6 ms·
There have been many good reasons to switch to uBlock Origin long before today's issue: speed, memory footprint, no "acceptable ads", etc. I don't know why any
by magduf 8y ago
There have been many good reasons to switch to uBlock Origin long before today's issue: speed, memory footprint, no "acceptable ads", etc. I don't know why anyone still uses ABP.
- ebg13 8y agouBlock Origin for Safari has been abandoned for about a year. :\
- lostmsu 8y agoIt is open source. You can probably make it work with a single git merge (judging from experience with uMatrix for Edge).
- hombre_fatal 8y agoSafari's (Webkit's) content blockers are even better imo. Declarative rules that get compiled. Can't intercept arbitrary requests with Javascript logic but I don't think that's necessary. Though it makes something like uMatrix harder to implement.
- kevin_thibedeau 8y agoThere's still a need for something like the element zapper which can remove obstructing popups that aren't implemented in Javascript.
- hombre_fatal 8y agoThough you can implement this with the content blocker API. You add a rule to the rule list and recompile it, though it does come at the expense of UX and flexibility for sure.
- stephenr 8y agoWhich has been a part of Content Blockers since day 1.
- ameshkov 8y agoSafari content blocking API is abandoned since 2015 when it was introduced. It simply does not allow using advanced blocking techniques which were developed by Chrome/FF blockers during these years. It might be enough to handle most of the ads at the moment, but it fails miserably when a website uses any adblock circumvention.
- hombre_fatal 8y agoAt the same time, I merely will not use a website that is so hostile nor do I regularly encounter websites like that. uBlock Origin breaks in this way as well, and the only website I can even recall with this behavior was a shady movie-streaming site I was linked to. What do you mean by abandoned? I use it and it works for me daily.
- ameshkov 8y agoAdblock circumvention is a technique when a website reinjects and encrypts the ads when it detects that they were blocked. Kinda like what Facebook does. Most of the changes and improvements to modern ad blockers are to deal with this kind of ads. Not in Safari, though. Webkit devs did nothing to improve or extend the content blocking API. Not to say that it still imposes the ridiculous rules limitation - you can't have more than 50k rules in a list (while Easylist alone has more than 80k).
- scarface74 8y agoThat’s an easy one to get around. 1Blocker X has 10 sets of rules.
- hombre_fatal 8y agoI'm not sure what misunderstanding you think I have with regard to adblock circumvention. I can appreciate that uBlock Origin wants to be a universal condom that works on every website for everyone, but I also don't think it's so damning if the content blocker API is sufficient for that. Yet uBlock Origin and its rule lists still fail at this task as well. A website can do any number of annoying things that uBlock Origin cannot block including things that aren't even related to ads. I simply refuse to use such websites. In fact, I want to know that a website does these things rather than remain in blissful ignorance. I don't want to support such a website even with my viewership. I've built content blockers. The rule limit is circumvented by simply bundling multiple rule lists. Also, 80% of Easylist is crap anyways. The problem with Easylist and things like it is that they become append-only lists because nobody wants to go back and verify that rules still apply. Not to mention all the site-specific rules for sites you'll never visit because it was someone's random hobby horse. But you can absolutely encode Easylist across two content blocker extensions bundled in one app. But in doing so, you'll also realize how easy it is to prune so that it fits in one rule list, there are so many rules for garbage sites.
- fredsir 8y agoI wish there was something like uMatrix for Safari but using content blockers. Would really scratch an itch for me.
- bad_user 8y agoSafari’d content blockers are next to useless. Safari is really easy to beat by anti-ad-blocking technology, the only reason for why more publishers won’t do it is because they don’t want to piss off people, but as the minority of people using ad-blockers grows, they’ll get over that fear. Also FYI injecting scripts in webpages is the only way to prevent anti-ad-blocking from working.
- angott 8y agoIt's mostly a marketing issue in my opinion. ABP was the first ad-blocker to enter the mainstream market back during the Firefox days, and they had virtually no competition for half a decade, before the entire Acceptable Ads controversy. I think unfortunately there is still a significant number of users who just associate "AdBlock == AdBlock Plus".
- gorhill 8y ago> a significant number of users who just associate "AdBlock == AdBlock Plus" AdBlock uses Adblock Plus filtering engine internally and also supports and enables "Acceptable Ads" by default: > AdBlock is a popular ad blocking extension for Chrome, Opera and Safari, now based on the Adblock Plus code.[1] * * * [1] https://github.com/betafish-inc/adblock-releases https://github.com/betafish-inc/adblock-releases
- angott 8y agoOh, sorry, I was not referring to specifically that AdBlock extension. I wanted to say that users just associate "adblocking extension = AdBlock Plus".
- gorhill 8y agoAh I see, never mind then; and in that case I do agree with your comment.
- brian_herman__ 8y agoLove ur work with origin
- shpx 8y agoAny chance you're going to get the uBlock name back? Explaining the story every time I tell someone to switch to uBlock Origin is annoying.
- ryanchoi 8y ago
- smacktoward 8y agoThere were a lot of people telling others to use AdBlock Plus for a long time, and once a bit of advice like that gets lodged in the public consciousness, it's next to impossible to extract it. I still run into Windows users who still think they need to install WinZip to open ZIP files, for instance, even though Windows has come with ZIP handling built in to its file explorer ever since Windows XP. This is why brands have immense value.
- behringer 8y agoAlso antivirus is the same way. Windows AV is perfectly acceptable for many normal use cases, but people still think they need free AV alternatives like AVG.
- wingworks 8y agoOr horrible (in my opinion) paid solutions like McAfee...
- magduf 8y ago>Or horrible (in my opinion) paid solutions like McAfee... It's not just your opinion. Mr. John McAfee himself, the guy who started the company and whose name it still bears, has publicly stated that McAfee software is "the worst software on the planet"! If that isn't enough for people to avoid a brand name, then I don't know what is. But apparently, countless businesses are so clueless they keep using McAfee software even though its own founder says it's trash.
- GrinningFool 8y ago> Windows has come with ZIP handling built in to its file explorer ever since Windows XP. Although it's been molasses-slow in comparison to 3rd party tools since that time as well.
- smacktoward 8y agoTrue, but it's Good Enough for most people, who only deal with ZIP files infrequently and generally only ever encounter relatively small ones. When I talk to these folks and probe why they think they need WinZip, they never say "oh, I was trying to uncompress a 7GB file the other day in Explorer and it took forever." They say "I'm on Windows, and this is a Zip, therefore I need WinZip." They're usually genuinely surprised to find out that this is something Windows can do all by itself.
- dorgo 8y agoI use ublock in advanced mode ( broken web by default + white lists ). I have no experience with the non-expert mode and for this reason tend to recommend / install ABP to friends / family. Somehow, my intuition is that ublock is too advanced/complex for non-tech-affine users.
- woodrowbarlow 8y agoi use ublock origin with default settings and the end-user browsing experience the same as ABP. click install and never touch it again.