3 ms·
My recall is the arguments were as much about performance as security. DNR was complaining that some sites would do bad things during processing & be slow. So,
by jauntywundrkind 2y ago
My recall is the arguments were as much about performance as security. DNR was complaining that some sites would do bad things during processing & be slow. So, oh, sorry, no one gets features.
It's interesting to see the comparison list of ublock origin vs lite, V2 vs v3/DNR. Has DNR improved what it offers in any marked way since initially "proposed". https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)#filtering-capabilities-which-cant-be-ported-to-mv3 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...
- orf 2y agoIf we take WASM as an example, you could strictly bound the number of instructions executed for a given request in order to keep things performant. I’m not clear on what “bad things” they wheee imagining though?
- matheusmoreira 2y agoHonestly, Google is not even wrong to push this. I absolutely want to minimize the amount of untrusted arbitrary code the browser is executing. It just happens that uBlock Origin is so important and trusted it should be an exception. Those nifty declarative manifest rules should apply to all extensions except uBlock Origin. Actually uBlock Origin should get even deeper access to the browser than it already has. Truth is software like uBlock Origin should be literally integrated into the browser itself. Just like how every browser contains pop up blockers, they should have extensive content filtering capabilities. The only reason this is not the case is the inherent conflict of interest in an ad company maintaining an ad blocker.