AdBlock Plus’s effect on Firefox’s memory usage

Post by crististm » Wed, May 14, 2014, 6:56 PM UTC

ionforce wrote: post #99

nfoz wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That was true in the late 90s, but these days a browser is actually a fully-fledged programming environment that also happens to have some incredibly sophisticated multimedia capabilities: text, images, video, audio, animations, 3d graphics, etc. Maybe I just miss the 90s, but I would much rather have the simple content browser than a "full-fledged programming environment", especially since all of that content is c…

Define "modern BS".

Post by __david__ » Wed, May 14, 2014, 7:17 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #37

VLM wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The first thing people complain about with browsers is ..." They changed the browser UI, either the browser devs or the site devs via stupid javascript tricks (messing with scrolling, etc). I got driveby download powned and my CC info stolen and five spam toolbars in the UI I can't get rid of. There are too many spammy ads. They make is as hard as humanly possible to use bookmarks to encourage the use of a search en…

Definitely. In a browser-on-pc setting, who even cares about memory any more? We have loads of it.

Post by __david__ » Wed, May 14, 2014, 7:22 PM UTC

DenisM wrote: post #190

mullingitover wrote: post #189

This is like a commercial for forking Firefox to build highly efficient ad blocking into the browser. It's sad that the most-demanded feature on every browser, as evidenced by plugin downloads, is ad blocking. However, all the major browsers are produced by companies with their hands in advertising, and this conflict of interest has resulted in this feature request going unfulfilled for a over a decade. Fork 'em.

I don't think we can block ads in mainstream browsers because ad providers will just work around the blocks. Plugins provide defense in numbers against suck workarounds, making ad blocks actually effective.

Post by kretor » Wed, May 14, 2014, 7:42 PM UTC

rane wrote: post #91

gorhill wrote: post #20

It's not just memory overhead, it is also CPU overhead. One approach is to write the filtering engine from scratch. It is what I did, without looking at ABP's code beforehand in order to ensure a clean slate mind. I didn't get it right the first time, I did spend quite a large amount of time benchmarking, measuring, prototyping, etc. Once I was satisfied I had finally had a solid code base, I went and benchmarked it…

Just installed the extension and it seems great. Particularly like the matrix UI for allowing/blocking things. However, I definitely don't want to micromanage things like accepting scripts and cookies for certain sites I use. Is there a way to make it work essentially the same way as AdBlock does? Tried to look in the wiki but didn't find anything.

Post by ethana » Wed, May 14, 2014, 8:20 PM UTC

Silhouette wrote: post #44

mixedbit wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A drawback is that a proxy won't be able to filter HTTPS traffic.

That depends on the proxy. Systems that effectively MITM your own network's traffic have been around for some years now. All you need for outbound connections is to install an additional certificate in your browser so the proxy can act a trusted partner for HTTPS. I don't know whether anyone has made such a proxy for use in the kind of situation we're talking about here, however.