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

UBlock Origin

addons.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 333 posts

Re: UBlock Origin

#21

Post by the8472 »

nickysielicki wrote: post #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…

> it's adblocking and noscript done exactly how you want it done.

it's good, but not exactly how I want it done. Namely, it's not hierarchical. E.g. I can say Site A may load frames from site B. But then site B tries to load stuff in its frame and I have to set additional rules for Site B. instead an forward pointer to "Site B default inclusion set" or something like that would be useful.

Basically, hundreds of sites embed youtube. And on some (but not all) I simply want to apply a "load the minimal amount of stuff necessary to embed youtube" rule. If loads are conceptualized as a tree (A loads B loads C) a flat matrix is not powerful enough.

Re: UBlock Origin

#22

Post by izietto »

currysausage wrote: post #19
decasteve wrote: post #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…

> 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/

It has been discontinued too early; from an AdBlock Edge comment, titled "uBlock may be fast, but is rubbish":

> I've been using uBlock now for a while and while it is light and fast, it's is rubbish to use. Exclusions are idiotic, context menu controls don't work, default filters selection is idiotic, it doesn't sync settings like Adblock Edge does, I'm just starting to hate it.

> I'd too like to see AdBlock Edge continue its own development path even if it's not the fastest or lightest. It's still better than all other ad blockers...

Re: UBlock Origin

#23

Post by onli »

david_p wrote: post #12
mrmondo wrote: 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.

I don't think that this is actually true. Yes, gorhill started ublock and then handed it over, but chrisaljoudi just continued development and made some changes (like a call for donations). I'm not aware he did anything bad, and in the video he put up sounded just a bit unlucky, not like planning to do bad things (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_D1TpddtVUA). Or see https://www.reddit.com/r/ublock/comments/38lf1y/any_differen..., where a made statement about feature-completeness caused a minor dispute.

Which version to run probably more depends on whether you want that per-site switches feature.

Re: UBlock Origin

#25

Post by StavrosK »

I've tried uBlock a few times, but it's always been inferior to Ghostery. I want to choose what I block on each page, e.g. sometimes I want to load Disqus, sometimes I don't, etc. uBlock doesn't allow me to do any of that, does anyone know a lighter alternative to Ghostery that will still have sane lists and allow me to unblock elements on a per-page basis?

Re: UBlock Origin

#26

Post by mziulu »

kissickas wrote: post #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.

The add-on shouldn't block anything on its own, so if there's a problem it's probably on some filter list that the user enabled. There's a pretty good way to debug these situations though, the network request log ( https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/The-logger ). It will let you see the history of requests for a given page, and one of the colums in the log lets you fine tune what uBlock should do for that particular request - so, if you see that something that you don't want to be blocked is filtered out, you can reverse that and reload the page.

EDIT: in the latest release (0.9.9.0 at the time of this writing) the request log will also tell you which list provides the rule that blocks a particular request, it's pretty handy to debug this kind of issue.

Re: UBlock Origin

#27

Post by lentil_soup »

decasteve wrote: post #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…

Honest question, what's AMO?

Re: UBlock Origin

#28

Post by coldpie »

lentil_soup wrote: post #27
decasteve wrote: post #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…

Honest question, what's AMO?

addons.mozilla.org

Re: UBlock Origin

#29

Post by fredmorcos »

lentil_soup wrote: post #27
decasteve wrote: post #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…

Honest question, what's AMO?

Addons.Mozilla.Org

Re: UBlock Origin

#30

Post by 83a »

StavrosK wrote: post #25

I've tried uBlock a few times, but it's always been inferior to Ghostery. I want to choose what I block on each page, e.g. sometimes I want to load Disqus, sometimes I don't, etc. uBlock doesn't allow me to do any of that, does anyone know a lighter alternative to Ghostery that will still have sane lists and allow me to unblock elements on a per-page basis?

i'm using https://www.requestpolicy.com/ (ghostery seems to phone home, requestpolicy not (afaik))
Post reply on HN