gorhill

59 ms·

541.
Show HN: Where Adblock+ injects 20K CSS rules, HTTPSB injects one(github.com)
221 points by gorhill 12y ago|178 comments
542.
by gorhill 12y ago
It's not easy to try to fit new code in old code, I empathize completely with that. This is where I was at an advantage, I was writing new code to fit with new code. There are ideas though that were keys to performance breakthrough
543.
by gorhill 12y ago
I did enter an issue 6 months ago to make it color-blind friendly: https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard/issues/52 I know nothing about color-blindness though, so I will need the input of color-blind peo
544.
by gorhill 12y ago
It all depends how you use HTTPSB, I can't decide for you. For one thing, HTTPSB doesn't hide DOM elements (I consider this out of its primary purpose), so if you still want this feature, you will have to keep ABP (or whatever equ
545.
by gorhill 12y ago
"Restore" from About tab. The "Restore" in the Scoped rules tab is to import/export rules only. In the About tab, it is to restore all settings.
546.
by gorhill 12y ago
Whitelist the "cookie" cell in the matrix, save with one click on the padlock. Now cookies will be allowed everywhere by default (except for those ubiquitously blacklisted hostnames).
547.
by gorhill 12y ago
All changes to the matrix are temporary by default. Click the padlock to make them permanent. At first, this might be annoying (though it is just one-click to make it permanent), but once you have all your rules for your usual sites, it&#x2
548.
by gorhill 12y ago
I am not aware of any problem which resemble this. You are talking about HTTP Switchboard here?
549.
by gorhill 12y ago
Well, there is a browser setting to disable that feature. But in any case, the extension can block "behind-the-scene" requests if a user choose to: https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard/wiki/Beh
550.
by gorhill 12y ago
You can set it up anywhere between blocking everything to blocking nothing. I do have a couple of set up files to help people get started, here: https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard/tree/master/stuf
551.
by gorhill 12y ago
Ok, I just created a setup file which you can restore from the About page which focus can be said to be "ad blocking": https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard/blob/master/stuff... I select
552.
by gorhill 12y ago
Regarding ABP, there are two kind of filters, the net request filters and the DOM content filters. The net request filters do prevent net requests from being made.
553.
by gorhill 12y ago
You can select a "scope" (top-left cell in the popup) which will tells where the rules apply. You can set it to automatically create a temporary domain-level scope when landing on a web page (in Settings tab), and if you select
554.
by gorhill 12y ago
I will enter your comment in issue #184, so I can keep it in mind. I think this is a good idea.
555.
by gorhill 12y ago
Issue #86: https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard/issues/86 Would be nice if someone forked and start to adapt to Firefox. I would of course work in concert as this would allow to identify parts of the co
556.
by gorhill 12y ago
It doesn't yet. I should enter an issue for this. Someone else at some point asked for a pull request for keyboard shortcuts (and other stuff), but at the time I thought that the extension wasn't stable enough feature-wise, and I
557.
by gorhill 12y ago
There is an API which can reliably block net requests: https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/webRequest I think it has been available as a mainstream API since early 2012 (Chromium 17).
558.
by gorhill 12y ago
It's not just memory overhead, it is also CPU overhead. One approach is to write the filtering engine from scratch. It is what I did, without looking at ABP's code beforehand in order to ensure a clean slate mind. I didn't ge
559.
by gorhill 12y ago
RequestPolicy is not available for Chromium. In any case, HTTP Switchboard can be configured to mimic how RequestPolicy function[1], but really these benchmarks are time-consuming and I have to limit the amount of extensions I benchmark. [1
560.
by gorhill 12y ago
How many entries is "large"? (just curious, to relate to something I wrote based on host files).
561.
by gorhill 12y ago
I saw this. I want to understand why. I am looking for a disclosure of this, and the purpose.
562.
by gorhill 12y ago
I really did try to find information on getadblock.com about this `userid` sent to `ping.getadblock.com` (along with browser/OS info) but I couldn't find anything. I would expect some kind of disclosure to inform users of why this
563.
by gorhill 12y ago
> There's no API in Chrome and Safari to prevent network requests Wrong (for Chromium-based browsers). I am genuinely curious about how you came to believe this. Trying to understand how come that myth is still so spread. Here, the
564.
by gorhill 12y ago
I question the snarkiness of his comment. I want to understand why he thinks it is silly to question the requirement to agree to the permission.
565.
by gorhill 12y ago
You say this as if it is silly to ask why such an app needs write-access to the USB storage. Why do you think it is not a legitimate question?
566.
by gorhill 12y ago
I thought a bit more about the incompatibility, and it's not an all or nothing situation. In the case of HTTPSB (can't speak for other extensions), installing Privacy Badger after will likely break some specific privacy-related
567.
by gorhill 12y ago
It's the number of distinct "3rd-party" domain names reached on average for the 15 visited web pages. So in the case of Disconnect, for the 15 URL visited, on average 93 "3rd-party" domains were touched. The web pag
568.
by gorhill 12y ago
I see, so this means results for Privacy Badger reflect a worst-case scenario. I've added links to the proper section in the Privacy Badger's README file.
569.
by gorhill 12y ago
Yes, it has been said that it's more for advanced users. I've been trying to mitigate this with presets, recipes, etc. but still I understand and accept that it's not for everybody. I usually ask people to at least read this
570.
by gorhill 12y ago
As part of my project, I like to benchmark regularly privacy enhancing extensions ("blockers") for Chromium-based browsers. So I took the opportunity to run one of my key benchmark this morning. [1] The results are meant for a git

More ›