161–170 of 174 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's hope they trademark the name... After reading the comment above about Adblock, AdBlock, and Adblock Plus, it would be much easier to know exactly what product the news is about.
Too late http://tuxdiary.com/2015/06/14/ublock-origin/
The most straightforward alternative is the original Adblock Plus.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just be sure NOT to install "U Block For Origin", by www.z1z2z3z4.com, which is currently the top hit if you search the Chrome extensions store for 'ublock'. I don't know what it does, but I bet it's not good.
Wow; that's quite malicious. Question for HN: back in the Napster days, were there likewise Napster clones ("napster"?) that purported to allow peer to peer music downloads but in fact had malware properties?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just be sure NOT to install "U Block For Origin", by www.z1z2z3z4.com, which is currently the top hit if you search the Chrome extensions store for 'ublock'. I don't know what it does, but I bet it's not good.
Wow; that's quite malicious. Question for HN: back in the Napster days, were there likewise Napster clones ("napster"?) that purported to allow peer to peer music downloads but in fact had malware properties?
Search for something like "flash update" on non-Google/DDG search engines and look at the top ads if you want the general feel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might have a point if those products had been called "Operating System", "Text Editor" and "Portable Computer With Touchscreen and Keyboard".
On a technicality (which is what trademark attorneys deal in), your point falls to the same fallacy. The product Adblock is an "Advertisement blocking engine" or the like. "Adblock" is a made-up word and therefore likely eligible for trademark. (Or it was before the namespace got polluted with all the variants.)
I've always wondered what happens if a browser extension gets taken over by an entity someday that puts in bad code after millions of people have it installed and it gets auto-updated. Sure it's open-source and will get noticed eventually, but there will be days if not weeks of exposure. Same thing for all those android apps you have installed. If it doesn't add permissions, you'll never get a warning that something…
This is why Mozilla addon updates get reviewed before getting pushed out to users. It's not foolproof, but it's designed to at least have a chance of catching this sort of issue.
Pretty easy to do code obfuscation that a human will miss and automated testing will have no idea how to handle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
uBlock origin is bigger (js wise) than both AdBlock and AdBlock plus and uBlock, comparison: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/msT3z9naIEkfKFjrj2G3G67moS...
Regardless, uBlock results in more performant web browsing.
If I have to formally measure the response time difference in response in an interactive app, it's below the don't care threshold.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Curious why I can't offload this task to a DNS server? DNS doesn't provide nearly enough precision for ad blocking. Many servers serve both ads and content. Random example: some sites host actual non-ad video content on doubleclick.
Could you point me to an example of non-ad content doubleclick hosts? I haven’t ever seen such content before.