←back to thread

Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

(0x44.xyz)
1034 points deryilz | 10 comments | 12 Jul 25 19:06 UTC | HN request time: 0.423s | source | bottom
Show context
al_borland ◴[12 Jul 25 20:51 UTC] No.44545060[source]▶
Even if bigs exists to work around what Google is doing, that isn’t the right way forward. If people don’t agree with Google move, the only correct course of action is to ditch Chrome (and all Chromium browsers). Hit them where it hurts and take away their monopoly over the future direction of the web.
replies(26): >>44545103 #>>44545185 #>>44545382 #>>44545931 #>>44545951 #>>44546164 #>>44546522 #>>44546599 #>>44546664 #>>44546763 #>>44547531 #>>44548200 #>>44548246 #>>44548399 #>>44548418 #>>44548820 #>>44549698 #>>44550098 #>>44550599 #>>44551061 #>>44551130 #>>44551663 #>>44553615 #>>44554220 #>>44556476 #>>44571602 #
pjmlp ◴[12 Jul 25 21:34 UTC] No.44545382[source]▶
A monopoly achieved thanks to everyone that forgot about IE lesson, and instead of learning Web standards, rather ships Chrome alongside their application.
replies(9): >>44546061 #>>44546268 #>>44546519 #>>44546556 #>>44546560 #>>44546615 #>>44546764 #>>44549899 #>>44550943 #
azangru ◴[13 Jul 25 01:08 UTC] No.44546615[source]▶
> instead of learning Web standards, rather ships Chrome alongside their application

I am confused.

- The "shipping Chrome alongside their application" part seems to refer to Electron; but Electron is hardly guilty of what is described in the article.

- The "learning web standards" bit seems to impune web developers; but how are they guilty of the Chrome monopoly? If anything, they are guilty of shipping react apps instead of learning web standards; but react apps work equally well (or poorly) in all major browsers.

- Finally, how is Chrome incompatible with web standards? It is one of the best implementer of them.

replies(4): >>44547181 #>>44547228 #>>44547237 #>>44551418 #
1. pjmlp ◴[13 Jul 25 03:22 UTC] No.44547228[source]▶
Web features being pushed by Google via Chrome, aren't standards, unless everyone actually agrees they are worthy of becoming one.

Shipping Electron junk, strengthens Google and Chrome market presence, and the reference to Web standards, why bother when it is whatever Chrome is capable of.

Web devs with worthy skills of forgotten times, would rather use regular processes alongside the default system browser.

replies(1): >>44547963 #
2. duped ◴[13 Jul 25 06:21 UTC] No.44547963[source]▶
There are no realistic alternatives to Electron. So calling it "junk" when its the baseline for "cross platform GUI application" is nonsense.

I get that you don't like it, so go build an alternative.

replies(4): >>44548007 #>>44548071 #>>44548268 #>>44556011 #
3. pjmlp ◴[13 Jul 25 06:35 UTC] No.44548007[source]▶
The alternative already exists, processes using the system browser, for several decades now.

Or actually learn how we use to ship software on the glory days of 8, 16 and 32 bit home platforms.

Now I do agree there are no alternatives for people that only care about shipping ChromeOS all over the place.

replies(3): >>44549003 #>>44551403 #>>44555619 #
4. johnnyanmac ◴[13 Jul 25 06:50 UTC] No.44548071[source]▶
Are we really trying to argue about cross platform GUI in 2025? This was solved decades ago. Just not in ways that are trying to directly appeal to modern webdevs by jamming a browser into every desktop application.

I don't even hate Electron that much. I'm working on a toy project using Electron right now for various reasons. This was just a bizarre angle to approach from.

5. ogoffart ◴[13 Jul 25 07:31 UTC] No.44548268[source]▶
I’m actually working on an alternative called Slint => https://slint.dev
6. JimDabell ◴[13 Jul 25 10:01 UTC] No.44549003{3}[source]▶
> The alternative already exists, processes using the system browser, for several decades now.

Yes, Windows supported Electron-like applications back in the 90s with HTAs. If you want something modern and cross-platform, Tauri does this:

https://v2.tauri.app

7. charcircuit ◴[13 Jul 25 16:07 UTC] No.44551403{3}[source]▶
You can't trust the system browser to be up to date and secure or for it to render things how you want. You can not guarantee a good user experience unless you ship the browser engine with your app.
replies(1): >>44552716 #
8. carlhjerpe ◴[13 Jul 25 19:14 UTC] No.44552716{4}[source]▶
Yeah sure but I use most web apps through the browser either way so I'm already in "possibly incompatible land" and you can reasonably expect any user facing device to have an updated browser OR one specific browser in case of embedded. We're not in Windows XP software distribution times anymore.
9. duped ◴[14 Jul 25 01:40 UTC] No.44555619{3}[source]▶
The system browser doesn't work on iOS, MacOS, or Linux (under certain, but common, conditions).
10. SJC_Hacker ◴[14 Jul 25 02:56 UTC] No.44556011[source]▶
QT?