6 ms·

"uBOL is entirely declarative, meaning there is no need for a permanent uBOL process for the filtering to occur, and CSS/JS injection-based content filtering is

"uBOL is entirely declarative, meaning there is no need for a permanent uBOL process for the filtering to occur, and CSS/JS injection-based content filtering is performed reliably by the browser itself rather than by the extension."

Macha 3y ago
So this is basically the manifest v3 version for Chrome, ported to Firefox?
- input_sh 3y ago
  > MV3-based content blocker Yes.
  - devit 3y ago
    I assume Firefox doesn't have Chrome's arbitrary limit on the number of filtering rules, right?
    - input_sh 3y ago
      I do know that Firefox has no plans to deprecate webRequests API (that the non-lite version depends on), while also supporting declarativeNetRequest (that the lite version depends on) for compatibility. What I don't know is: 1) whether their implementation of declarativeNetRequest has that arbitrary limitation 2) whether uBO Lite ships the same (limited) filters in the Firefox release. I'm guessing 2) is true for simplicity, but that's purely a guess.
      - eco 3y ago
        While I was trying to find out what Firefox's limits are I came across this interesting issue on the W3C's webextensions repo: https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/319 https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/319 4 days ago the Chromium developers proposed upping the limit for certain types of declarativeNetRequest rules based on data AdGuard provided on real world rule lists. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1srkkCJkl4X2KOOUwnpDd-kvm8AY70eZBAYI4m836bvQ/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/document/d/1srkkCJkl4X2KOOUwnpDd-kvm...
- Timshel 3y ago
  With the ability to whitelist domain to have full blocking.
tyingq 3y ago
"hence its limited capabilities out of the box compared to uBlock Origin"
nextaccountic 3y ago
Does this mean that uBOL is less capable and can't block certain ads? Is this expected to be eventually remedied?
- Macha 3y ago
  I don't believe the full version is planned to be replaced by this one. I think this is basically since they did the work to get this version that would work in Chrome after they reduce the permissions available to adblockers, they just launched it for firefox too in case anyone is really bothered by ublock's permissions.
- dblohm7 3y ago
  The fully-capable version is regular uBlock Origin.
- Larrikin 3y ago
  The remedy is to switch to Firefox and continue using the extensions that aren't being broken on purpose by a company abusing their monopoly position. But there will be a bunch of posts in this thread about people bemoaning Firefox because they have to have thousands of tabs open all at once everyday and Firefox renders them a second or two slower. There will also be people who will complain that the dev tools aren't exactly like what they learned in college/their boot camp so they can't spend dozens of minutes learning the Firefox tools so they can make their CRUD SPA can load megabytes of JSON outside of Chrome
  - AshamedCaptain 3y ago
    I don't particularly blame Mozilla/Firefox for this but it is obvious to me the writing is on the wall for the "non-lite" version of the extension, due to Chrome stealing all the manpower towards the lite version. The fact that the author is now publishing the "lite" extension also for Firefox itself looks as confirmation to me. The author's description even seems to praise Manifest v3 in the same way Google PR did. Who wouldn't? It's one less version to maintain, and you're not going to stop maintaining the one most people use.
pottertheotter 3y ago
I have a question about this. The page says that uBOL has "limited capabilities out of the box" due to it "not [requiring] broad 'read and modify data' permission". But you can give it broad permission ("Complete mode"). Does that mean that if someone uses uBOL in Complete mode (a) it will have the same capabilities as uBO", and (b) it will use less resources than uBOL (no permanent process)?
- eipi10_hn 3y ago
  (a) No, uBOL will still have many missing capabilities comparing uBO even in full mode, more prone to anti-adblock/ads-reinsertion (problems with `redirect-rule` and unable to fast updates) and ads/trackers/popups can slip through if cannot be caught by regex filters.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Macha 3y ago

So this is basically the manifest v3 version for Chrome, ported to Firefox?

input_sh 3y ago
> MV3-based content blocker Yes.
- devit 3y ago
  I assume Firefox doesn't have Chrome's arbitrary limit on the number of filtering rules, right?
  - input_sh 3y ago
    I do know that Firefox has no plans to deprecate webRequests API (that the non-lite version depends on), while also supporting declarativeNetRequest (that the lite version depends on) for compatibility. What I don't know is: 1) whether their implementation of declarativeNetRequest has that arbitrary limitation 2) whether uBO Lite ships the same (limited) filters in the Firefox release. I'm guessing 2) is true for simplicity, but that's purely a guess.
    - eco 3y ago
      While I was trying to find out what Firefox's limits are I came across this interesting issue on the W3C's webextensions repo: https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/319 https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/319 4 days ago the Chromium developers proposed upping the limit for certain types of declarativeNetRequest rules based on data AdGuard provided on real world rule lists. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1srkkCJkl4X2KOOUwnpDd-kvm8AY70eZBAYI4m836bvQ/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/document/d/1srkkCJkl4X2KOOUwnpDd-kvm...
Timshel 3y ago
With the ability to whitelist domain to have full blocking.

tyingq 3y ago

"hence its limited capabilities out of the box compared to uBlock Origin"

nextaccountic 3y ago

Does this mean that uBOL is less capable and can't block certain ads? Is this expected to be eventually remedied?

Macha 3y ago
I don't believe the full version is planned to be replaced by this one. I think this is basically since they did the work to get this version that would work in Chrome after they reduce the permissions available to adblockers, they just launched it for firefox too in case anyone is really bothered by ublock's permissions.
dblohm7 3y ago
The fully-capable version is regular uBlock Origin.
Larrikin 3y ago
The remedy is to switch to Firefox and continue using the extensions that aren't being broken on purpose by a company abusing their monopoly position. But there will be a bunch of posts in this thread about people bemoaning Firefox because they have to have thousands of tabs open all at once everyday and Firefox renders them a second or two slower. There will also be people who will complain that the dev tools aren't exactly like what they learned in college/their boot camp so they can't spend dozens of minutes learning the Firefox tools so they can make their CRUD SPA can load megabytes of JSON outside of Chrome
- AshamedCaptain 3y ago
  I don't particularly blame Mozilla/Firefox for this but it is obvious to me the writing is on the wall for the "non-lite" version of the extension, due to Chrome stealing all the manpower towards the lite version. The fact that the author is now publishing the "lite" extension also for Firefox itself looks as confirmation to me. The author's description even seems to praise Manifest v3 in the same way Google PR did. Who wouldn't? It's one less version to maintain, and you're not going to stop maintaining the one most people use.

pottertheotter 3y ago

I have a question about this. The page says that uBOL has "limited capabilities out of the box" due to it "not [requiring] broad 'read and modify data' permission". But you can give it broad permission ("Complete mode"). Does that mean that if someone uses uBOL in Complete mode (a) it will have the same capabilities as uBO", and (b) it will use less resources than uBOL (no permanent process)?

eipi10_hn 3y ago
(a) No, uBOL will still have many missing capabilities comparing uBO even in full mode, more prone to anti-adblock/ads-reinsertion (problems with `redirect-rule` and unable to fast updates) and ads/trackers/popups can slip through if cannot be caught by regex filters.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]