161–170 of 273 posts
I decided to dump extension-based privacy stuff and installed Privoxy instead. I used to have Ghostery, Disconnect, ABP, and some other things running simultaneously. When you think about it, that's a lot of JS running and iterating the DOM multiple times every time you load a page. Now there's a single, purpose-built, standalone process written in C doing it. Not going back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counter opinion: I like the number because if there's a website working not quite right, I can easily see the number and disable uBlock to test out if that's the cause.
But you can't, though. uBlock shows the total number of blocked items since you started Firefox. Not the number for a given page or site. Making it a basically superfluous mostly useless datapoint.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Firefox-version:-benc...
I'd appreciate details of CPU consumption as well. Minute amounts of memory are of no concern for many people, but everyone prefers snappier browsing, every time.
The details of the benchmark (if you want to reproduce) are in the spreadsheet linked in the caption.
They claim that when the extension gets added to addons.mozilla.org, it would start to auto-update.
Mozilla rolls that option into their CFX builder - https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/SDK/Tools/cfx#cf... - the update file just needs a consistent place to live. I use CloudFront for it.
How does this compare/contrast with Privacy Badger?
Amazing work. One concern is that the EasyPrivacy list -- which is in my opinion overly aggressive -- is enabled by default. Most pertinently, it entirely disables Google Analytics on every site.
You are mistaken. Unless it changed since I ran the benchmark, EasyPrivacy doesn't always block Google Analytics.
See diff of uBlock vs. ABP, both with EasyPrivacy selected: https://www.diffchecker.com/r7v1cq6x
In uBlock, it is Peter Lowe's list, selected by default, which blocks Google Analytic with good reliability.
I decided to dump extension-based privacy stuff and installed Privoxy instead. I used to have Ghostery, Disconnect, ABP, and some other things running simultaneously. When you think about it, that's a lot of JS running and iterating the DOM multiple times every time you load a page. Now there's a single, purpose-built, standalone process written in C doing it. Not going back.
I have been using µBlock for 3 weeks now.(previously adblock plus). There is one irritating thing it has that almost makes me go back to adblock again. It is often blocking the false positives. So if developer has named one of their assets file with social media names like "twitter/facebook/etc", it blocks the file right away. Since it does not have custom configuration options for each site, you can either disable µ…
> It is often blocking the false positives It's the filter lists. Use the same filter lists with any other blockers which support ABP-filter syntax, and you will get the same result. > named one of their assets file with social media names like "twitter/facebook/etc", it blocks the file right away I have removed Fanboy's Social Blocking list from the pre-selected lists since a while now.[1] I have to say that I had a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Turn off cookies and JavaScript.
>Turn off cookies and JavaScript. In your first comment, you seemed to be against altering the presentation of websites; you offer a binary choice: go to the site, or do not, based solely on the content. Seemingly advocating that sites should be accepted or rejected whole-cloth with no modification. Yet here, you seem to be just fine with blocking Javascript and cookies, despite the fact that both these technologies…
How is the performance for the firefox port? I might of missed it, but all I see are reports in comparison to adblockers on chrome.
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Firefox-version:-benc...