361–370 of 419 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that uses a single process for all tabs.
? No, the multi-process tab feature is all about one process per tab.
And I wouldn't say that's the 'point'. Chrome groups tabs into fewer processes most of the time.
Personally I'm much more excited about the possibility of a compacting GC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As my paranoia ramps up year on year, I now use Opera with µBlock. For me, it has the polish of Chrome with some nice extras, but without the increasingly creepy Googality. It works fine, although I've not tried µMatrix. (I have my defaults changed to DuckDuckGo. Usually connecting via a VPN.) I've whitelisted a few sites I like to support (a couple of webcomics, HaD etc). I have a lot of filters: "62,501 network fil…
I myself most often write "uBlock" and pronounce "you-block", as in "users decide". I originally used the mu character in place of the u to emphasize smaller resource footprint relative to similar solutions out there. I've never been good with picking name etc., unfortunately now we are stuck with it.
Furthermore if sites are paid per click my pre AdBlock contribute to all the ads sustained web sites was probably way less than $1. They are losing little by my use of AdBlock. One reason I didn't click ads was precisely that they are so intrusive and ugly. Thanks to AdBlock I'm spared with that and they don't lose bandwidth and CPU to serve ads that won't be clicked. Win-win.
> In Nethercote’s testing, he found that TechCrunch used around 194MB of RAM without ABP enabled 194MB for a single webpage that should mainly be text communicating a message. Does anyone else than me find this crazy?
Behold the power of the Time Machine - the text straight from the 90th-00th. Everyone was like "Oh, this new Windoze uses 500 megs when idle! Then 1000 megs! Then 2000 megs! etc. etc.". Come on people, we are buying our hardware precisely for this - to be used. Now this ET site with 28 spyware modules from random advertisers is telling me - "Don't use your CPU it will make it slower, also don't use too much RAM. Inst…
> we are buying our hardware precisely for this - to be used I have a counterargument page dedicated to apologists of inefficient software: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Who-cares-about-effic...
A typical workload for me includes a mail client, a spreadsheet tracking time, a horde of browser tabs relevant to something I'm working on, possibly one or more virtual machines, hordes of MacVim tabs and terminal windows, intermittent C++ compiles and neural network training runs, sometimes Eclipse, etc.
My browser isn't the only thing running. As machines get faster, I expect them to handle more work, not for software to expand to take up all available resources.
I can understand e.g. using otherwise unused RAM for aggressive caching to reduce latency—I did buy RAM to use it. I can't understand wasting both RAM and CPU just because we have more these days. I'm not talking crazy micro-optimization—just not being completely blind to runtime costs.
> In Nethercote’s testing, he found that TechCrunch used around 194MB of RAM without ABP enabled 194MB for a single webpage that should mainly be text communicating a message. Does anyone else than me find this crazy?
> a single webpage that should mainly be text communicating a message That was more or less true of the web in, say, 1995. Today, a web browser is an advanced programming environment with broad multimedia capabilities (including audio, video, and 2D and 3D graphics) that also happens to have some excellent document presentation features relating to text and images. (Edit: I previously said this much better here: http…
It doesn't matter what the tool is to you. When we're visiting something like techcrunch, we're there for the text and then maybe a few pictures.
Behold the power of the Time Machine - the text straight from the 90th-00th. Everyone was like "Oh, this new Windoze uses 500 megs when idle! Then 1000 megs! Then 2000 megs! etc. etc.". Come on people, we are buying our hardware precisely for this - to be used. Now this ET site with 28 spyware modules from random advertisers is telling me - "Don't use your CPU it will make it slower, also don't use too much RAM. Inst…
> we are buying our hardware precisely for this - to be used I have a counterargument page dedicated to apologists of inefficient software: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Who-cares-about-effic...
For desktops CPU and RAM are largely irrelevant in such amount (temporary up to 25-50% CPU usage increase for one core, and up to 500-1000Mb of memory usage increase in worst case - for instance my FF never exceeds 1Gb overall with ABP and other stuff). I sometimes "fix" old PCs for relatives and even in worst cases ABP usage isn't a noticeable hit on performance.
For laptops resources are more relevant as well as battery life. I'll even agree with your point for this category, but still for now ABP hit is not that big as compared to ad noise.
For touchscreens resources are very important BUT! This is a very big "BUT". But the websites are almost unusable without adblock. I use iphone and ipad where there are no adblockers afaik. When I browse the web it is horrible (with a big H - Horrible) - everything is jumping, jiggling and wobbling for a long time during page load. One moment there is a text in some point and I try to scroll - and instantly there appears stupid facebook crap which I of course click. Same with multiple frames, banners, popups (I hope these devs will burn in hell). And additionally there weird motion gestures in-built into page, transparent overlays which are part of a nearest ad. The list goes on...
Basically on touchscreens web browsing experience is so horrible that I'm willing to trade adblocker for x2 increase in battery consumption (note that web browsing is not the only thing to do on a phone or tablet, so this is not a total x2 lifetime decrease).
[0] - https://learn.adafruit.com/raspberry-pi-as-an-ad-blocking-ac...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, they may render in iframes; iframes are certainly not a requirement for any of those features, and some (the original commenter included, I suspect) might consider them a heavy-handed approach to the problem.
iframes are the only unit of isolation on the web. Unless you want the like button you're hosting to have complete unrestricted access to your application's private data, then yeah, the like button needs to be in an iframe.
Interestingly, there is a uBlock alternative which I had not heard about[1]. If the more efficient claims are true, it would definitely be worthwhile to switch over to that instead.
[1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/%C2%B5Block-vs.-ABP:-...