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

“UBO Minus (MV3)” – An Experimental uBlock Origin Build for Manifest V3

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 271 posts

Re: “UBO Minus (MV3)” – An Experimental uBlock Origin Build for Manifest V3

#261

Post by Arnavion »

pmontra wrote: post #257
Arnavion wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>click square or row, click to reload, repeat until it works well enough Don't guess. uBO comes with a dashboard just like uM did that shows you exactly what's being blocked. It's usually very obvious what important script is being blocked whose domain you need to allow, what PUA symbols font is being blocked, etc. >take minutes, possibly large fractions of an hour Switching to the other window where you have the uBO…

My point is that the uM UI is obvious and I never understood how the uBO overview works. This should be telling something about UX design (or the amount of time that people can put into these projects, after all they have a life like everybody else.) Today I learned that the GUI is read only and I have to write rules by hand. I'm a fan of command line and textual configuration files, except the few cases where a comp…

>Today I learned that the GUI is read only and I have to write rules by hand.

You've reached an incorrect conclusion.

>But actually reading again the guide at https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering:-qu... it seems that it can be done with a mouse.

Your link is about dynamic filters. My comments are not.

Re: “UBO Minus (MV3)” – An Experimental uBlock Origin Build for Manifest V3

#262

Post by Semaphor »

Arnavion wrote: post #251
pmontra wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, what takes seconds now (click square or row, click to reload, repeat until it works well enough) would be going to take minutes, possibly large fractions of an hour. A two orders of magnitude change for the worse means that it's unusable. It's not life and death, where one adapts no matter what.

>click square or row, click to reload, repeat until it works well enough Don't guess. uBO comes with a dashboard just like uM did that shows you exactly what's being blocked. It's usually very obvious what important script is being blocked whose domain you need to allow, what PUA symbols font is being blocked, etc. >take minutes, possibly large fractions of an hour Switching to the other window where you have the uBO…

> I started doing this two years ago and these days I edit less than 2 lines per month on average.

I visit more new domains that need adjustment per week than you apparently do per month. That’s what I meant, it’s probably okay if you rarely need it. The issues start if you frequently do.

I also often experiment which blocked domain is making issues, sometimes requiring 4-5 rounds till I have it set up the way I want it to.

Re: “UBO Minus (MV3)” – An Experimental uBlock Origin Build for Manifest V3

#263

Post by Arnavion »

Semaphor wrote: post #262
Arnavion wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>click square or row, click to reload, repeat until it works well enough Don't guess. uBO comes with a dashboard just like uM did that shows you exactly what's being blocked. It's usually very obvious what important script is being blocked whose domain you need to allow, what PUA symbols font is being blocked, etc. >take minutes, possibly large fractions of an hour Switching to the other window where you have the uBO…

> I started doing this two years ago and these days I edit less than 2 lines per month on average. I visit more new domains that need adjustment per week than you apparently do per month. That’s what I meant, it’s probably okay if you rarely need it. The issues start if you frequently do. I also often experiment which blocked domain is making issues, sometimes requiring 4-5 rounds till I have it set up the way I want…

Yeah, it depends on your browsing habits. The domains in my list are the ones I visit reguarly.

For one-offs like HN submissions or search results or whatever, I either deal with the default level of broken-ness of the site, or I use a different browser that has a less strict uBO ruleset and is configured to delete cache, history, etc on exit.

Re: “UBO Minus (MV3)” – An Experimental uBlock Origin Build for Manifest V3

#264

Post by niutech »

blibble wrote: post #49
horsawlarway wrote: post #23

I approve (of both the release and the name). I see plenty of folks in here lamenting this release at all - in the hopes that the lack of it will push folks to Firefox. It won't. Those who care about this are already on Firefox, and frankly - Firefox isn't going to be the answer here (to be clear, this is opinion). I'm also not thrilled at manifest v3, although for very different reasons than the adblocking limitatio…

I was fully in the Google world prior to gorhill's posts on manifest v3 as a direct result the only thing I have left is a pixel phone, which will be going with the new iPhone (and in the meantime my entire family has been 'helpfully' migrated too) I may be up the extreme end of the distribution, but this sort of grassroots push is what dethroned IE, and the resultant loss of control of the web eliminated Microsoft's…

Try Ubuntu Touch (UBports) - it features Libertine with full Linux apps, including Firefox.

Re: “UBO Minus (MV3)” – An Experimental uBlock Origin Build for Manifest V3

#265

Post by niutech »

Dalewyn wrote: post #208
ethbr0 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing that ever gets mass migration is substantial superiority in features they use. Originally, it was tabbed browsing, which Opera and Mozilla had ~5 years before IE. Yes, Microsoft sucked that much in those days. With Chrome, it was an embedded PDF viewer and V8 performance. So essentially, mostly people don't switch browsers unless there's a very good reason to do so.

This comment is perhaps the most accurate take on the fall of IE. Firefox dethroned IE not because it was "MuH fReE oPeN sOuRcE sOfTwArE" or "MuH nEtScApE", it was because Firefox was superior to IE in performance and feature set. It was better than IE at being practical and enabling users to do things they needed or wanted to do. Shortly after, Chrome rolled around and it was superior in performance (RAM hogginess a…

One possibility to dethrone Chrome would be to release Safari for Windows and Linux as open source.

Re: “UBO Minus (MV3)” – An Experimental uBlock Origin Build for Manifest V3

#266

Post by 29083011397778 »

redox99 wrote: post #239
cycomanic wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by non-native scroll behavior? I'm asking seriously, never noticed anything.

I just retested in case they fixed it and no [1]. The easiest way to tell it's non-native scroll is that Android has this effect when you reach the top or bottom that it "stretches" the content. You can try it everywhere (even inside Firefox settings menu) and it will work like that, except for the actual webpage in Firefox. Another difference in the scroll is that it has much higher friction (deceleration) in Firefo…

Little late, but for the record, your first issue reeks of a Samsung-specific bug. My Pixel 2 running LineageOS stretches the same in the [phone] settings app as it does in the [Firefox] settings page. Samsung has always had weird quirks in the way their skinned Android runs, and AFAICT, were the absolute worst for causing app developer headaches in the earlier Android days. I would be shocked if they've gotten dramatically better since.

Re: “UBO Minus (MV3)” – An Experimental uBlock Origin Build for Manifest V3

#267

Post by kbenson »

freediver wrote: post #163
jchw wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to burst your bubble but if you are leaving the Android ecosystem because of Chrome manifest v3 I definitely urge you to see what you're getting yourself into. Not only does Apple enforce that you use their browser engine, it also abuses this position to disable features that they keep enabled on desktop Safari where users have an actual browser engine choice. Also, Safari imposes limitations on extensions that a…

While all this is true, one should look it also from a motivation standpoint. Why is Apple doing things it is doing and why is Google? That thought experiment will help extrapolate the far-out future for both companies and the version of the future they are building towards.

It makes no sense to assume how companies will act in the far out future, as companies are not people and their motivations shift with management, investors, and markets. You can at best look at the motivation as an explanation of the short to medium term. Long-term, the company might be in entirely different hands. Look at Sun. Apply your strategy to Sun as of a few years before they went under and chunks were bought by Oracle. Sun's motivations meant very little in the end, only what they actually did (such as open sourcing things) survived.

Re: “UBO Minus (MV3)” – An Experimental uBlock Origin Build for Manifest V3

#268

Post by BuckRogers »

I tested this against AdGuard MV3 on Edge, and while I will wait for 1.0 releases of both, so far, AdGuard MV3 is trouncing uBO Minus.

It's doing cosmetic filtering, uBO is not. Neither seem to be slowing down the browser in a noticeable way. Eager to see 1.0 benchmark results.

You also get some options to adjust in AdGuard. uBO Minus (hell of a name), nothing.

I would suggest to the author of uBlock Origin to change attitudes towards the MV3 extension as even Mozilla said MV2 was sticking around "for now".

This work is inevitable. Other options would be to partner with a browser like Brave to take over their adblocking development, or, create a system-wide blocking solution. Microsoft may be worth engaging with as they have no native adblocker, but given gorhill's clear purism about profits and Microsoft that doesn't seem likely. Someone else has to publish uBlock Origin for him on the Edge Add-ons store.

Still a bit exciting, as even Mozilla will turn off MV2 at a point. No reason to resist this. Once the uBlock Origin guys figure this out, we'll get a good race between it and AdGuard. So far, AdGuard is the clear winner.

Re: “UBO Minus (MV3)” – An Experimental uBlock Origin Build for Manifest V3

#269

Post by redox99 »

29083011397778 wrote: post #266
redox99 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just retested in case they fixed it and no [1]. The easiest way to tell it's non-native scroll is that Android has this effect when you reach the top or bottom that it "stretches" the content. You can try it everywhere (even inside Firefox settings menu) and it will work like that, except for the actual webpage in Firefox. Another difference in the scroll is that it has much higher friction (deceleration) in Firefo…

Little late, but for the record, your first issue reeks of a Samsung-specific bug. My Pixel 2 running LineageOS stretches the same in the [phone] settings app as it does in the [Firefox] settings page. Samsung has always had weird quirks in the way their skinned Android runs, and AFAICT, were the absolute worst for causing app developer headaches in the earlier Android days. I would be shocked if they've gotten drama…

The settings page stretches correctly. The issue is with the webpages.

Re: “UBO Minus (MV3)” – An Experimental uBlock Origin Build for Manifest V3

#270

Post by 29083011397778 »

redox99 wrote: post #269
29083011397778 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Little late, but for the record, your first issue reeks of a Samsung-specific bug. My Pixel 2 running LineageOS stretches the same in the [phone] settings app as it does in the [Firefox] settings page. Samsung has always had weird quirks in the way their skinned Android runs, and AFAICT, were the absolute worst for causing app developer headaches in the earlier Android days. I would be shocked if they've gotten drama…

The settings page stretches correctly. The issue is with the webpages.

I'm sure the settings page does - but because Samsung implements APIs a little differently, and this has caused devs issues in the past, I'm assuming the browser with a smaller dev team may have missed this quirk at first glance. Other Chrome-based browsers probably don't have this issue - Chrome's team is very well-funded, and forks likely benefit from Google doing the edge-case testing.

Maybe Firefox is doing something weird, but I've got a coworker with that same phone - so at the very least I can compare my Pixel to his Samsung, and see who threw standards out the window.

Post reply on HN