Does it have a benefit on something else than ABP?
Mozilla fixed a 14-year-old bug in Firefox, Adblock Plus uses less memory
51–60 of 120 posts
Re: Mozilla fixed a 14-year-old bug in Firefox, Adblock Plus uses less memory
#52Great for everyone still using Adblock Plus. The rest of us switched to uBlock Origin and never looked back.
[Here's a comment that I made on this topic on my blog back when this was discussed in July, which is still relevant. The numbers have probably changed a bit, but I doubt enough to affect my point. (The link is https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2015/07/01/firefox-41-w... ).] I’ve seen variations on this comment many times in discussions of this post. It’s totally wrong-headed. Here are the usage stats for these ad…
Adblock Edge also still has 0.71 million daily users despite the fact that it is no longer maintained. (The maintainers recommend uBlock Origin instead.) That's more than all of the uBlock add-ons combined.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-edge/...
Re: Mozilla fixed a 14-year-old bug in Firefox, Adblock Plus uses less memory
#53Not really a bug, more of an enhancement.
This is Mozilla jargon. Anything that is tracked in Bugzilla is a "bug". I've opened bug in Bugzilla to change the chair at my desk, for example (I work at Mozilla).
> Status: RESOLVED, VERIFIED, CLOSED Content: chair
> Zarro Boogs found.
I don't know what I expected -- there's no "Other > Desk furniture" in the products list of the public Bugzilla....
Re: Mozilla fixed a 14-year-old bug in Firefox, Adblock Plus uses less memory
#54Does it have a benefit on something else than ABP?
There are minor benefits without ABP. For each page/iframe that is created, we can avoid running the CSS cascade (and share those data structures) for the UA style sheets. It's saves something like 100 KiB per document.
If other add-ons insert a common style sheet into all documents (it's plausible Stylish does something like this? though I've never checked) then we'll again be able to avoid running the cascade and having duplicate data structures for the cascade across different documents.
Re: Mozilla fixed a 14-year-old bug in Firefox, Adblock Plus uses less memory
#55Great for everyone still using Adblock Plus. The rest of us switched to uBlock Origin and never looked back.
I use alternate host files.
Re: Mozilla fixed a 14-year-old bug in Firefox, Adblock Plus uses less memory
#56Hopefully they could also get around to fix the usability bug where the back button on the right click menu disappear if anything is selected...
Mozilla is a non-profit organization who supports an open source browser for free.
It's not entirely out of the question for people on HackerNews complaining about Firefox features to think about submitting patches.
Re: Mozilla fixed a 14-year-old bug in Firefox, Adblock Plus uses less memory
#57Great for everyone still using Adblock Plus. The rest of us switched to uBlock Origin and never looked back.
Do you have any tips for performance. I use chrome and ublock, umatrix and disconnect. Disconnect is a few second penalty but worth it for a free proxy. However, I am not sure whether ublock runs before uMatrix, or how much that matters. I was hoping to find a few great regex heuristics to speed things up and procide better blocking. I personally don't use 3rd party block by default because honestly why bother, sites…
uBlock can use disconnect's filter lists, its in the options. I'm not sure why you think disconnect is giving you a "free proxy", that doesn't seem to be a feature.
Re: Mozilla fixed a 14-year-old bug in Firefox, Adblock Plus uses less memory
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
What people doesn't know is that uBlock makes use of EasyList as one of its default block lists. EasyList is maintained by ABP's parent company. That list itself has built-in whitelist that could not be turn off without revamping the list itself. That list contains upward of 60k of rules and no one has time to evaluate that for free. uBlock can make all kind of independence claims it wants, but at the end of the day,…
Not sure why you're being downvoted. Seems like an entirely reasonable comment to me.
Because while some of the facts are true, most are are not and are baseless speculation. As it stands, the "acceptable ads" list is not in uBlock Origin.
Re: Mozilla fixed a 14-year-old bug in Firefox, Adblock Plus uses less memory
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox's memory usage is much better than it used to be, thanks to the MemShrink project ( https://wiki.mozilla.org/Performance/MemShrink ). Judging from sites like Hacker News, more people have trouble with memory usage on Chrome than on Firefox these days, and the same is true of performance in general. YMMV, but it might be worth trying Firefox again.
> more people have trouble with memory usage on Chrome than on Firefox these days Maybe it's just that Chrome has more users.
That could be part of it, yes.
But the general sentiment four years ago, when I started MemShrink, was very clear that Firefox's memory usage was a problem. Every discussion thread about browsers on this very site would degenerate at some point into discussion about Firefox's memory usage. (Indeed, this was a big part of why I started MemShrink.)
That's no longer true. Comments about Firefox's memory usage are much rarer now. And when somebody does say that Firefox has bad memory usage, more often than not they'll get pushback from other commenters who have a different experience. Not to say that they're wrong or Firefox is perfect, but the situation is so much better than it used to be, particular when it comes to avoiding the bad memory spikes that cause the worst problems.
Re: Mozilla fixed a 14-year-old bug in Firefox, Adblock Plus uses less memory
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just like Mozilla's pedantry about what's a "memory leak" that let me to ditch Firefox for Chrome years ago.
Firefox's memory usage is much better than it used to be, thanks to the MemShrink project ( https://wiki.mozilla.org/Performance/MemShrink ). Judging from sites like Hacker News, more people have trouble with memory usage on Chrome than on Firefox these days, and the same is true of performance in general. YMMV, but it might be worth trying Firefox again.
I switched to Chrome about 6 months before MemShrink, right around the time everyone from Mozilla kept blaming addons for memory problems and saying there wasn't a problem with Firefox. When the MemShrink project was announced I just laughed.
I've got it installed for development and I have no complaints, but now that I've got Chrome set up for syncing and all that it's just become my default. I'm sure I'll get annoyed at Chrome at some point and switch back.