hoverzoom VS web-bugs

I will leave this as a gallery of emails with offers to buy extension hoverzoom: https://github.com/extesy/hoverzoom/discussions/670

Sidenote: The "collaboration" offers come from time to time even to non-extensions projects, if they are reasonably widely used. E.g. simple tools (rather widely used suite of android apps recently sold).

> Manifest V3 will stop this by limiting what Google describes "remotely hosted code." All updates, even to benign things like a filtering list, will need to happen through full extension updates through the Chrome Web Store. They will all be subject to Chrome Web Store reviews process, and that comes with a significant time delay.

So the author can't think of any other reason for this change other than to "slow down ad blocker updates"

Well how about stuff like this: https://github.com/extesy/hoverzoom/discussions/670

Where an extension dev details offers to "monetize" his app and basically perform a bait and switch and make it malicious.

These type of offers are actually quite common. See this[0] and the discussion[1]. I try to stick with only the most popular of extensions in the hope that any malicious changes would be widespread news, but it is still a gamble.

[0] https://github.com/extesy/hoverzoom/discussions/670

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37066680

As a maintainer of a semi-popular chrome extension[1], I receive so many buy-out offers that I started publicly collecting them[2] for everyone to see.

[1] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hover-zoom%20/pccc...

[2] https://github.com/extesy/hoverzoom/discussions/670

Also, here's a open source alternative.

I don't want to download a sieve from a russian forum. Hover Zoom+ is working fine.

Hover Zoom+: https://github.com/extesy/hoverzoom/ (this is the open source one, not the old one with malware)

The thread is very long, here is the relevant comment:

https://github.com/webcompat/web-bugs/issues/131916#issuecom...

https://github.com/webcompat/web-bugs/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%...

Microsoft Teams (which I don't think many people use voluntarily) in particular breaks in stupid ways - and then in others if you spoof your user agent.

a link to the video would help with troubleshooting, seems like another case of "this site or this particular feature doesn't support firefox" otherwise report to https://webcompat.com/

Have any of you faced this? If the website is made to open only in chromium-based browsers, I am planning to report to Webcompat. But before that, I thought I would make sure from others. Any experience or quick fix would be appreciated.

Teams was a classic hellhole for me when I was using Linux. Nowadays it lets you in but Firefox genuinely doesn't support all of the features the Teams site uses. This means certain features are made unavailable to Firefox users. Forcing the user agent makes some of these partially work but they are also still broken so Mozilla doesn't want to enable a user agent override by default and Microsoft doesn't want to enable a feature that only half works.

This GitHub WebCompat issue serves as a good example history https://github.com/webcompat/web-bugs/issues/77892

https://github.com/webcompat/web-bugs/issues/125920#issuecom...

having recently looked at a firefox performance regression for filing a bugreport, tooling that tracks performance (quite publicly) sees attention, easy upload to share tracing profiles also helps: https://firefox-source-docs.mozilla.org/testing/perfdocs/ind...

Their dedicated blog keeps you posted if firefox perf is your interest https://blog.mozilla.org/performance/

If you have a particular website you notice chromium being significantly faster with, for an easy report, there's https://webcompat.com/ - though bugzilla is better than it seems when coming from github issues