Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mozilla fixed a 14-year-old bug in Firefox, Adblock Plus uses less memory

venturebeat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 120 posts

Re: Mozilla fixed a 14-year-old bug in Firefox, Adblock Plus uses less memory

#61

Post by zobzu »

jtriangle wrote: post #10
disillusioned wrote: post #4

ABP memory usage in Chrome made me switch to router-level ad blocking. Added bonus: it works on mobile too. I have weird page renderings sometimes, and whitelisting a legit site is a pain, but it's overall a huge value to off-load the blocking to the router.

If you're not on your network and you're on android and you're rooted you can sideload adaway to get ad blocking everywhere, including app-based ads.

or just use firefox for android then, which also works with ublock origin anyway, and uses way less ram than chrome for android with and without ad blocking.

Re: Mozilla fixed a 14-year-old bug in Firefox, Adblock Plus uses less memory

#62

Post by zobzu »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #41
addicted wrote: post #11

I really prefer Ghostery. Gives a much better analysis of what's being blocked, with fine grain controls, and much nicer UI. I haven't measured the memory consumption, but I havent had any noticeable issues so far.

My one huge problem with Ghostery is that it doesn't appear to provide any way to pinpoint the source of an ad. I only want to block intrusive ad providers, but the only way to go from "see an annoying ad" to "block its provider" in Ghostery is to play trial-and-error with potentially dozens of different trackers, blocking and reloading one at a time until the offending ad goes away. In ABP, you could do this with a…

personally i dont wanna keep "acceptable ads" because I believe there is no such thing. its unsollicited and always in my face => its an ads, and it annoys me - and im not even going to buy the product behind it.

thus, i find ublock (for ex) much simpler to deal with than ghostery.

Re: Mozilla fixed a 14-year-old bug in Firefox, Adblock Plus uses less memory

#63

Post by CoffeeOnWrite »

gorhill wrote: post #44
ethana wrote: post #18

Earlier 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,…

> EasyList is maintained by ABP's parent company EasyList/EasyPrivacy are community-driven filter lists.[1] Whatever whitelisting in EasyList/EasyPrivacy is to address site breakage. Not addressing site breakage would lead to less people using these lists, and thus less people benefiting from the protection they offer (see graph at link below). The "acceptable ads" fitlers are in a separate list, which is not part of…

Honest question: is it really that difficult to make your site not broken by ad blockers?

(Your response worries me in that it is an exceptionally convenient argument for sloppy developers not to fix their sites)

Re: Mozilla fixed a 14-year-old bug in Firefox, Adblock Plus uses less memory

#64

Post by reitanqild »

thephyber wrote: post #56
reitanqild wrote: post #17

Hopefully 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.

Problem is it has been reported as a bug before but was dismissed as a feature.

Re: Mozilla fixed a 14-year-old bug in Firefox, Adblock Plus uses less memory

#65

Post by nnethercote »

karlshea wrote: post #60
nnethercote wrote: post #43

Earlier 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.

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 annoy…

Add-ons were certainly a big part of it. Firefox 15 fixed most of the add-on problems, see here: https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2012/07/19/firefox-15-p...

But there were plenty of other problems fixed too. See https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/category/memshrink/ for lots of details.

With that in mind, in the future perhaps you could think twice before posting snarky comments based on your experiences from five years ago.

Re: Mozilla fixed a 14-year-old bug in Firefox, Adblock Plus uses less memory

#66

Post by rcsorensen »

CoffeeOnWrite wrote: post #63
gorhill wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> EasyList is maintained by ABP's parent company EasyList/EasyPrivacy are community-driven filter lists.[1] Whatever whitelisting in EasyList/EasyPrivacy is to address site breakage. Not addressing site breakage would lead to less people using these lists, and thus less people benefiting from the protection they offer (see graph at link below). The "acceptable ads" fitlers are in a separate list, which is not part of…

Honest question: is it really that difficult to make your site not broken by ad blockers? (Your response worries me in that it is an exceptionally convenient argument for sloppy developers not to fix their sites)

Yes.

In the final analysis this question is equivalent to "Is it difficult to make a site that can have any piece of it fail to load or be removed at any time?" since website developers have no control over what may or may not make it onto the list of an adblocker.

Re: Mozilla fixed a 14-year-old bug in Firefox, Adblock Plus uses less memory

#67

Post by gkop »

rcsorensen wrote: post #66
CoffeeOnWrite wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question: is it really that difficult to make your site not broken by ad blockers? (Your response worries me in that it is an exceptionally convenient argument for sloppy developers not to fix their sites)

Yes. In the final analysis this question is equivalent to "Is it difficult to make a site that can have any piece of it fail to load or be removed at any time?" since website developers have no control over what may or may not make it onto the list of an adblocker.

JavaScript has had try/catch since forever though?

Re: Mozilla fixed a 14-year-old bug in Firefox, Adblock Plus uses less memory

#68

Post by tempestn »

gkop wrote: post #67
rcsorensen wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. In the final analysis this question is equivalent to "Is it difficult to make a site that can have any piece of it fail to load or be removed at any time?" since website developers have no control over what may or may not make it onto the list of an adblocker.

JavaScript has had try/catch since forever though?

Ad blockers don't just block third party things though. Or even necessarily sane things. Our site is a classified ad aggregator. At the time at least, we learned that Adblock Plus would just blithely delete any element with 'ad' as part of its class. (A major section of our results page had the class 'ad block' (ironically) and was blocked.)

Yes, these things can be worked around, but not every site maintainer will bother. (Especially since those adblock users likely don't earn them any direct revenue.)

Re: Mozilla fixed a 14-year-old bug in Firefox, Adblock Plus uses less memory

#69

Post by frankacter »

WatchDog wrote: post #37
AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #5

Great for everyone still using Adblock Plus. The rest of us switched to uBlock Origin and never looked back.

I tried out ublock, didn’t seem to work on twitch.tv and a couple of other random things. So I moved back to ABP.

ensure you are using uBlock Origin, not just uBlock.
Post reply on HN