µBlock for Firefox

Post by Too » Wed, Jan 21, 2015, 5:34 AM UTC

losvedir wrote: post #127

danielsamuels wrote: post #108

I tried this out for a couple of weeks after the "Adblock makes things slower" article came out, and I found it was blocking more stuff - but not necessarily the right stuff. I was finding that sites were breaking, stuff was disappearing and it was because of uBlock. I think I was trying to log into Medium and the Twitter and Facebook had been hidden, literally breaking the functionality of the site. That's not what…

Well, as the README says, it's not an "adblocker" but a generic blocker. Hiding Twitter and Facebook log-in functionality on Medium is a feature not a bug for me. By including those javascripts, both companies can build up a history of the sites I visit. So I gather this is more of a privacy+ad blocker rather than strictly ad blocker.

Post by psquid » Wed, Jan 21, 2015, 9:22 AM UTC

dserodio wrote: post #237

hullo wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't know why parent comment was killed when the article contains a similar assertion (the other way). While not a lot is gained by using loaded words like "theft", it is a simple fact that using ad blockers causes the owners of many of the sites that you visit to receive less revenue than they would otherwise. One can argue that one is perfectly justified in doing this (e.g. many typical examples of this are includ…

That's the feature I'm missing mostly from ABP: the "whitelist this site" quick toggle

Post by pjc50 » Wed, Jan 21, 2015, 4:03 PM UTC

mdellabitta wrote: post #156

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.

Post by wooger » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 1:52 PM UTC

Logmix wrote: post #49

misterdai wrote: post #6

The GitHub site also states that it's available for Chrome, Opera and Safari (not yet in the extension gallery). Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cjpalhdlnbpafiamej... Opera: https://addons.opera.com/en-gb/extensions/details/ublock/ Safari: https://chrismatic.io/ublock Haven't tried it out myself yet but it's nice to see effort put into lowering the memory & CPU usage of such blockers.

Thanks for those links. While the earlier versions for Safari (like v0.8.2.0, found here https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/117 ) work well on Safari 5, these new versions on your Safari link do not. They crash the browser during installation.

Post by zobzu » Fri, Jan 23, 2015, 2:11 AM UTC

gorhill wrote: post #129

zobzu wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wah Chromium uses way more ram than Firefox. 425M (firefox+ublock) vs 1.04G (chromium+ublock) in all cases memory is reduced :)

I did warn on that page: > You can't compare directly the figures between the browsers Still, yes, Chromium uses more memory. A good part of this is because per-process tab. Once Firefox get the same per-process tab architecture, it will be easier to compare both browsers together.