4 ms·
Most tech people now seem to use uBlock Origin. But I use uMatrix (from the same developer) and I am super happy with it. It took me a minute or so to understan
by TekMol 9y ago
Most tech people now seem to use uBlock Origin. But I use uMatrix (from the same developer) and I am super happy with it. It took me a minute or so to understand the interface. But then it is super intuitive and exactly the way I would have designed it myself.
Since I only allow the hosts that I need, I almost never see advertising. And the web is blazingly fast.
- interfixus 9y agoNot a thing! It's all you need.
- gourou 9y agoHas it got an easy way to unblock elements? Going through the every request in the logger using uBlock is pretty tedious.
- nerdponx 9y agoIt's rare to enter a filter in rule by hand in uMatrix in the first place, so you just go to the matrix and switch the box from red to green. I actually just switched from uMatrix back to uBlock Origin, because uBlock makes it easier to block individual JavaScript files, rather than blocking JS wholesale.
- bmn__ 9y agoThe matrix functionality is available in uBlock Origin, no need to install both. Simply enable advanced mode.
- ilikepi 9y agoThe matrix (and its corresponding rules syntax) in uBlock Origin is not as powerful as in uMatrix. In uBO, you can specify how to handle traffic between two origins. You can also choose which type(s) of content can be loaded from a particular origin. However, you cannot specify both at once. For example, you can't create a rule in uBO to allow only image requests from google.com to googleusercontent.com. The uMatrix rule syntax can do this, and the matrix UI does provide this capability. EDIT: formatting, typo
- narag 9y agothank you, i'm going to try it
- rvern 9y ago> For example, you can't create a rule in uBO to allow only image requests from google.com to googleusercontent.com. Sure you can: google.com googleusercontent.com image block See https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering:-rule-syntax https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering:-ru.... The only reason you'd use uMatrix is if you create rules that can't be done with the matrix frequently enough.
- ilikepi 9y agoThat doesn't work for me. If I enter that rule into the "My rules" editor, and click the "Save" button, the rule is immediately deleted. Also, the documentation you link to entirely confirms my assertion that you cannot combine type-based and hostname-based rules. For example: Note that with type-based rules, the destination hostname is always *, meaning "from anywhere".
- rvern 9y agoOops. I was wrong.
- zerr 9y agoWhat about Ghostery?
- d3sandoval 9y agoDepends on your opinion of this decision: https://adexchanger.com/data-exchanges/ghostery-sheds-ad-tracker-sells-off-plug-focus-compliance/ https://adexchanger.com/data-exchanges/ghostery-sheds-ad-tra...
- addicted 9y agoSounds like getting acquired by a privacy focused browser makes them even more reliable now.
- j_s 9y agoThanks, I hadn't heard about this. Per https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1406647 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1406647 where Firefox is tying in with Cliqz: > Cliqz is a well-known Adware from Germany[1] and it was a plague Not sure what data Ghostery is collecting now, or how opt-in vs. opt-out has changed (if at all), but it looks like based on the reputation of the new owners I will no longer be using it. Edit: the small HN discussion seems to cover this a bit more evenhandedly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13652126 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13652126
- Lev1a 9y agoIIRC they have the same problem as ABP, i.e. selling out their users.
- cmh1729 9y agoI prefer privacy badger in the same space, if nothing else than because it's backed by the eff.
- ship_it 9y agoSold out same as ADB. Use EFFs Privacy Badger[1] [1] https://www.eff.org/privacybadger https://www.eff.org/privacybadger