this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2024
41 points (95.6% liked)

DeGoogle Yourself

8652 readers
7 users here now

A community for those that would like to get away from Google.

Here you may post anything related to DeGoogling, why we should do it or good software alternatives!

Rules

  1. Be respectful even in disagreement

  2. No advertising unless it is very relevent and justified. Do not do this excessively.

  3. No low value posts / memes. We or you need to learn, or discuss something.

Related communities

!privacyguides@lemmy.one !privacy@lemmy.ml !privatelife@lemmy.ml !linuxphones@lemmy.ml !fossdroid@social.fossware.space !fdroid@lemmy.ml

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Greetings! I have recently ditched google and went with privacy focused alternatives. Such as SearXNG, Invidious, Lemmy etc.

However, while i was using degoogled chromium, i cant install extensions.

Is there any way i can install extensions on Degoogled Chromium? (ik this isnt the right place to ask but eh)

Thanks a lot!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rocci@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 month ago (3 children)
[–] lnxtx@feddit.nl 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

When website doesn't work on Firefox.

Chrome is the next Internet Explorer.

[–] Cris16228@lemmy.today 26 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeaaah i fking hate it "Please install google chrome to use this feature" nah, Imma skip it entirely

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I was trying to bid on a couple of municipal projects recently, and got this. Nope. I'll go to the library, maybe.

[–] Cris16228@lemmy.today 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I'm really curious if it's real or some bullshit. Do chromium based browser have something Firefox doesn't? I'm talking about all those "Please install Firefox to use X" because I doubt it

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They have tracking and zero privacy. Some websites wouldnt be profitable or worth it if they couldn't collect and sell data.

Google is a data broker.

[–] Cris16228@lemmy.today 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Yes, that's obvious, what I mean is if they have some kind of tools/functions that make it be able to do something others can't. The example that comes in mind is when I was checking a website someone suggested me https://my.rhinoshield.eu/ where it says "your browser isn't supported to do whatever it does, please install chrome"

Firefox

vs

Chromium based browser

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

How do we know the reason it won't work on Firefox? It could be some trivial piece of tracking couldn't it?

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 points 1 month ago

It's just a small rural area, population wise, in the South. Probably some free build-a-site that came with hosting.

[–] Yurgenst@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Pro tip: when a website doesn't work with Firefox, go download a user agent changer and switch it to chrome and watch the website work perfectly on Firefox lol

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Oh? Recommendations? I just said I'm waiting to get to the library to bid on a couple of municipal projects bc of this "must use chrome" nonsense.

[–] Yurgenst@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

User-agent switcher is what I use. My only issue so far is that it messes up websites that use recaptcha or cloudflare "Are you a robot" challenges sometimes.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 2 points 1 month ago

Thanks so much. I'll give it a try!

[–] N0x0n@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Wait... You have encountered a website that doesn't work on Firefox? :/ Like finding a needle in a haystack.

[–] bjorney@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago

It's not uncommon to see certain sites to only work on chromium because the dev used the filesystem APIs that don't exist on FF

[–] naught@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

This is more common than you think. It's usually not broken entirely, but firefox constantly breaks styling/css stuff on websites I use and build. I've had a few sites ask me to switch browsers because firefox doesn't support x y or z feature too

edit: for example, WebGPU support is currently lacking in FF https://github.com/gpuweb/gpuweb/wiki/Implementation-Status

I use firefox, but I'm not blind to its few problems

[–] CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Never noticed an issue and if websites using only chrome supported features, it's an issue with the website, not the browser.

[–] naught@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

That's one way to look at it. If a website works perfectly on chromium, but not firefox, why is this the website's fault?

[–] CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Because in web development there are compatibility tables of what features work with which browser. If a developer has used a feature poorly supported, they either haven't done their homework, or intentionally made that call.

In web development, most reputable Front End Devs would not choose bleeding edge, barely supported features even if the temptation was there because the user comes first. Generally, you wait until it has been adopted by the main browsers (chrome, safari, ff).

[–] naught@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Frankly, if something doesn't work in Firefox, thats like <5% market share. Probably lower for a lot of segments. I am familiar with webdev :) Let's not pretend most devs are checking caniuse for everything. Some sites leverage bleeding edge stuff that necessarily requires chrome, which is also fine. IRL people don't optimize for Firefox and that's usually okay, but sometimes there are quirks. That's all I'm saying

[–] CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

Not perfectly optimised is fine, but non-functional isn't acceptable. I've never seen a quirk personally, and quirks aren't a good reason to help maintain Google's monopoly on web standards.

You may say less than 5% is fine, but it could be the margins in a low margin industry. 2% could be 40% of the profit.

I haven't seen a team operate where a senior isn't checking it.

Usually the bleeding edge stuff is used by small companies trying to establish themselves because they have nothing to lose and no reputation to protect.

Plus, when you got Browser Stack, you catch a lot of problems like this.

[–] bufalo1973@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago

Because is your product and you want to "sell" it to the "customer". And you can't blame the customer for not wearing the "correct dress" if they come to your shop. And if you don't want them in your shop it's your loss, not the customers'.

[–] N0x0n@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

This must be very specific and probably heavly bloated with unecessary stuff? (With probably alot of telemetry and other strange things...)

I have never encountered any breaking of styling/css, except with some specific addons (no-script, heavy dns blocking, ublock in hard mode...)

Not that I doub your claims, but if you have any example on hand I would be very open to give it a try and maybe learn something new in the web realm.

[–] naught@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I remember trying to style a range input slider a few years ago and it worked everywhere except firefox. I also had problems with the style of the recently (inverted colors, wrong font). Not a big deal, I still drive firefox daily, but there are idiosyncrasies

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Discrepancies between the two systems doesn't mean there necessarily is a certain number of websites that the average user wouldnt be able to use in Firefox.

You are talking from the creator viewpoint not the end user, thats way different.

[–] naught@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

All true! I suppose I replied to a comment saying sites were nonfunctional, but that's more extreme than what I mean. The only nonfunctional sites Ive read about are from hackernews threads talking about WebGPU.

[–] MiltownClowns@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (3 children)
[–] Daxtron2@startrek.website 11 points 1 month ago

Can you really consider yourself degoogled if you use a Chromecast??

[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Then have chromium installed for chromecast only and Firefox installed for normal browsing.

[–] MiltownClowns@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's what I do, just pointing out that it's factually incorrect to say there's no point to chromium. Everyone's just proselytizing, probably the same nerds who mock apple fanboys.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

Dont use chromecast

[–] JameUwU@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] Wildly_Utilize@infosec.pub 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] JameUwU@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago

GrayJay and CloudStream are the only two things that I'm aware of that support it yet. This is a very new application, it hasn't really officially launched yet.