I wonder this as well... considering uBO works the best in Firefox.
Chrome vs. Firefox vs. Edge in 2026 — Which Browser Should Home Users Trust?
- Thread starter Bot
- Start date
As I have already written to @LinuxFan58 , there are bureaucratic reasons for preferring Chrome to Firefox.
I prefer to access certain institutional websites in my country using Chrome rather than Firefox because it's less complicated.
And this is the main part that you abroad cannot understand.
With your Firefox, you will certainly have access to this website:
Inail.it | Home
because you have, almost certainly, left all Insecure Cipher Suites enabled.
I, on the other hand, have disabled them all and, as you can see, I cannot access it.
And for better security reasons, I prefer to access that website with Chrome.
Another reason is that I use uBoL to manage the dynamic filtering of my 9TLDs.
Well, while with Chrome I can see from the uBoL counter if a 3p-frames is blocked but I have to agree if I want to use the website, with uBoL installed in Firefox I can't see it because the counter is disabled.
So, in my personal case, the conclusion is that Chrome is better for compatibility with certain websites that I need to use, better for security, better for access, and better for usability.
Have I satisfied your curiosity?
Totally. The conclusion is everything works fine in Firefox, it's just that you disabled old cryptographic protocols some websites still use and by doing this broke those websites. And that's the reason why you prefer Chrome. And you prefer uBOL instead of full-fleged uBO. Gotcha!As I have already written to @LinuxFan58 , there are bureaucratic reasons for preferring Chrome to Firefox.
I prefer to access certain institutional websites in my country using Chrome rather than Firefox because it's less complicated.
And this is the main part that you abroad cannot understand.
With your Firefox, you will certainly have access to this website:
Inail.it | Home
View attachment 294971
because you have, almost certainly, left all Insecure Cipher Suites enabled.
I, on the other hand, have disabled them all and, as you can see, I cannot access it.
View attachment 294972
And for better security reasons, I prefer to access that website with Chrome.
Another reason is that I use uBoL to manage the dynamic filtering of my 9TLDs.
Well, while with Chrome I can see from the uBoL counter if a 3p-frames is blocked but I have to agree if I want to use the website, with uBoL installed in Firefox I can't see it because the counter is disabled.
So, in my personal case, the conclusion is that Chrome is better for compatibility with certain websites that I need to use, better for security, better for access, and better for usability.
Have I satisfied your curiosity?
Last edited:
I like using Brave and Firefox. I keep both installed and alternate between the two.
I don't prefer uBoL to uBo.
If you notice, both extensions are present in my screenshot.
I have already explained the reason for this several times.
Solved without disabling filtering in uBoL.
I added 1 generic exception + 1 specific exception in uBoL.
With FF, obviously, 1 more step.
Last edited:
View attachment 294956
about:config->urlclassifier.trackingSkipURLs->https://*.reddit.com/*,https://www.redditstatic.com/*
You use this setting:
Code:
about:config
urlclassifier.trackingAnnotationSkipURLswhich I will not use because it requires creating exceptions that are too broad for the various 3p frames inserted in the forum like this one:
Serious Discussion - Google Chrome Stable Channel Updates
Instead, I have to create exception rules in uBoL.
So, in my opinion, the best practice would be to disable anti-tracking protection in Firefox only temporarily in order to read, and then reactivate it.
Tracking on:
Tracking off:
Unfortunately, the uBoL counter in Firefox does not work and will not work because the API available in Chrome is missing in Firefox.
Therefore, I cannot detect when any 3rd party frames are blocked, unlike in Chrome.
Last edited:
Its still Netscape for me updated 20 years ago still OK
It had a major advantage when first released; history could be erased, which IE lacked.
F
ForgottenSeer 116559
Brave is my go-to. It was just in the last year that I decided the UX and performance satisfied me.
Compelling reasons:
Compelling reasons:
- timely Chromium updates—within 24 hours for minor/security updates, usually 1–7 days for major upgrades
- ultra-efficient adblocker that now supports uBO syntax
- heavily modified Chromium fork + Brave Shields pass the tests on PrivacyTests.org
- Group Policy allows you to disable unwanted features without a trace
My plan B if uBO fails to work anymore.
This is clear from your avatar
Market share apart, the choice of privacy-concerned users
Yes I am the lucky one who is offered a special test ride with experimental browser protection
Did not use Brave for a while; is it an official extension?
You may also like...
-
Browser vs. Third-Party Password Manager: Which Is Best For You?- Started by lokamoka820
- Replies: 24
-
Paid vs Free Antivirus in 2026: What are you using, and is it worth paying for?- Started by Bot
- Replies: 159
-
Bitdefender Total Security or Microsoft Defender — Who Wins for Everyday PC Users?
- Started by Bot
- Replies: 116