into brave?

[Pierre]

I am a Chromium user. If or rather when these changes get implemented I'll definitely switch to Firefox.

an often suggested Alternative is:
https://vivaldi.com/download/

[DAMIEN1307]

hi eddycanuck and andymh...i also use the Brave browser, are you also aware that brave is using Chrome/Chromium engine components?
if Google does this and since, they also build the open source chromium browser which is the base for ALL chromium browsers, which Brave is also in the same family.
where do you think that might leave us as we three use Brave?...just a thought here for us to think about.
if this does happen to the Chromium base, it WILL happen to Brave as well...DAMIEN

[philotux]

an often suggested Alternative is:
https://vivaldi.com/download/

Thanks for the suggestion, Pierre!

I have actually Vivaldi installed on my current system but I haven't used it that much. Chromium has always felt snappier on my system or at least that is my feeling.

The reason I thought I would move to Firefox is that I share the same concern as @DAMIEN1307 in the post above.

Opera, Vivaldi and Brave, they all use Chromium as base, so if the intended changes are done to Chromium, so I suppose that these three will be affected as well.

[gm10]

Vivaldi is great but also a Chromium-based browser indeed and thus would suffer the same fate.

However, I'll wait and see what develops. On principle I applaud the stated intention of making extensions more transparent, but that does not mean control should be taken away from them at the same time. The user just needs to be made aware of what is happening and then make their own choice.

I hope I won't have to go back to Firefox because I have quite a few other issues with that browser. Or maybe it's time to go back to the basics, I only just saw the other day that somebody reverse engineered and updated Proxomitron, that sure was a blast from the past.

[Moem]

Those who are looking for a more privacy-friendly alternative to Firefox, with access to more add-ons, might want to check out Waterfox.

[thx-1138]

...not ad-blocking related, but the other day i stumbled upon this. In simpler terms possibly, here.

All in all - you get explicitly tied to NVidia's own choices & closed-source driver.
That's just how much Google 'cares' in regards to how the rest of the Linux / open source world evolves & develops:
leaving it here for a specific member that constantly insists (passionately as well!) in trying to convince us just how great Google is,
that it should "buy" Canonical etc etc...

[gm10]

All in all - you get explicitly tied to NVidia's own choices & closed-source driver.

Only if you want hardware acceleration, which Google only enabled for ChromeOS by default, anyway. If you want hardware acceleration on regular Linux you need to run a custom build, anyway, so none of that is relevant at the end of the day. Even if it was relevant to the thread.

[thx-1138]

Yes - Firefox also comes with hardware accel disabled by default (and it certainly does not seem they plan to 'fix' that either...)
Mentioned the above Nouveau / Chrome issue certainly not to bash Chrome specifically,
but as a very good example of a vendor who strictly cares for their own well-being & isn't willing at all to co-operate with others...

What came to mind when I read the above is that Nvidia (as far as i'm aware, not sure if anything has changed in the meanwhile),
had also expressed a very clear reluctance of getting their drivers working with Wayland...
Ie. with such explicit choices from Google above (use the closed source driver only, Nouveau is a no-no),
then things can get even more complicated (and far more limited in terms of options) in the not-so-distant future...
Ie. various different pieces seem to fall in (the wrong) place this way,
and such choices are truly at the expense of all others out there (and not just Chrome users)...

[gm10]

Well, yes and no. What I meant to point out was that Google is keeping hardware acceleration to themselves, anyway.

Their argument is basically that the driver and framework situation in Linux is so fragmented that they cannot afford to support anything but their own hardware properly. I can understand their position. As you pointed out, Firefox is even further behind in the hardware acceleration department so Google has no incentive to invest into a minor market where they got no competitive pressure on that feature. If I was running their business I'd be doing the same thing.

This is not about lack of cooperation from Google - I'm sure Google would love to enable the feature by default, after all they do it on Windows - it's about lack of cooperation from everyone else.

[Pierre]

Opera, Vivaldi and Brave, they all use Chromium as base, so if the intended changes are done to Chromium, so I suppose that these three will be affected as well.

that's the Real Issue - right there.
- - I'm Still Grumpy that Opera moved, as well.

Those who are looking for a more privacy-friendly alternative to Firefox, with access to more add-ons, might want to check out Waterfox

that's gonna need another Tutorial - on how to Extract / Run that version.

[Moem]

Those who are looking for a more privacy-friendly alternative to Firefox, with access to more add-ons, might want to check out Waterfox

that's gonna need another Tutorial - on how to Extract / Run that version.

This thread may help: viewtopic.php?f=47&t=258724
And also: once you have it installed, it keeps itself updated (unless you disable that feature).

[gm10]

Opera, Vivaldi and Brave, they all use Chromium as base, so if the intended changes are done to Chromium, so I suppose that these three will be affected as well.

that's the Real Issue - right there.
- - I'm Still Grumpy that Opera moved, as well.

And they're still playing catch-up to the old Opera 12.16/Presto days. Vivaldi is better because it's made by those people who did the original Opera (which I originally bought back at version 2.x a lifetime ago - yes, there was a time when browsers were sold, but instead you kept your privacy...) but now with Edge going the way of the dodo it's really just Mozilla and Google left on the market for (relevant) browser engines.

[thx-1138]

If I was running their business I'd be doing the same thing.
This is not about lack of cooperation from Google -
I'm sure Google would love to enable the feature by default, after all they do it on Windows -
it's about lack of cooperation from everyone else.

I'm tempted to say 'fair enough' - at least for the part "If I was running their business I'd be doing the same thing".
But then, who is "everyone else" in this case? Nouveau devs? Wayland devs? Nvidia's reluctance?
It only takes 1 single player to refuse co-operating (Nvidia), and then one issue brings another as seen above.

I'd also be willing to say that on a direct "Nouveau vs...Google" basis, Google even has some strong points:
further debug & fix your Nouveau stuff, it's not our job to do that for you...
However, i really can't believe they're not aware of the Wayland / Nvidia situation as it currently is.

Ie. as it is currently, Nvidia more or less holds back Wayland's development (Xorg until...the sun rises from the west).
And Google now actively accepts such, with a Pontius Pilate-alike mentality, and just goes with the current status quo...
Call me over-suspicious, as it seems to me that maybe they have something else in mind future-wise:
sell more Chromebooks with ChromeOS, it will run fine under are own hardware -
Linux instead can be 'broken' eternally (with Nouveau or not, with Wayland or not...not our problem at all).

Which also falls just fine under the "If I was running their business I'd be doing the same thing". But it also falls under:
"that's just how much Google 'cares' in regards to how the rest of the Linux / open source world evolves & develops".

[philotux]

... but now with Edge going the way of the dodo it's really just Mozilla and Google left on the market for (relevant) browser engines.

Then when Google will go ahead with it's plans for limiting content blocking, I think my choice is clear. I'll go all-in Firefox. Somehow with some regret, since Chromium runs very nicely for me and I enjoy using it.

[gm10]

I'm not disagreeing, although realistically I also don't why Google would want to step into the Wayland/Nvidia mess (and Wayland is a bit of a mess even without Nvidia already). Or rather if they take over they'll probably do it Android style and give you the full package. ChromeOS 2.0 or something.