Internet Browsers: What are YOU using? (And why?)

jcroy

Producer
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
5,490
Reaction score
2,049
Points
9,110
Real Name
jr
It's Googles Manifest V3 declaration. From what I've read they're pulling the entire API so the interface to access those objects will be gone entirely.




It appears they're going to do it to Chromium so every browser that uses the base source code would be affected. My guess is that's why Brave and Vivaldi have started implementing their own ad blocking mechanism, because they're assuming it's a forgone conclusion.

The problem with forking the code base is you may lose community support and all the bug fixes and enhancements that go along with it. Or maybe the community starts a new fork and everyone begins using that to underpin their browsers, leaving Google on the outside looking in. That, to me, would be the ideal outcome.
For the time being, it appears Google is not going forward with this anti-ad-block spec in full force.

The beta and dev versions of Google Chrome actually have a feature which can block the most egregious annoying ads which are hogging up too many resources.


 

jcroy

Producer
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
5,490
Reaction score
2,049
Points
9,110
Real Name
jr
I'm guessing this is a compromise which still keeps the ad revenue coming in for Google, while driving less people to use ad-block, noscript, umatrix, etc ... type extensions to block out the extreme resource hogs.
 

theJman

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
138
Reaction score
21
Points
10
Location
New Joisey
Real Name
Jim
Chrome will delete ads that consume too many computing resources

My guess is the rest of that sentence should read "provided it will not impact our revenue one bit".


"The move will excise only the worst ad offenders that demand more than 4 megabytes of network data or that occupy the browser's main computing process for more than 60 seconds"

You have to wonder how they would know the ad takes more than 60 seconds of CPU time unless it has actually done that. If so it means the ad was already downloaded, seemingly defeating the purpose.


Google's approach is likely just the typical large corporations playbook being run; start out by saying the absolute worse thing you can then judge the reaction. If it doesn't seem too bad - i.e. cost your executives bonus money - implement as planned. If there is significant push back appear willing to compromise and offer something less outrageous. Allow time for everyone to get used to that, then execute the remaining portion so you end up with the original (unacceptable) plan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jcroy

BobO'Link

Lead Actor
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
6,517
Reaction score
7,929
Points
9,110
Location
Mid-South
Real Name
Howie
I have just downloaded and am viewing the HTF via Brave, Rodney. I'm up for trying something new at this point.

:thumbs-up-smiley:

I'm not seeing much difference in terms of responsiveness yet. And I HATE having the tabs at the top of the screen. This has been a longtime pet peeve of mine. And I cannot seem to find a way to move the tab bar below the bookmark toolbar.

I kinda like the clean look of the browser. I'm gonna try it out. But the tab positioning might be a deal breaker if I can't move things around.
Being able to keep tabs where they belong - *below* the URL bar - is the primary reason I still use Firefox (followed closely that it's not a Google product). The inability to move the tab row to where I want it to be is what's kept me away from all alternative browsers. It's a very simple thing to implement but developers all have this arrogant "We know better than you how things should be" attitude towards tab location. I have news for them - they *do not* know better than the people who actually use the browser they write when it comes to UI functionality. UI "designers" are, for the most part, totally clueless.
 

jcroy

Producer
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
5,490
Reaction score
2,049
Points
9,110
Real Name
jr
Google's approach is likely just the typical large corporations playbook being run; start out by saying the absolute worse thing you can then judge the reaction. If it doesn't seem too bad - i.e. cost your executives bonus money - implement as planned. If there is significant push back appear willing to compromise and offer something less outrageous. Allow time for everyone to get used to that, then execute the remaining portion so you end up with the original (unacceptable) plan.
Another possible reason due to Chrome's #1 market penetration, is to change the behavior of advertising programmers. In principle it could encourage advertisers to design their ads so that it doesn't get captured in the "resource hogging" dragnet of Chrome's adblocker.

The only other company which could get away with doing something of this magnitude, would be microsoft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: theJman

jcroy

Producer
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
5,490
Reaction score
2,049
Points
9,110
Real Name
jr
I have news for them - they *do not* know better than the people who actually use the browser they write when it comes to UI functionality. UI "designers" are, for the most part, totally clueless.
Unfortunately "proper UI" designers are not allowed to call the shots. Especially if the "proper UI" designers are also not writing any code, and/or are not computer programmers.

So unless someone has an absolute veto over the computer programmers writing the browser code, in the end the actual programmers writing the code get to call the shots. This is completely independent of whether the programmers know anything about "proper UI" design.
 

jcroy

Producer
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
5,490
Reaction score
2,049
Points
9,110
Real Name
jr
(On a tangent about UI design).

In hindsight, it turned out Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were geniuses in recognizing that the only way to convince Joe Sixpack and Jane Doe to buy a computer, was to create a user interface (UI) that was easy to use and easy on the eyes.

As long as computers were only a command line prompt or a clunky windowing interface (such as X Windows on unix systems), they would be forever in the domain of geeks/nerds and other technical types. (Back in the day, I thought the earlier versions of X Windows wasn't much more than a command line prompt with more lipstick and a push-up bra).

Especially when the internet became popular in the mid-late 1990s, the user interface (UI) on mswindows and macs became even more important. I strongly suspect if the user interface (UI) on windoze95/98 and macs were too difficult, the internet probably wouldn't have became ubiquitous as fast.
 

jcroy

Producer
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
5,490
Reaction score
2,049
Points
9,110
Real Name
jr
Unfortunately "proper UI" designers are not allowed to call the shots. Especially if the "proper UI" designers are also not writing any code, and/or are not computer programmers.

So unless someone has an absolute veto over the computer programmers writing the browser code, in the end the actual programmers writing the code get to call the shots. This is completely independent of whether the programmers know anything about "proper UI" design.
(Thinking about this more).

I suspect if Bill Gates and Steve Jobs didn't have an absolute veto over the design of their respective operating systems, then most likely today we would still be using a command line prompt or a really nasty clunky graphical user interface.
 

theJman

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
138
Reaction score
21
Points
10
Location
New Joisey
Real Name
Jim
Jobs and Gates stole the UI from Xerox PARC, so we have a copy machine company to thank for the GUI. :biggrin:
 

jcroy

Producer
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
5,490
Reaction score
2,049
Points
9,110
Real Name
jr
Another possible reason due to Chrome's #1 market penetration, is to change the behavior of advertising programmers. In principle it could encourage advertisers to design their ads so that it doesn't get captured in the "resource hogging" dragnet of Chrome's adblocker.

The only other company which could get away with doing something of this magnitude, would be microsoft.
As an example of past precedents of changing behavior, over the years I have noticed there are less and less pop-up ads.

Occasionally I run a raw first-run configuration of then-current browsers (inside a sandbox or vm), just to see how much nastiness still exists by default. Ever since browers included a pop-up blocker, pop-up ads gradually disappeared. So advertisers had to resort to other methods for their online ads.
 

Rodney

Cinematographer
Premium
Joined
Jan 12, 2001
Messages
2,042
Reaction score
1,663
Points
1,610
I kinda like the clean look of the browser. I'm gonna try it out. But the tab positioning might be a deal breaker if I can't move things around.
They don't currently offer tab positioning, you can vote on that feature here: https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/181

I'm kinda surprised you don't see an improvement in speed right off like I did, but I guess it depends on what sites you visit. It's good to at least try something new to either find another browser solution or confirm your decision to continue to use FF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mike Frezon

BobO'Link

Lead Actor
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
6,517
Reaction score
7,929
Points
9,110
Location
Mid-South
Real Name
Howie
And people have been asking for "tabs below the URL bar" option in brave for 2 years... *2 years* and it's not been done. I downloaded the portable version. It's Chrome - same menus same look same everything except for Google's built-in tracking "features" but they have some of their own which are defaulted on - you have to dig into the settings to find and disable them.
 

jcroy

Producer
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
5,490
Reaction score
2,049
Points
9,110
Real Name
jr
And people have been asking for "tabs below the URL bar" option in brave for 2 years... *2 years* and it's not been done.

Unfortunately the folks directly calling the shots there, do not consider this a priority.

(More generally).

This seems to be the case in ANY project.

One feature I've been looking at in Firefox/mozilla, is whether the protocols for handling cross site scripting attacks can distinguish between friend or foe. This greatly affects extensions like decentraleyes and localcdn where popular scripts hosted on remote third party cdn hosts, are handled locally without contacting the actual third party cdn host. (ie. No information passed to the third party cdn either, for further privacy).


Current browsers do not know whether a local substitution (via decentraleyes or localcdn) is an evil injection attrack or not. So firefox/chrome by default just considers it an attack to be blocked entirely.

Unfortunately for firefox (and chrome also), there has been no action on a protocol modification which can distinguish between friend or foe. It has been low priority for almost 3 years.
 

Mike Frezon

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Oct 9, 2001
Messages
53,021
Reaction score
15,216
Points
9,110
Age
61
Location
Rensselaer, NY
The last time I looked at Vivaldi you could not put the tabs *below* the URL bar - where they belong and work best. Has that been fixed?
If the answer is "YES," I may be downloading Vivaldi to try it out! :D
 

BobO'Link

Lead Actor
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
6,517
Reaction score
7,929
Points
9,110
Location
Mid-South
Real Name
Howie
I looked for myself... It's still the same old thing with Vivaldi... top (above the URL bar), either side, or bottom of browser.
 

Mike Frezon

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Oct 9, 2001
Messages
53,021
Reaction score
15,216
Points
9,110
Age
61
Location
Rensselaer, NY
Bummer. I'm still trying the Brave today.

But, I just can't dig having my tabs completely at the top of the page.
 

BobO'Link

Lead Actor
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
6,517
Reaction score
7,929
Points
9,110
Location
Mid-South
Real Name
Howie
Unfortunately the folks directly calling the shots there, do not consider this a priority.

(More generally).

This seems to be the case in ANY project.
When the programmers at FF first removed the "Tabs below the URL" option I followed a "bugzilla" thread where people were complaining about the removal. It went back and forth for several days and was finally locked with a comment from the programmers "It's not going to be done because we think this is better.' Essentially - " We don't care what you think. We're the programmers and we're right." From reading current bugzilla threads they still think this way. Arrogant and pretentious.

The fact that a simple css file can easily modify the look to get the desired positioning tells me they're intentionally ignoring requests for an option switch. A first level programmer could write the necessary code in just a few minutes. Maintaining it would be trivial.
 

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
343,649
Messages
4,685,873
Members
140,975
Latest member
derpok