Consider the technical solution alternatives, and getting people to use them. Now look at how easy it is to install ABP.
Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs
231–240 of 419 posts
Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are motivated by the love of free software, why aren't you thinking of the possibility that gcc can have a backdoor written by bribed immoral programmers ? Or has Richard Stallman convinced you that by mere repetition of the word free, free software is also moral software ? I have no doubts what so ever that Opera is run by ethical people and it an ethical company. In any case a security / privacy audit is a m…
A security audit done by whom? Surely not people paid by the vendor of the product bring audited... Right?
Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs
#233I used to not do Adblock, because you know, ads make the internet go round and all that. But with the "download here"-button ads, there is no way to know what button to press anymore. Now installing Adblock is a requirement.
Fuck that. You pull that shit, your whole industry can just go and get fucked. If you need to pull that shit to live, you need to fucking die.
This laptop has 8GB because Firefox with ABP is really fat. It's worth every byte. I use FF for personal stuff, Chromium for work; occasionally I load a non-work page in Chromium and am bloody horrified at what the web looks like with ads.
Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's bollocks - it's not in the slightest an ethical breach to do that. It's just advertising working with production to make the product. We're not talking about running advertorial or anything. The papers I've worked on usually had a little flexibility in terms of extra copy or advertising to populate pages as required.
> it's not in the slightest an ethical breach to do that. It's just advertising working with production to make the product. Well, that by definition would be considered an ethical violation at a paper like the Times. Not at a student paper, no, but at the New York Times, definitely.
What possible ethical issue is there?
Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs
#235I used to not do Adblock, because you know, ads make the internet go round and all that. But with the "download here"-button ads, there is no way to know what button to press anymore. Now installing Adblock is a requirement.
Honestly, I've only seen the "tricky" Download Now buttons on shady video websites (read: those that have all the episodes of Seinfeld on them). Though I've had more and more invasive ads in newspaper sites (the fact that I get so many ads on NYT's site despite being a subscriber is frustrating to say the least), I do like keeping free websites running. I find using ABP to be somew immoral , violating the contract wi…
Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Let me google that" pulls out character map pretty poor UX if you ask me. Almost as bad for search ability as calling your product "go" or "cloud" or "driver" or any other one-word generic, hard to find even with contextual terms around it.
pretty poor UX if you ask me yup. Has been around since NT or maybe even longer..
It is having to open it every time you want to type the name of µSomething
Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs
#237People are using µBlock now for precisely this reason. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/%C2%B5Block-vs.-ABP:-... https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/%C2%B5block/cjpalh... https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock
Note: No automatic updates with this unofficial build.