You have to remember that sometimes when that shiny new CSS feature comes out, it is underspecced, with unhandled corner cases – “just do what Chromium does” is not a standard – or is it? Having multiple implementations of a spec prove that it is interoperable - without that, you might have a good spec, or you might have a spec that says “whatever Chrome does is what is expected”. Not sure that is what we want from new CSS (or any) features.
Uhh, that doesn’t seem normal at all. Is this a default config? Any extensions in use?
Probably simpler to just “Forget” the site from the site’s context menu in the history sidebar.
What are you a captcha?
“Vivaldi is closed source, therefore it’s harder for users to investigate”, which is clearly an inaccurate statement.
Why is it an inaccurate statement?
What user are you thinking of?
You really felt misled that it was harder to inspect? What makes you think I have the expertise to inspect this? I’m not even a user and I wouldn’t know where to start to find the ad blocker within that tarball. Would you?
In any case, I clarified why it was harder to inspect - to me it felt obvious that being closed source made it harder to investigate. The fact that it is also shared source really has no bearing to the general observation, especially since we’re talking about a 2GB tarball where I don’t even know where to start. And I’m a pretty technical person.
How would a user easily investigate this vs. an open source browser?
It is, it is just source available. Still closed source.
You’re awesome!
Who’s a bot?
Opera GX has promised to keep MV2 in their code. So I’ll just keep using that until I see something different. The other thing is that Opera GX has built in ad-blocker which is pretty much on par with third parties.
I couldn’t find a source for either of these claims. Can you help me out?
Not trying to be obtuse here, but why are you pruning your history in the first place? Is someone auditing your browsing history? I’m personally not interested in removing my browser history for the most part - and certainly not frequently enough to notice this limitation.
Why not just open private browsing windows if you don’t want your browser remembering those pages? Are you deciding afterwards that you want to forget those pages?
I don’t think I can clear my history without it closing all of my Firefox instances and making me reopen everything.
That’s not true - are you using always private mode?
Firefox can’t fix all the broken sites in the world, but they do investigate issues reported to https://webcompat.com
You can help by reporting sites that don’t work for you.
It basically wasn’t. The original developer allowed a fork on platforms they weren’t interested in, drama ensued and eventually, the Apple thing happened anyway.
uBlock became uBlock Origin once the "origin"al developer took over the project again.
Untrue. Safari never had the real version of uBlock Origin (it was always a port) and it lost many features when Apple moved to a new extensions framework (much like Google). See more: https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/issues/158
I’m asking you what the misinformation is. Is this harder to investigate because the software is closed source? In my mind undoubtedly yes. I know it was harder for ME to investigate because it wasn’t open source - no open issue trackers, SCM repository, whatever.
So please tell me why what I said was misinformation - I’m really curious.
But it is, because making users download a 2GB repo and looking through the code, or crafting custom filter rules to investigate how rules work is harder than looking at a hosted source code repository (like what Brave has).
Where is the misinformation?
You don’t think a tarball dump is harder to investigate than a CVS repository? I never claimed it was impossible to investigate further, just that it was harder to.
Where is the misinformation?
Yeah that’s not true.