Isn't Google introducing this change upstream in Chromium? This means that it will affect downstream browsers, including Chrome, Edge, Brave, Vivaldi, Opera, and a number of others[1]. The only way they will keep the old functionality is if they fork it and maintain it themselves going forward, which could potentially be made more difficult by further upstream changes made by Google. A few have vowed to do so[2], but Google has too much power controlling the upstream to guarantee they can continue it long-term.

Google has a stranglehold on the entire browser market through Chromium right now. Switching to non-Chromium-based browsers is a must.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser)#Browser... 2: https://www.zdnet.com/article/opera-brave-vivaldi-to-ignore-...

What I want to know is whether Microsoft plans to continue to support Ublock Origin, etc, in Edge Chromium.

All Chromium "based" browsers are forks already -- how is this any different?

They’re less so forks than re-builds. They rely heavily on upstream and Google can certainly make it more difficult for them to maintain a “fork” that diverges too much from Chromium proper. Manifest V3 may be something they can easily keep out of their builds while maintaining the old method, but I’m no expert so I won’t comment on that.

A fork implies maintaining most or all of the code base themselves, when in reality, most Chromium derivatives simply change the “front-end” or the UI while keeping everything else upstream, except for a few tweaks here and there. To maintain an entire fork themselves would be a massive undertaking, especially since Google now has a practical stronghold on the development of the open web. “Forks” would have to ensure they work with the standards (and non-standards) that are being pushed by Chromium and there’s no easy way to do that besides using Chromium and “re-building” it with their broswer’s specific features and UI. Google could make Manifest V3 harder to exclude from those re-builds.

It’s this very reason that Microsoft moved to Chromium as they could not keep up with the changes Chromium were pushing to the open web. They have also made it very clear that they’re not “forking” Chromium for the new Edge, but rather using it as their “back-end” so they can focus on their “front-end” while contributing back upstream to improve the back-end. Too much of a divergence would land them back to square one with the issues they had keeping up with old Edge.

If a company the size of Microsoft are unable to maintain a “fork” of Chromium, it doesn’t leave much hope for the smaller companies like Brave, Vivaldi, Opera, etc. However, that does not mean that they are unable to exclude the Manifest V3 from their builds, just that they’re still beholden to the changes made to Chromium to some degree.

> If a company the size of Microsoft are unable to maintain a “fork” of Chromium

Microsoft is entirely able to maintain a fork of Chromium, or even their own proprietary browser.

What Microsoft has done is a cost/benefit calculation and decided that the benefit for maintaining their own stuff is not sufficient to justify the costs.

The thing about those types of analyses is that they are very company-dependent. That the C/B ratio is not good enough for Microsoft doesn't imply that it can't be good enough for other companies.

That was a poor choice of words on my part. Rather I meant, they themselves stated it was not feasible for them to keep up using EdgeHTML and they could not. The same may be true if they were to completely fork Chromium and maintain their own version (ala Blink from WebKit) while keeping up with the changes made by Chromium that in turn propagate to the entire open web due to its dominance. It’s the reason they moved to Chromium and contribute back upstream rather than “fork” it.

It doesn't have to be a complete fork. In git terms, it can be a branch that pulls from Google, but reverts the commits that disable this functionality. Write some extra unit tests to ensure this functionality is still active, and after that, every time Google pushes something that breaks it, tests will fail and you can fix what they broke. Other than that, you can just keep pulling all the changes from Google.

>have also made it very clear that they’re not “forking” Chromium for the new Edge, but rather using it as their “back-end”

I would love a citation for that.

Not including Manifest V3 in their builds hardly seems like a change that makes maintaining a fork untenable. That's what, a one-line change?

Because they will probably follow Chromium and remove ad blocking once the pain of forking is too great.

It's one of their central features, so probably not.

We will support webRequest for uBO and uMatrix at least, I've already said so on Twitter and Reddit. The API is available to enterprise Chrome customers, it's being hidden not removed.

Regarding brave see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21323576

In case anyone cares about the facts that can be confirmed from our github: our enabling tips to unverified creators mistake was corrected quickly, and the tokens in question were ours, not the users who directed their flow (this matters because we do not intermediate in token flows; our partner Uphold, a licensed MSB, does).

I like how Peter Thiel, the guy who scorched earth Gawker for outing him as gay, can look past Eich supporting prop 8, but HN can't.

By the same logic you could use Microsoft Edge, which is now chromium based and effectively a chrome shell.

Very true, but I think I trust Brave more than I trust Microsoft to try to keep the internet neutral as such.