Resuming the transition to Manifest V3

[NotHereToPlayGames]

1 minute ago, D.Draker said:

There's a Chinese fork which solved all of the problems, including the bloody V3/V2. Found by @Saxon.

Where?  I must have missed it somehow.

[D.Draker]

11 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Where?  I must have missed it somehow.

I guess because it's only Vista+. Still interested?

[NotHereToPlayGames]

1 hour ago, D.Draker said:

And we need new ideas on how to hold onto V2.

It is speculation until we start to witness MV2's being "disabled" on WHATEVER fork we use, my hunch remains that the HOSTED APP that everything except Official UNGOOGLED Chromium resolves is the ONLY way to 100% hold onto MV2.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

3 minutes ago, D.Draker said:

I guess because it's only Vista+. Still interested?

Yep, still interested.  Because 4 out of 7 of my home computers run Win10.

[D.Draker]

11 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Yep, still interested.  Because 4 out of 7 of my home computers run Win10.

PMed,

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Oh, that one.  That one's nothing new.  Though it's been a year or so since I have visited it.

I'll check the newest version over the weekend.  To me, it is the HOSTED APP that is "all-telling".

[D.Draker]

11 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Oh, that one.  That one's nothing new.  Though it's been a year or so since I have visited it.

I'll check the newest version over the weekend.  To me, it is the HOSTED APP that is "all-telling".

Yep, probably you knew it. But what's interesting, the author kept his promise and V2 is still supported, even past the 127 limit, in the current v.131.

It's almost in line with the current Chromium 133.0.6863.0.

[Sampei.Nihira]

7 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

So far, I have not been affected here at work.  I would witness MV2 disables here at work long before at home due to limitations on what I can do to prevent those MV2 disables here at work compared to home.

 

I did not quite understand what your “I was not affetted” means.
Let's clarify the example in the article with another example of an extension, also MV2, that you certainly did not have installed on your PC:

https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/adguard-adblocker-mv2/gfggjaccafhcbfogfkogggoepomehbjl

Do you see the button that allows you to install the extension?

If you do not visualize it you have been affected.

In this case,if not present, the browser version has nothing to do with it.
Almost certainly at this stage (before the disabled extension is removed) it all depends on the UA.

Edited November 29, 2024 by Sampei.Nihira

[NotHereToPlayGames]

6 minutes ago, Sampei.Nihira said:

Do you see the button that allows you to install the extension?

Yes.  But this is irrelevant!  I never ever EVER install extensions by that "button".  NEVER!

 

 

 

The real issue with MV2 is not the ability to "install" extensions.  The real issue is just how your browser will "react" when its "internal coding" SEES that you have an MV2 installed.

Seems to me that the extension that MOST folks are concerned with (uBO) is technically "solved" if people that use it DO NOT INSTALL VIA THAT BUTTON but install via a download from GitHub instead!

UNLESS the browser has its own "internal coding" that disables any MV2 already installed.

Isnt't that (internal coding) afterall what all of the "forkers" are claiming to REMOVE ???

[Sampei.Nihira]

It is clear that ALL installed MV2 extensions will be disabled,if not present company policy, even if installed from other sources.
Otherwise it would be too easy.............

P.S.

And also the ability to install UBO from Github (for Chromium based browsers) will be removed presumably after June 2025,by Gorhill,just as it removed the ability to install UBO Lite in Firefox Github:

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/releases/tag/uBOLite_2024.11.25.1376

Edited November 29, 2024 by Sampei.Nihira

[NotHereToPlayGames]

1 hour ago, Sampei.Nihira said:

It is clear that ALL installed MV2 extensions will be disabled,if not present company policy, even if installed from other sources.

I personally DOUBT IT (from the perspective of my BROWSER PROFILE)!  At least, I have a VERY strong hunch that UNGOOGLED CHROMIUM (at least prior to v127) will *NOT* disable them at the browser-profile level!

And even post-v127, I would not be surprised if UNGOOGLED CHROMIUM will still run uBO from GitHub!  (Or, more importantly, from my own archive!)

I'm referring to my LOCAL WEB BROWSER.  I could "care less" if Chrome Web Store "disables" MV2 (nobody is disputing that!), that "alone" has ZERO EFFECT on what my LOCAL WEB BROWSER is running!

Edited November 29, 2024 by NotHereToPlayGames

[Sampei.Nihira]

From what I read here:

https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium/issues/662

UG does not currently have "webRequest.filterResponseData()" API.

So unless the developers implement this API from scratch.........

I am also personally inclined to think that an MV2 webextension that is no longer in the Chrome Web Store will be disabled.

Precisely because Google considers it no longer secure.
Or at least that's their policy............................

It has happened before ( in Firefox) when the Speed Dial[FVD] extension was declared unsafe by Mozilla.
The extension was removed from the store,and automatically disabled for those who had it installed.

Edited November 29, 2024 by Sampei.Nihira

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Of course that happened for Firefox.  Very few Firefox users concern themselves with the HUNDREDS of telemetry connections made at every launch.  Yourself "probably" excluded (I admit skepticism).

Ungoogled Chromium has ZERO telemetry connections to Google.  ZERO!  So my local no-connections-to-Google profile really is not under the control of Google.  Plain and simple.  Maybe I'm too optimistic, lol.

I very much so intend to PROVE WITH SCREENCAPS the very day that other MSFN members start citing their MV2's were disabled "without their consent" by their web browser doing something they thought it could not do!

Not so sound like a dead horse, but if an MSFN Member's Chromium Fork, whatever brand it may be, has that HOSTED APP listed in the clear cache dialog, then, well, "you heard it from me first", lol.

I'm not sure what changed in Official Chrome v127 that was recently cited as versions prior are exempt.  I just have a "very bad feeling" about the mere PRESENCE of a CWS HOSTED APP.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

25 minutes ago, Sampei.Nihira said:

UG does not currently have "webRequest.filterResponseData()" API.

Does not effect me!  Why?  Because until history proves otherwise, I am perfectly fine with running UG v122 + uBO 1.59.0 MV2 in 2026.  Then decide my next move in 2026 [from lessons learned in 2024+] for the setup that should get me to 2029.  "Rinse and repeat..."

Edited November 29, 2024 by NotHereToPlayGames

[UCyborg]

5 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

So my local no-connections-to-Google profile really is not under the control of Google.  Plain and simple.  Maybe I'm too optimistic, lol.

They still have you where they want you. You're the #1 Blink fan.