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

71–80 of 120 posts

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

#71

Post by gorhill »

mintplant wrote: post #48
ssalazar wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I switched back to ABP when uBlock started universally blocking Sourceforge. I understand Sourceforge has engaged in a number of very shady practices lately, but I need Numpy for my job and I don't have time to work around nanny software.

Couldn't you have turned off uBlock for that site via the toolbar button?

One doesn't even need to turn off uBlock if one disagrees with the wholesome blocking of sourceforge.net: right in the warning page, uBlock Origin offers the user to remove temporarily or permanently the wholesome blocking for the site.

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

#72

Post by vxNsr »

9fb29947 wrote: post #36

I like how 10 years passes between comment 4 and 6 in Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=77999#c4

Also how casual comment 6, never mind that we've waited 10 years to look at this thing again, I've got a question.

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

#73

Post by ljk »

gorhill wrote: post #45
ljk wrote: post #14

Does anyone know if it's worth switching back from uBlock for?

I updated the benchmarks (I published first back in March) for Firefox 41 and Chromium 45. Results: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Firefox-version:-benc...

Thanks for the update, long time fan of uBlock Origin! Good to know it's still the fastest!

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

#74

Post by zingmars »

webwanderings wrote: post #46
nnethercote wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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…

Thanks for the data. As another uBlock user (who does not care about the split by the way) and as someone who is not a tech-bubble elite, I can tell you with much confidence, that there is no such thing as "ordinary users" when it comes to Adblocking.

I don't know man, plenty of people are fed up with ads (installing adblock isn't really technically challenging) and now there are plenty more non-tech people using adblock because of Apple.

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

#76

Post by nitrogen »

tempestn wrote: post #68
gkop wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

The most egregious site breakage from ad blockers is when sites can't handle the absence of their Adobe or Google JS. Some sites have large amounts of content that is only loaded via three levels of third-party-JS indirection. Others will try to fire an event to Google Analytics on every click, but if GA doesn't load, an error is thrown that prevents the click's default action.

I was making a $1000-range purchase on an ecommerce site that was utterly broken by my refusal to be tracked in intimate detail, and their product manager was basically, "eh." So I worked around it by catching the errors for them in the browser inspector. This is the type of breakage that site developers absolutely should be fixing.

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

#77

Post by nitrogen »

gorhill wrote: post #71
mintplant wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't you have turned off uBlock for that site via the toolbar button?

One doesn't even need to turn off uBlock if one disagrees with the wholesome blocking of sourceforge.net: right in the warning page, uBlock Origin offers the user to remove temporarily or permanently the wholesome blocking for the site.

An OT grammar note: if the sentence doesn't seem clear at first, it's possible "wholesome" should be "wholesale". I think.

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

#78

Post by PhasmaFelis »

zobzu wrote: post #62
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So what you're saying is that you don't have an answer to my question, but you're not going to let that stop you from replying.

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

#80

Post by slacka »

nnethercote wrote: post #59
euyyn wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 r…

Out of control memory bloat on vital apps like my stock trading platform forced me over to Chrome around the FF 4 days. Missing the great Add-ons, I returned to Firefox about a year ago, and can't believe the difference. The MemShrink team has done a fantastic job. Thank you!
Post reply on HN