yup, it's totally fixed now https://i.imgur.com/tnys5oB.png
PEBKAC in your case?
Mozilla fixed a 14-year-old bug in Firefox, Adblock Plus uses less memory
91–100 of 120 posts
Re: Mozilla fixed a 14-year-old bug in Firefox, Adblock Plus uses less memory
#92Earlier 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)
You expect people to go out of their way to support ad blockers???
Do you want your shop to work despite people blocking the tracking? Do you want to sell stuff in your shop or did you build it to track people?
Ad blockers don't just block ads.
Re: Mozilla fixed a 14-year-old bug in Firefox, Adblock Plus uses less memory
#93I honestly use use Ghostery which blocks all trackers. It prevents a lot of ads from loading/working because they often have to redirect to serve me the right one (which Ghostry prevents). Waaay less of a resource suck.
Re: Mozilla fixed a 14-year-old bug in Firefox, Adblock Plus uses less memory
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 :)
Cheers!
Re: Mozilla fixed a 14-year-old bug in Firefox, Adblock Plus uses less memory
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's snake oil. The 7 rules are 7 lines of many many rules. Stay clear of anyone making such misleading marketing claims!
Re: Mozilla fixed a 14-year-old bug in Firefox, Adblock Plus uses less memory
#96ABP 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.
Do you have any documentation on this? It's something I've been interested in setting up.
That depends completely on the router software that you use.
You will need to use a custom firmware like dd-wrt, tomato, openWRT, etcetera.
I run it here on tomato and use something similar to: http://www.linksysinfo.org/index.php?threads/auto-dl-hosts-f...
Re: Mozilla fixed a 14-year-old bug in Firefox, Adblock Plus uses less memory
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, that's quite weird. Not just the back button but refresh, bookmark (star icon), Save Page As ... As I type this comment, I'm noticing that you get almost this same reduced context menu when you right click on the edit box (with additional items like Paste and Check Spelling). Maybe the intent is that you don't unintentionally reload the page or back out when you're selecting. But then Backspace will navigate bac…
It's been that way in Firefox for as long as I can remember (user since Firefox started). I believe the actual intent is that the right click menu is a "context" menu and not a shortcut menu. In this, case, the context is that you have text highlighted. Without a selection, the context is the page.
Agreed, It seems to work the same way in Chrome as well. I'm not sure what the problem is?
Re: Mozilla fixed a 14-year-old bug in Firefox, Adblock Plus uses less memory
#98Great 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…
I still don't get if I should be using ublock vs ublock origin
is ublock origin a single developer?
ah this helps a tiny bit more
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-vs.-uBlock-Ori...
but also adds more confusion as to which one to use
Re: Mozilla fixed a 14-year-old bug in Firefox, Adblock Plus uses less memory
#99Re: Mozilla fixed a 14-year-old bug in Firefox, Adblock Plus uses less memory
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Yes, I taught them what to do if the website doesn't work. They're surprisingly adept now at only accepting domains that look trustworthy, selectively. My parents being 60+ years old, I'm also amazed at it...