Live data from Hacker News

UBlock Origin

addons.mozilla.org

11–20 of 333 posts

Re: UBlock Origin

#11
post #2

How is this different from the normal / existing uBlock? https://github.com/chrisaljoudi/uBlock/releases

From what I can tell it looks like the original author transferred his project to someone else, but then forked that to be able to add stuff without having to merge into the original branch. But the actual difference I'm not sure about.

Re: UBlock Origin

#12
post #2

How is this different from the normal / existing uBlock? https://github.com/chrisaljoudi/uBlock/releases

TL;DR: "uBlock Origin" (or "uBlock₀") is the version you want (maintained by the creator of the project, up-to-date)

The original "uBlock" github repo was created by gorhill. Later, the repo was handed to a contributor of the project (chrisaljoudi) who did nothing good with it. Finally, gorhill forked chrisaljoudi's repo to create "uBlock Origin" and resumed development.

Re: UBlock Origin

#13
I've seen comments on reddit saying that often legitimate "Pay Now" buttons etc. are blocked by this add-on. Can anyone with recent experience weigh in? I don't really feel like switching from ABP which I'm perfectly happy with unless this is 99% kink-free.

Re: UBlock Origin

#14
From the horses mouth [1]:

Main reason I published on AMO is because a feature which I think is important was removed from uBlock (per-site switches). That both versions diverged significantly enough so soon is not in my control.

When ABP added "acceptable ads" in their fork, they also created a demand for a version uncompromised by the "acceptable ads" principle, hence ABE happened. When uBlock removed the per-site switches, a demand was created for a version of uBlock with the per-site switches.

This is the reality of GPL: anybody can fork and create their own flavor if they disagree with the pre-fork version. This should not be seen as wrong when it happens, it's expected. In the big picture, users win.

As far as trust is concerned, both versions can be trusted -- that should not be an issue in either case: the development and source code is public in both cases (every single code change can be easily browsed on github).

Edit: Notice that I still contribute fixes to uBlock since the fork, and also try to deal with filed issues (those issues which are relevant to both versions), so it's not like I am ignoring uBlock to the advantage of uBlock Origin -- I also want uBlock to work fine for whoever uses it, I just strongly disagree with the removal of the per-site switches feature.

[1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/38#issuecomment-966...

Re: UBlock Origin

#15
You should all check out umatrix if you have 15 minutes to spare.

Made by the same guy, it's adblocking and noscript done exactly how you want it done. Block pulled-in third-party sites by default, accept all on the primary domain you're looking at, and especially block from domains on a blacklist.

It breaks on a few sites, but it's not in my way as much as noscript and it's a 5 second job to get most any website to work. If you don't know how the web works, you'll be frustrated. If you understand how the modern web works, you'll wonder how you ever did without.

Re: UBlock Origin

#16

From the horses mouth [1]: Main reason I published on AMO is because a feature which I think is important was removed from uBlock (per-site switches). That both versions diverged significantly enough so soon is not in my control. When ABP added "acceptable ads" in their fork, they also created a demand for a version uncompromised by the "acceptable ads" principle, hence ABE happened. When uBlock removed the per-site…

> When ABP added "acceptable ads" in their fork, they also created a demand for a version uncompromised by the "acceptable ads" principle, hence ABE happened.

I wish they'll go one step further and add the "Please remove us from your adblock" notices to default blocking list

Re: UBlock Origin

#17
post #16

From the horses mouth [1]: Main reason I published on AMO is because a feature which I think is important was removed from uBlock (per-site switches). That both versions diverged significantly enough so soon is not in my control. When ABP added "acceptable ads" in their fork, they also created a demand for a version uncompromised by the "acceptable ads" principle, hence ABE happened. When uBlock removed the per-site…

> When ABP added "acceptable ads" in their fork, they also created a demand for a version uncompromised by the "acceptable ads" principle, hence ABE happened. I wish they'll go one step further and add the "Please remove us from your adblock" notices to default blocking list

You might like these options: https://cloudup.com/cJeKg7Zljwa

Re: UBlock Origin

#18
uMatrix for Firefox seems to be released as well: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/umatrix/

Policeman was the closest thing —that I know of— to uMatrix for Firefox users, but —at least for me— Firefox is always complaining that Policeman is slowing down the browser. And also, it's nice that you can easily import your Chrome uMatrix rules to Firefox.

Re: UBlock Origin

#19

From the horses mouth [1]: Main reason I published on AMO is because a feature which I think is important was removed from uBlock (per-site switches). That both versions diverged significantly enough so soon is not in my control. When ABP added "acceptable ads" in their fork, they also created a demand for a version uncompromised by the "acceptable ads" principle, hence ABE happened. When uBlock removed the per-site…

> hence ABE happened

Fun fact: ABE is now discontinued "in favor of uBlock" because the latter is just so much more efficient. [1]

[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-Us/firefox/addon/adblock-edge/

Re: UBlock Origin

#20
Love uBlock Origin. I upgraded from Ad Block Plus to uBlock (and finally uBlock Origin) and was amazed at how much faster it is.
Post reply on HN