Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

System-wide open source ad blocker for Mac, Windows, and Linux

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 173 posts

Re: System-wide open source ad blocker for Mac, Windows, and Linux

#161

Post by godelski »

hulitu wrote: post #143
godelski wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it also a bit frustrating because browsers may even ignore your network's DNS settings so you can easily get unexpected behavior (yes, I know it's expected if you are a domain expert but I'm not and it shouldn't be surprising when users are shocked that they implement a pihole and see their machine is using a different DNS than expected. I'd actually expect novice users to be surprised in this case)

> browsers may even ignore your network's DNS settings They should't. Bypassing policy is malware behaviour. Funny that they ignore "my" network DNS, not ISP's. (in the name of freedom)

FF enables this and they aren't not ignoring the ISPs. Settings > Privacy and Security > DNS over HTTPS

There is a reason to do this btw. The name should say it all. It'll default to cloudflare but they let you specify what you want. The utility? Let's say I'm not an advanced user, what's my DNS look like? Is it DoH? We both know the answer. So defaulting so users' traffic is default DoH sounds like a security improvement. There's also an additional utility. If I take my laptop and move from my home network to another one, I actually don't end up using a different DNS.

You can also use Mullvad's DNS[0], or switch to 1.1.1.2/1.0.0.2 if you want malware protection on Cloudflare's DNS.

Stop making up conspiracies that don't exist. There's enough BS in the world already that we don't need to make ones up to be upset.

[0] https://mullvad.net/en/help/dns-over-https-and-dns-over-tls

Re: System-wide open source ad blocker for Mac, Windows, and Linux

#162

Post by Forgeties79 »

hnlmorg wrote: post #46
Forgeties79 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people have to use it for work whether they like it or not.

If you have to use it for work “whether you like it or not” then you’re extremely unlikely to have the permissions to install your own root certificate, which is a lot more sensitive operation than running Firefox.

Plenty of people use their personal computers for work, even if I strongly advise against it lol

Re: System-wide open source ad blocker for Mac, Windows, and Linux

#163

Post by [deleted] »

1231232131231 wrote: post #42
Forgeties79 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people have to use it for work whether they like it or not.

I doubt you could use something like this on a work device, anyways. Allowing users to install their own root certificates would be a major faux pas.

[deleted]

Re: System-wide open source ad blocker for Mac, Windows, and Linux

#165

Post by sedatk »

axelthegerman wrote: post #154
sedatk wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not a product. It's literally free, free as in free speech, and free as in you're free not to use it. Sorry, I change my question to "how is this a usable free?"

Same as everything you use on your computer... If it's not open source it's already game over. If it is, congratulations feel free to inspect all the code yourself and build from source OR trust the project maintainers and use pre built binaries. Applies to this program no different than your Linux distro. Of course there could be other tools that can help verify things such as checksums on reproducible builds. If no…

> Same as everything you use on your computer

Thank you. That's my point. There is no point in stating that some open source code is somewhat safer because "it can be audited". No. As you said, it's the same as everything I use on my computer. Unless we can establish a consistent safety level for certain type of projects, we can't claim an arbitrary category of software is somehow better.

Re: System-wide open source ad blocker for Mac, Windows, and Linux

#166

Post by shiroiuma »

newcool1230 wrote: post #23
notfed wrote: post #19

Why would anyone need to block ads outside of the browser? This seems like it's just asking to introduce obscure errors into other apps?

I meaning Microsoft is trying to introduce ads into the file explorer and search centers...

I don't see the problem here. They're adding value to their OS this way, value that will result in greater profits and therefore shareholder value. My MS stock is doing great thanks to moves like this!

If you don't like it, you don't have to use MS products.

Re: System-wide open source ad blocker for Mac, Windows, and Linux

#167

Post by lelanthran »

rollcat wrote: post #150
lelanthran wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think we have to face the reality that web browsers might no longer be considered "user" agents. I think too many techies are, much like yourself, contributing to the problem by refusing to move away from Chrome for "reasons"[1], and then compounding it by refusing to acknowledge that "web browsers" != "Google Chrome". [1] The "reasons" are of dubious quality. Myself and many others are able to do all normal web-…

> I think too many techies are, much like yourself, contributing to the problem by refusing to move away from Chrome [...] Contrary to your assumptions, I've been quite vocal against the Chrome/Blink monoculture for a while. Unfortunately there is a legit case for it; several generations of "low-end" devices (anything older than 10 years basically), that are still quite capable and in common use, where the difference…

> Contrary to your assumptions, I've been quite vocal against the Chrome/Blink monoculture for a while.

I apologise for my incorrect assumptions. What browser are you reading this on, right now?

Re: System-wide open source ad blocker for Mac, Windows, and Linux

#168

Post by Dalewyn »

jolux wrote: post #156
Dalewyn wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you would dispute me, but not for the criteria you originally posed.

The post I was replying to said that despite being open source, nobody reads the code for Chromium and Firefox. This isn't true because people are paid to read that code. Nonetheless, anyone can still read it if they want to. This means that it's at least marginally higher risk for a state actor trying to get code into these codebases than a proprietary codebase. As I said, I think it's still pretty unlikely that Mic…

The point I am making is that both Google (insofar as their open source software) and Microsoft both pay programmers to write and examine their code. That was the original criteria, and working off that you shouldn't have a problem with Microsoft.

Of course, you do have a problem as you've already made clear. However, that problem stems from how Microsoft's code is closed source compared to Google's open source code. That's religious FOSS dogma which I referred to earlier, and has nothing to do with whether programmers are paid to write and examine your code.

Re: System-wide open source ad blocker for Mac, Windows, and Linux

#169

Post by gitaarik »

vore wrote: post #83
pinewurst wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google pays loads of people to conceive and write code that is malicious to endusers e.g. those not paying it for eyeballs.

Is Google going to hack your bank account?

If you think you can trust Google because they are not interested in robbing your bank account, then you have fallen well for their deceptive campaigns. Google is just a next level robber that operates on corporate level.

Re: System-wide open source ad blocker for Mac, Windows, and Linux

#170

Post by hnlmorg »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #162
hnlmorg wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have to use it for work “whether you like it or not” then you’re extremely unlikely to have the permissions to install your own root certificate, which is a lot more sensitive operation than running Firefox.

Plenty of people use their personal computers for work, even if I strongly advise against it lol

Well then they’re able to install and run Firefox.

My point is the only situations where you have no control over browser installs are when the machine is locked down in such a way that you also cannot install root certificates.

Post reply on HN