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

uBlock Origin 1.20

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 338 posts

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#171

Post by Klathmon »

gridlockd wrote: post #95
proszkinasenne2 wrote: post #89

Is there a good short answer for why uBlock is using constructs like this: if ( self.browser instanceof Object ) { self.chrome = self.browser; } else { self.browser = self.chrome; } Instead of using a polyfill like that one https://github.com/mozilla/webextension-polyfill ?

This may sound shocking to "modern Javascript" developers: Often, a little copy is better than a little dependency. More often, a little copy is better than a large dependency.

I'd argue that it's not exactly "better", but more that it just makes different tradeoffs.

Using a full well-written* dependency for something not part of your "core competency" (even something seemingly trivial) is often a better choice in my opinion. That dependency will often know the "unknown unknowns" to you since their "whole purpose" is solving that one issue.

In this case, and from what I can see from my VERY small glance at the code, I'd argue using a polyfill would be a better choice in this situation. The polyfill has cross-browser tests, ensures compatibility, continually tests against new browser versions and will alert you and shield you from things if they change, download size is less of a worry for extensions and most of it no-ops away in 100% supported browsers, and it's maintained by mozilla.

Obviously there might be additional reasons why the uBlock origin developer isn't using it, it might be super overkill for his needs, he might consider the browser API part of his "core competency" and therefore shouldn't be relying on 3rd party code for it. I'd trust him more than myself here since I know so little about the domain. And I had a similar question to the GP commenter of why he decided to avoid the polyfill.

Your little saying isn't a useful answer, and the dig at "modern javascript developers" is not only unnecessary but also a real annoyance for me because it's used to dismiss just about every opinion while providing no real reasoning why you think that way. If you think a little copy is better, explain why! Don't just put down a group and leave without giving out any useful information!

* A "well written" dependency meaning something well tested, has a solid development team or dedicated person, and has somewhat widespread usage. Obviously it will differ depending on your needs.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#172

Post by feanaro »

louiz wrote: post #88
feanaro wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would this make the uBlock Origin project like Chromium? The lists work and if the bigger lists choose not to block everything you'd like, you can simply enable additional lists. It's just a data source.

It makes the list like chromium, not ublock origin.

Okay, sure. I interpreted it as the OP referring to the extension itself since the grandparent post was primarily talking about being impressed with it being run by a single person.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#173

Post by literallycancer »

MrGilbert wrote: post #151
newman8r wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can always do a direct ad deal if it's the right niche. Better privacy for your users and it's impossible to block.

> [...] and it's impossible to block. That's not entirely true. Troy Hunt had (and still has) that[1], and his banner got added to EasyList none the less. [1]: https://www.troyhunt.com/ad-blockers-are-part-of-the-problem...

So he added an ad to his site and it got added to a list of ads. What's noteworthy here, besides the fact that he doesn't understand what ad blockers are for?

This is the whole point of those filter lists. Otherwise I would have to remove his ad manually, which is undesirable.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#174

Post by Synaesthesia »

Marsymars wrote: post #32
mrsmee89 wrote: post #16

This is great! Any plans for Safari support?

The lack of support is in the other direction - Safari doesn't support uBlock Origin anymore. The only way to block ads is with Apple's Content Blocking API, which is fundamentally not how uBlock Origin works.

Pardon my ignorance, but I installed ublock via the App Store in safari and it seems to work fine, am I mistaken?

Edit: I see it’s ublock, not ublock origin. What’s the difference?

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#175

Post by [deleted] »

panta wrote: post #121
aluren wrote: post #54

I am dumbfounded that uBlock Origin, arguably the single most important extension in modern web browsing, and one that makes millions of lives easier by making their web experience bearable at all, all of this depends on one single person, working for free. Now there's also the list maintainers, who also work for free. Still makes you wonder about how the world works. There's probably many other similar instances. In…

Yes, this. uBlock Origin seems to have ~15 million active users between Chrome and Firefox (source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock_Origin#uBlock_Origin ). If it only spared us 10 seconds a day on average (probably a super conservative estimate), it would save the equivalent of an average human life (~70yrs) every 15 days! (And given that probably at least 70% of users don't use an ad blocker, it's infuriating to…

[deleted]

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#176

Post by feanaro »

mehrdadn wrote: post #156
feanaro wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the surveillance/telemetry problem still as much of a problem as it was on day zero? As far as I know, it hasn't been removed nor lessened. As far as I remember, it is absolutely overreaching, collecting your name, email address, browsing history, searches, application usage and more. Microsoft also keeps a copy of your full-disk encryption key. " rel="nofollow">https://theintercept.com/2015/12/28/recently-boug…

> As far as I know, it hasn't been removed nor lessened. IIRC they lessened it by some ε > 0 in 1803. [1] > As far as I remember, it is absolutely overreaching, collecting your name, email address, browsing history, searches, application usage and more. Some of these seem more alarming than others. Where are each of these pulled from? If you have a Microsoft account they already have your name and address. Most peopl…

I'm not sure of the details anymore, I was going by my memory.

But to respond to your overall point, there are probably hacks around each of the things I've mentioned, but the point is that I don't feel like using an OS that does these things is a reasonable alternative for me. Particularly because who knows what other kinds of aggressive changes are being concocted for the future. I try to make this point to my family and friends too and they seem to agree.

Thanks for the link though, I'll take a look.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#177

Post by gorhill »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #132
earenndil wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, no. The lists themselves are ultimately less interesting than the technology used to run them; there are other lists, and if easylist soured, a community-sourced alternative could be made relatively easily.

Doesn't that argument work for the plugin too. I mean most people using uBlock Origin probably started with Adblock (and maybe moved to ABP), or uBlock. You can achieve similar results with pihole, or hosts file managers. Back in the day I used a local proxy tool, Proximator or something. AFAIK uBo isn't doing anything particular unique technologically (which doesn't mean I'm not grateful, nor that anyone could make…

> You can achieve similar results with pihole, or hosts file managers.

You can't. uBO has contextual information for each network request, something not available to external content blocking solutions.

For example, many filters are meant to apply only on specific domains or whether they are 1st- or 3rd-party, and for this to work you need to know from which origin a network request is fired.

Also, uBO has an advanced-user mode that let you create rules to override filters in static filter lists; allows to work in default-deny mode; or even allows to work with no static filter lists at all. Contextual information is key to advanced-user mode features.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#178

Post by GrumpyNl »

panta wrote: post #121
aluren wrote: post #54

I am dumbfounded that uBlock Origin, arguably the single most important extension in modern web browsing, and one that makes millions of lives easier by making their web experience bearable at all, all of this depends on one single person, working for free. Now there's also the list maintainers, who also work for free. Still makes you wonder about how the world works. There's probably many other similar instances. In…

Yes, this. uBlock Origin seems to have ~15 million active users between Chrome and Firefox (source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock_Origin#uBlock_Origin ). If it only spared us 10 seconds a day on average (probably a super conservative estimate), it would save the equivalent of an average human life (~70yrs) every 15 days! (And given that probably at least 70% of users don't use an ad blocker, it's infuriating to…

Try to watch a playlist on Youtube without a add blocker. Its insane the length and amount of commercials. A add blocker save you much more then 10 secs a day.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#179

Post by exceptione »

lsiebert wrote: post #141
agumonkey wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah, because of him, everytime I use ublock-less chrome on android I get angry, thanks a lot gorhill ! ;)

Firefox focus is worth a try. built in ad blockers, the ability to block javascript, private browsing is the default. Good stuff. There's also, I believe, a regular firefox for android which I think does do extensions.

True, it is fantastic imho. I run ith with ublock Origin.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#180

Post by TheKIngofBelAir »

aluren wrote: post #54

I am dumbfounded that uBlock Origin, arguably the single most important extension in modern web browsing, and one that makes millions of lives easier by making their web experience bearable at all, all of this depends on one single person, working for free. Now there's also the list maintainers, who also work for free. Still makes you wonder about how the world works. There's probably many other similar instances. In…

> and we shouldn't take anything they do for granted.

You can say that again

"Ublock collaborators gorhill and Deathamns leave the project" (2015)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9308439

Post reply on HN