Chrome may soon break Ad-Blockers

[suicidalfranco]

20 minutes ago, MoonSpot said:

Personally I am going to rip the exe from an older version of windows and use that in the near future, and might start looking at how to go about removing that whole Xbox games mode thing entirely.

this in powershell

Get-AppxPackage -AllUsers *xbox* | Remove-AppxPackage

and these in cmd

sc delete XblAuthManager
sc delete XblGameSave
sc delete XboxNetApiSvc
sc delete XboxGipSvc
reg delete "HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\xbgm" /f
schtasks /Change /TN "Microsoft\XblGameSave\XblGameSaveTask" /disable
schtasks /Change /TN "Microsoft\XblGameSave\XblGameSaveTaskLogon" /disable
reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\GameDVR" /v AllowGameDVR /t REG_DWORD /d 0 /f

don't be scared by the requirement of typing things on a CLI. It's not hard to understand or evil, like some in this forum would lead you to believe.

just for reference if you don't know:

sc delete [...] -> delete service [...]

reg delete [...] -> delete registry [...]

schtasks /change [...] /disable -> task scheduler set task [...] to disabled

reg add [...] -> add registry [...]

 

and the powershell one is pratically the same thing as apt-get on debian distros and used to manage installed apps

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

I'm very glad Microsoft decided to kill EdgeHTML. It was a colossal waste of time, money and other resources if you ask me.

I am very disappointed that they did not replace it with Firefox (Gecko) though.

 

They had the opportunity to level the playing field a little bit, but instead chose to give Google a boost in their market dominance.

 

Samsung are currently working with Mozilla on the development of Servo, which is basically a brand new browser engine, except for the JS engine and 2D graphics library. Hopefully Samsung will switch their browser to use that once they feel it's ready for production deployment. That would move a quite large chunk of "Chrome" users to "Firefox".

Or they could have kept going and been another option all together, but apparently that's either not possible or a bad thing.

 

Maybe they didn't want to spend time adopting FF and making that the core of edge only to have google do it to FF next and leave them with another pile of dud trash.

 

 

[flibberdipper]

Hey wow suddenly I'm on Firefox after being a Chromeboi for like 4-5 years... Sp00ky.

[LAwLz]

15 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Or they could have kept going and been another option all together, but apparently that's either not possible or a bad thing.

 

Maybe they didn't want to spend time adopting FF and making that the core of edge only to have google do it to FF next and leave them with another pile of dud trash.

The problem was that Edge was not good. They were constantly playing catch up, and for what purpose? 

We already have a good alternative, which is firefox. 

 

When you say "only to have google do it to FF next and leave them with another pile of dud trash", what do you mean exactly? What do you think Google did to edge? 

[aezakmi]

>Google

>Privacy

 

HAHAHAHAHA good one

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

The problem was that Edge was not good. They were constantly playing catch up, and for what purpose? 

We already have a good alternative, which is firefox. 

 

When you say "only to have google do it to FF next and leave them with another pile of dud trash", what do you mean exactly? What do you think Google did to edge? 

I'm sorry, I don't see how it being good, bad or irrelevant effects it being another option?

[Arika]

glad i'm already using firefox, i gave up on chrome long ago

[Trik'Stari]

God I don't want to have to switch browsers again.

[xAcid9]

Does this bypass good ol' hosts file? If not then i'm good. 

[GoodBytes]

Honestly, I am not convinced that anyone would switch regardless.

If the current ad-blocker can't actually block ads then someone will make one that hides the ads, and people will be fine, and continue to use Chrome.

And even if Firefox gain some market share, it won't change web dev minds to start to support Firefox. Already Firefox is being pushed aside and complaints just leads to: "use Chrome" as an answer to the problem.History is repeating itself.

 

For Edge using Chrome engine instead of Firefox engine, well, that won't change anything. No one uses Edge. The gain that will brings to Mozilla in terms of Firefox Engine market share will be minimal. People that install Chrome, won't switch to Edge with Firefox.. else they would be with Firefox to start with. Considering that Firefox is contentious to slowly lose market share as more and more sites just cut support forcing people to use something else (Chrome), Microsoft would have to redo all the work they have done switching to Firefox engine all over again.

[LAwLz]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

I'm sorry, I don't see how it being good, bad or irrelevant effects it being another option?

Because it is a waste of resources.

Developer time and money is a limited resources, so one hour spent developing Edge is one hour that could have been spent developing something else.

 

Having multiple browsers competing for market share is not always a good thing either. It means development of websites, and the risk of something not working properly on one of them increases. I think we need some competition so a monopoly like the one Google is heading for is certainly not good, but I would much rather have 2 browsers with significant market share over 1 with a large portion, and then several other browsers with smaller market shares.

 

 

3 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Honestly, I am not convinced that anyone would switch regardless.

If the current ad-blocker can't actually block ads then someone will make one that hides the ads, and people will be fine, and continue to use Chrome.

And even if Firefox gain some market share, it won't change web dev minds to start to support Firefox. Already Firefox is being pushed aside and complaints just leads to: "use Chrome" as an answer to the problem.History is repeating itself.

 

For Edge using Chrome engine instead of Firefox engine, well, that won't change anything. No one uses Edge. The gain that will brings to Mozilla in terms of Firefox Engine market share will be minimal. People that install Chrome, won't switch to Edge with Firefox.. else they would be with Firefox to start with. Considering that Firefox is contentious to slowly lose market share as more and more sites just cut support forcing people to use something else (Chrome), Microsoft would have to redo all the work they have done switching to Firefox engine all over again.

That's probably what Google is thinking too. However, a lot of average Joes just follow the advice of their more technology literate friends and family members. If those people start switching over to Firefox, for whatever reason, then a portion of the ones who don't understand the difference might switch too, and that in turn can cause a snowball effect.

 

People I'd call technology enthusiasts often influence what the average Joe uses too. "LAwLz knows computers and he use this, so therefore it is probably good".

 

 

4 hours ago, xAcid9 said:

Does this bypass good ol' hosts file? If not then i'm good. 

It does not. This is just a proposed change to the API used by adblockers to block the download of ads. Since host file and DNS blocking doesn't use those APIs they will be unaffected.

However, DNS and host file blocking can not be as granular. They can only block entire domains/subdomains rather than individual files, which means that if the ad is hosted on a site which also hosts other content, you can not just block the ad. You have to block everything including the normal content.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Because it is a waste of resources.

Developer time and money is a limited resources, so one hour spent developing Edge is one hour that could have been spent developing something else.

That opinion doesn't make up for one less option for consumers.

 

As for the rest of your post, at the end of the day regardless of your opinions on edge, it is still one less option consumers have and less options are not better no matter how hard you try and spin it.

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Because it is a waste of resources.

no it isn't. Microsoft would have to bundle another browser with Windows, lets use chrome as an example.

 

if they did that then they would have to integrate parts fo chrome in all kinds of parts of the OS, so if google then says that they don't want to have their browser bundeled with Windows 10 anymore the OS will break in all sorts of ways. that is a stupid idea.

 

Internet Explorer used to be bundeled with macOS for a few releases before Apple decided to make it's own browser. they had their reasons i'm sure.

[LAwLz]

55 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That opinion doesn't make up for one less option for consumers.

It's not an opinion that developers do not have an infinite number of hours a day, nor is it an opinion that it costs money to develop something. I feel like you quite often dismiss things as "opinions" despite being facts, and you do that so that you don't have to address points being made.

 

55 minutes ago, mr moose said:

As for the rest of your post, at the end of the day regardless of your opinions on edge, it is still one less option consumers have and less options are not better no matter how hard you try and spin it.

Sometimes I feel like you do not read my post, like right now where you just dismiss everything I said when I rationalized my way of thinking.

 

I was not making a comment about how good/bad Edge is or was. What I said was that the resources spent on developing Edge would have been better served improving Firefox, at least for the future of the web and avoiding a Google monopoly (which I think is very important to avoid).

 

 

51 minutes ago, firelighter487 said:

no it isn't. Microsoft would have to bundle another browser with Windows, lets use chrome as an example.

 

if they did that then they would have to integrate parts fo chrome in all kinds of parts of the OS, so if google then says that they don't want to have their browser bundeled with Windows 10 anymore the OS will break in all sorts of ways. that is a stupid idea.

 

Internet Explorer used to be bundeled with macOS for a few releases before Apple decided to make it's own browser. they had their reasons i'm sure.

Maybe you haven't heard the news, but Microsoft has stopped development of their own browser. Edge will essentially become a skin on top of Chrome (well, Chromium but that doesn't matter really). What I argued was that Microsoft should have picked Firefox over Chrome as their base browser.

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

What I said was that the resources spent on developing Edge would have been better served improving Firefox, at least for the future of the web and avoiding a Google monopoly (which I think is very important to avoid).

well Edge will use a chromium base, which is open-source.

 

a load of browsers are based on chromium, not chrome. that's a big difference.

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

10 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Maybe you haven't heard the news, but Microsoft has stopped development of their own browser. Edge will essentially become a skin on top of Chrome. What I argued was that Microsoft should have picked Firefox over Chrome as their base browser.

again, a chromium base, not chrome.

[LAwLz]

5 minutes ago, firelighter487 said:

well Edge will use a chromium base, which is open-source.

 

a load of browsers are based on chromium, not chrome. that's a big difference.

2 minutes ago, firelighter487 said:

again, a chromium base, not chrome.

What is your point? Chromium is controlled by Google too. It is open source, but Google are the maintainers and primary developers of it. If they want to change something, that change will ripple down to all browsers based on Chromium (including the new Edge).

Using Chrome or Chromium makes no difference as far as the control over web standards goes. It is still handing more control of the web over to Google.

 

And believe me, you don't have to explain to me that Chrome and Chromium are two different things. I know that very well already.

[mr moose]

17 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It's not an opinion that developers do not have an infinite number of hours a day, nor is it an opinion that it costs money to develop something.

You claimed it was a waste of time, if your only qualifier is that it cost money to develop something by your reasoning everything is a waste of time.

If you want to claim that the development of edge is waste of time and development money then you need to qualify why MS gave up on it.

 

Quote

Sometimes I feel like you do not read my post, like right now where you just dismiss everything I said when I rationalized my way of thinking.

 

I was not making a comment about how good/bad Edge is or was. What I said was that the resources spent on developing Edge would have been better served improving Firefox, at least for the future of the web and avoiding a Google monopoly (which I think is very important to avoid).

You do not read my posts, I only said we now have one less option you then claimed edge is:

 

Quote

 

The problem was that Edge was not good. They were constantly playing catch up, and for what purpose? 

 

 

 

and

 

Quote

It was a colossal waste of time, money and other resources if you ask me

 

And now you are trying to say you aren't commenting on how good or bad it was/is?

 

You seem to think it would have been better for MS to develop FF instead of edge, that's just an opinion, it is not a fact, many people hold varying different opinions on the topic.  By your logic, because it cost money to develop anything,  developing another companies product might be considered even worse than developing your own.

 

And at the end of the day we would still be in the same place where consumers have less options which was the only point I made in the first place.  It doesn't matter if edge gets mounted on FF or Chromium, we are still down one choice as consumers and that is not good.

[LAwLz]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You claimed it was a waste of time, if your only qualifier is that it cost money to develop something by your reasoning everything is a waste of time. 

It was objectively a waste of resources because they are now scraping all their work.

If I spent millions of dollars developing something, and then just went "you know what, no need to reinvent the wheel so let's just use a competitors product" then it would have been a waste of resources too.

 

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

If you want to claim that the development of edge is waste of time and development money then you need to qualify why MS gave up on it.

The fact that Microsoft are scrapping it is the reason why I call it a waste of time. If you build spend resources building something, just to then throw it all away, then your time and efforts were wasted.

 

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

And now you are trying to say you aren't commenting on how good or bad it was/is?

You're mixing several of my arguments and reasoning into one mess.

I made a comment about how bad Edge was, but that comment was not linked to my reasoning for why I think it was bad for Microsoft to scrap Edge and go with Chromium.

 

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You seem to think it would have been better for MS to develop FF instead of edge, that's just an opinion, it is not a fact, many people hold varying different opinions on the topic.

No it is not an opinion, and you're not reading my posts carefully enough.

What I said was that it would have been better for Microsoft to go with Firefox over Chromium as the base for their new browser. That is not an opinion, that is a fact as far as preventing a Google monopoly on browsers is concerned. This is math, not an opinion.

 

If Microsoft goes with Chromium as their base:

Google controls ~71% of the market.

Firefox controls ~10% of the market.

 

If Microsoft goes with Firefox as their base:

Google controls ~66% of the market.

Firefox controls ~15% of the market.

 

Which one seems the most balanced and least like a monopoly to you?

If we assume that the current Internet Explorer users will continue to use the standard browser, rather than install a third party one then the results will look like this in ~10 years.

 

If Microsoft goes with Chromium as their base:

Google controls ~82% of the market.

Firefox controls ~10% of the market.

 

If Microsoft goes with Firefox as their base:

Google controls ~66% of the market.

Firefox controls ~27% of the market.

 

Again, which one seems the most balanced and least like a monopoly to you?

I am not arguing opinions here. I am arguing facts and math.

 

 

15 minutes ago, mr moose said:

By your logic, because it cost money to develop anything,  developing a another companies product might be consider even worse than developing your own. 

Nope, that is not my argument at all. Stop with the strawmanning.

 

16 minutes ago, mr moose said:

And at the end of the day we would still be in the same place where consumers have less options which was the only point I made in the first place.  It doesn't matter if edge gets mounted on FF or Chromium, we are still down one choice as consumers and that is not good.

More choice is not always better. I would argue that having a balance where 50% of users used Chrome (or Chromium derivatives), and 50% of users used Firefox (or Firefox derivatives) would be optimal.

What you have to remember (like I mentioned earlier) is that the more browser engines there are in use, the harder the jobs of web developers becomes. The slower adoption of new standards becomes. The more it costs to develop websites.

 

More choice is not always better, but neither is a lack of choice.

Microsoft could have made the playing fields a bit more even between Firefox and Chrome, but chose a path which widens the gap even further, and gives Google an even better position for monopoly.

[JoostinOnline]

22 hours ago, porina said:

Also, every version update, they moved the UI around,

I remember that. It was annoying as hell. They kept making it more like Chrome. I stayed on Firefox 3.6 as long as I could. XD

[Blademaster91]

34 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It was objectively a waste of resources because they are now scraping all their work.

If I spent millions of dollars developing something, and then just went "you know what, no need to reinvent the wheel so let's just use a competitors product" then it would have been a waste of resources too. 

Microsoft completely giving up on their browser is a waste as well IMO, Edge had its uses and is optimized for battery life on laptops and tablets.

34 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

No it is not an opinion, and you're not reading my posts carefully enough.

What I said was that it would have been better for Microsoft to go with Firefox over Chromium as the base for their new browser. That is not an opinion, that is a fact as far as preventing a Google monopoly on browsers is concerned. This is math, not an opinion.

It wouldn't have been better because Microsoft would likely have to buy or have more control over Firefox, which would leave the only choices being a Google or Microsoft browser.

[Salacious B Crum]

How will this effect piehole as I have mine setup for whole house ad blocking so its in front of chrome

[Guest]

Crap. I've been using Ublock for 3-4 years now. And this will probably affect the Chromium version of Edge, too. Does that mean I use firefox? Because I miss the days of just hopping on a pc, automatically installing Chrome, and an ad-blocker.

[LAwLz]

23 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Microsoft completely giving up on their browser is a waste as well IMO

I can't tell if you agree with me or not. You wrote the same thing I said (Microsoft giving up on Edge is a waste) but your tone is that of someone who disagrees.

Microsoft is giving up on Edge and is going to make their browser based on Chromium. That makes Edge a waste of time and resources in my eyes.

 

25 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Edge had its uses and is optimized for battery life on laptops and tablets. 

Source? I know Microsoft claimed that before, but I could never find any third party source verifying that claim. If anything, tests I found showed that the results were extremely unreliable and varied greatly every time the test was redone. Plus, Microsoft only tested video playback, which is only a small part of a web browser.

Remember, first party benchmarks are not reliable and should not be taken seriously.

 

28 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

It wouldn't have been better because Microsoft would likely have to buy or have more control over Firefox, which would leave the only choices being a Google or Microsoft browser.

Microsoft would not have had to buy Firefox. I am fairly sure Mozilla would not even sell it because they are a non-profit organization.

Microsoft could have contributed to the project without buying it.

Also, a choice between a Google or Microsoft browser is better than what we are heading towards now, which is just a Google browser.

[porina]

1 hour ago, JoostinOnline said:

I remember that. It was annoying as hell. They kept making it more like Chrome. I stayed on Firefox 3.6 as long as I could. XD

Have they settled down since then?