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

81–90 of 120 posts

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

#81

Post by witty_username »

unKlever wrote: post #13
AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #5

Great 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…

use tor, the latency is pretty low (at most it adds 500 ms)

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

#82

Post by josteink »

logn wrote: post #70
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

And this comment should be a classic: Peter 2001-12-01 13:07:33 PST Will this really land by Dec 11?

Developers are an optimistic breed. Hard bug to fix :)

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

#83

Post by ajuc »

nandhp wrote: post #53
padenot wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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....

WONTFIX, WORKSFORME

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

#84

Post by iSnow »

heycam wrote: post #54
kzrdude wrote: post #51

Does 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 h…

I just wanted to take the time to thank you for fixing that bug. Since I keep dozens of tabs open all the time, the memory consumption of FF has caused me a lot of pain (the browser gets really slow if it crosses 2.5GB real RAM consumption).

So, you just made my life better, thanks :)

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

#85

Post by tdkl »

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...

Any info on Adblock Fast[1] ? They advertise as being lightweight with only 7 rules and I wonder how they compare to uBlock Origin (I'd still choose Origin because of the customization options).

[1] http://adblockfast.com/

And thank you for making browsing the Internet awesome.

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

#86

Post by zo1 »

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 install AdBlock plus on all my family member's machines. That, and I also install NoScript.

They're ordinary users, and they use adblocking without even knowing it.

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

#87

Post by creshal »

zurn wrote: post #75

I don't see any percentage-wise memory savings in the article or here in comments. How big a difference does a couple of MB per document make?

Depends on how many tabs you have, and how many iframes etc. each tab contains.

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

#88

Post by onli »

zo1 wrote: post #86
webwanderings wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 install AdBlock plus on all my family member's machines. That, and I also install NoScript. They're ordinary users, and they use adblocking without even knowing it.

Noscript? It is a bold move to break more than half of the internet for them. Did they learn to use the Noscript-menu when something does not work?

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

#89

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#90

Post by look_lookatme »

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)

You expect people to go out of their way to support ad blockers???
Post reply on HN