3 ms·
The adblocking/script-blocking capabilities (described in #9 and #10 in their FAQ: https://qutebrowser.org/doc/faq.html https://qutebrowser.org/doc/faq.html) ar
by Deimorz 7y ago
The adblocking/script-blocking capabilities (described in #9 and #10 in their FAQ: https://qutebrowser.org/doc/faq.html https://qutebrowser.org/doc/faq.html) are extremely weak and inconvenient (and their claim about the negative impact of adblocking is outright false).
Those are probably the two most important capabilities for security, so the lack of them definitely means I'd never want to use it for general browsing. I'd much rather deal with weaker keybinds than sacrifice that much on the security and privacy side.
- danShumway 7y agoI know it's a pain for new browsers to support, but I can't imagine myself running any browser right now (even experimentally) that can't install UMatrix and UBlock Origin. If you want me to try out your browser, you have to support the WebExtension API -- you can support other APIs in addition to that, but WebExtensions are a minimum requirement. I guess Chromium doesn't bundle them, so it's harder for smaller browsers to add the same capabilities? I'm not sure how Vivaldi and Brave handle it.
- The-Compiler 7y agoThere's https://gitlab.com/jgkamat/jmatrix https://gitlab.com/jgkamat/jmatrix https://gitlab.com/jgkamat/jblock https://gitlab.com/jgkamat/jblock and https://gitlab.com/jgkamat/jhide https://gitlab.com/jgkamat/jhide - not the real thing™ but probably coming close. Supporting WebExtensions isn't possible without QtWebEngine (the library qutebrowser uses) doing so. That might happen some day, but will probably still take a while.
- michaelmrose 7y agoIt's easier to claim that a real adblocker is a net negative for performance while implementing in a slow language than admit that they can't realistically do better this decade due to the complexity of the task and the fact that it's basically one guy's part time project.