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

AdBlock Plus’s effect on Firefox’s memory usage

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 270 posts

Re: AdBlock Plus’s effect on Firefox’s memory usage

#221

Post by pid1 »

migbac wrote: post #125
bru wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I switched from ABP to this hosts file a few months ago and I have zero regret. My browser's faster, lighter and ads are blocked just as well as with ABP. I actually even started splitting my hosts file: the layout is /etc/hosts ('compiled' version) /etc/hosts.d/ /etc/hosts.d/aaa-warning (warning reminding me to run `update-hosts` instead of modifying /etc/hosts. Appears atop the compiled file) /etc/hosts.d/adblock (…

I made a simple script that merges, and removes duplicates from different sources: https://gist.github.com/louima/878171fc67d797cfcef4

Interesting and thanks for sharing. I've been using https://gaenserich.github.io/hostsblock/

Re: AdBlock Plus’s effect on Firefox’s memory usage

#222

Post by DenisM »

__david__ wrote: post #205
DenisM wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This doesn't make sense to me. Why can't ad providers work around the blocks in adblock? And why could they work around those same blocks if they happened to be integrated into the browser itself? Take popup blocking as an example. That's integrated into the browser and has almost completely eliminated the annoying popup ad.

Defense in numbers - there can be more plugins than there can be browsers. Creating a new plugin is much easier than creating a new web browser.

Besides, fewer people have installed the ad block than those who have browsers. This make for smaller incentive to develop workarounds, compared to situation where everyone has some sort of block.

Re: AdBlock Plus’s effect on Firefox’s memory usage

#224

Post by demi_alucard »

For those who do not know, there is an EasyList without element hiding rules.

https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/easylist_noelemhi...

With these rules firefox's memory usage only goes up from 290MB to 412MB, instead of 1.5GB for the website mentioned in the article for me.

The downside is that this list has a more limited coverage than the full version of the list.

Re: AdBlock Plus’s effect on Firefox’s memory usage

#225

Post by GregBuchholz »

clarry wrote: post #107
nnethercote wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people think of a browser as a tool for displaying text and pictures, with maybe a bit of JS code and some CSS effects on the side. 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. The most popular websites run quite…

> Many people think of a browser as a tool for displaying text and pictures, with maybe a bit of JS code and some CSS effects on the side. That was true in the late 90s [..] It still is for many of us who complain about browser (and web content) bloat. We are on the web for text and pictures, primarily. The things we do online hasn't changed much since the 90s. Having sophisticated multimedia capabilities is irreleva…

The whole personal computing ecosystem as it stands today seems like a huge failure of imagination.

http://www.ultratechnology.com/scope.htm

Re: AdBlock Plus’s effect on Firefox’s memory usage

#226

Post by orclev »

mschuster91 wrote: post #68
baby wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the point for me is the visual noise, not the memory that ads consume. Actually, normal users are used to the lag, they don't see it as much as we do. You can take a look at consoles that have run games at 30fps for decades and nobody complained.

I don't care about the "visual noise" of normal/banner-type ads - the real problem are those fucking layer ads with confusing icons (the X is the left one, the maximize button the right one), so if you want to read the content, first find out which type of layer ad it is, try to spot the 2x2px hotzone for the close button and THEN read the content. People install adblockers because too many idiots became too fucking…

Exactly, they had their chance, and they abused the privilege, so now we've taken it away.

Re: AdBlock Plus’s effect on Firefox’s memory usage

#227

Post by SudoNick »

nnethercote wrote: post #216
SudoNick wrote: post #153

I think this is the fourth or fifth time, in recent memory, that I've seen someone from Mozilla criticize Adblock Plus and call on its developers to make changes. ABP startup time and memory consumption were subjects I recall, and its general impact on page load times may have been as well. I can understand Mozilla taking some interest in how addons behave, and constructive feedback on extensions is a good thing. How…

I'm the author of the post. I was extremely careful to keep the tone of the post neutral. This paragraph sums it up: > So, it’s clear that ABP greatly increases Firefox’s memory usage. Now, this isn’t all bad. Many people (including me!) will be happy with this trade-off — they will gladly use extra memory in order to block ads. But if you’re using a low-end machine without much memory, you might have different prior…

I noticed that you said that, and expected others to notice as well. I don't really think your post unreasonable. I'm just a little concerned that, even in a case of pure intentions and desire for balance, extension developers may feel pressured to make changes and end up sacrificing features or effectiveness.

Did you notice how some people here, and at your blog, proposed modifications what would trade coverage for memory consumption? Even if that would result in known filter hits being eliminated, and also without qualifying that if such an approach were adopted it should be preference based?

Re: AdBlock Plus’s effect on Firefox’s memory usage

#228

Post by dredmorbius »

CJefferson wrote: post #126
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…

Such a webbrowser would be unable to render a large chunk of the internet, which doesn't sound overly useful. I'm sure if you dug up a copy of an early netscape version it would be very fast on a modern machine, while failing to render most of the internet, if that's what you want.

Such a webbrowser would be unable to render a large chunk of the internet, which doesn't sound overly useful.

It wouldn't be able to render a large chunk of the Internet as designed, which, frankly, with 1106 local custom stylesheets applied to fix a huge range of crap and annoyances, sounds very useful and desirable.

Web design isn't the solution, Web design is the problem.

http://redd.it/256lxu

Re: AdBlock Plus’s effect on Firefox’s memory usage

#229

Post by [deleted] »

nfoz wrote: post #89
nnethercote wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people think of a browser as a tool for displaying text and pictures, with maybe a bit of JS code and some CSS effects on the side. 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. The most popular websites run quite…

> 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…

[deleted]

Re: AdBlock Plus’s effect on Firefox’s memory usage

#230

Post by kalleboo »

peterwwillis wrote: post #169
riquito wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox was never meant to deliver "mostly-static webpages" and "skip all the modern BS".

Okay. If you want to get technical, they ("Phoenix developers") stripped out all the unnecessary Mozilla Suite components, stripped out a ton of browser code, then added their own code. They wanted to be feature-compatible while removing bloat. Technically it's harder to remain feature compatible if somebody ripped out the "modern BS" from the browser, because anything put into Firefox automatically becomes a de fact…

You don't need a new or changed browser to do any of that. Firefox still renders plain-text HTML that contains nothing more than ,

and just fine, blazing fast and I bet it doesn't need much RAM either.

But someone needs to create that content. And you're not getting it from the New York Times unless they can put flashy ads and interactive graphics that entices the majority of the users on the net (who actually enjoy the multimedia platform version of the web).

Post reply on HN