Live data from Hacker News

Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs

extremetech.com

231–240 of 419 posts

Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs

#231
Increases the SNR of the internet so high, it's actually worth it. I'd rather spend more on memory and have a less annoying internet :).

Consider the technical solution alternatives, and getting people to use them. Now look at how easy it is to install ABP.

Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs

#232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are motivated by the love of free software, why aren't you thinking of the possibility that gcc can have a backdoor written by bribed immoral programmers ? Or has Richard Stallman convinced you that by mere repetition of the word free, free software is also moral software ? I have no doubts what so ever that Opera is run by ethical people and it an ethical company. In any case a security / privacy audit is a m…

A security audit done by whom? Surely not people paid by the vendor of the product bring audited... Right?

Go read 10 million lines jack ass.

Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs

#233
post #14

I used to not do Adblock, because you know, ads make the internet go round and all that. But with the "download here"-button ads, there is no way to know what button to press anymore. Now installing Adblock is a requirement.

For me it was my first autoplaying video with sound in a pop-under.

Fuck that. You pull that shit, your whole industry can just go and get fucked. If you need to pull that shit to live, you need to fucking die.

This laptop has 8GB because Firefox with ABP is really fat. It's worth every byte. I use FF for personal stuff, Chromium for work; occasionally I load a non-work page in Chromium and am bloody horrified at what the web looks like with ads.

Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs

#234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's bollocks - it's not in the slightest an ethical breach to do that. It's just advertising working with production to make the product. We're not talking about running advertorial or anything. The papers I've worked on usually had a little flexibility in terms of extra copy or advertising to populate pages as required.

> it's not in the slightest an ethical breach to do that. It's just advertising working with production to make the product. Well, that by definition would be considered an ethical violation at a paper like the Times. Not at a student paper, no, but at the New York Times, definitely.

No, it wouldn't. By definition, the advertising department has to talk to production to establish runs and page counts. I guarantee that this happens at the NYT, because a paper could not possibly be produced without this process.

What possible ethical issue is there?

Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs

#235
post #27
post #14

I used to not do Adblock, because you know, ads make the internet go round and all that. But with the "download here"-button ads, there is no way to know what button to press anymore. Now installing Adblock is a requirement.

Honestly, I've only seen the "tricky" Download Now buttons on shady video websites (read: those that have all the episodes of Seinfeld on them). Though I've had more and more invasive ads in newspaper sites (the fact that I get so many ads on NYT's site despite being a subscriber is frustrating to say the least), I do like keeping free websites running. I find using ABP to be somew immoral , violating the contract wi…

They're a plague on SourceForge.

Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs

#236
post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Let me google that" pulls out character map pretty poor UX if you ask me. Almost as bad for search ability as calling your product "go" or "cloud" or "driver" or any other one-word generic, hard to find even with contextual terms around it.

pretty poor UX if you ask me yup. Has been around since NT or maybe even longer..

the poor UX is not the Character Map

It is having to open it every time you want to type the name of µSomething

Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs

#237
post #2

People are using µBlock now for precisely this reason. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/%C2%B5Block-vs.-ABP:-... https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/%C2%B5block/cjpalh... https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock

For those using Safari, there is a preliminary version of µBlock here: http://chrisly.me/0B0s2Y2Y3b0R

Note: No automatic updates with this unofficial build.

Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs

#238
I don't mind ads most of the time. I have a script that rips out iframes, flash and other junk, and does a few other "cleansing" operations. It works fairly well and it's satisfying to push the "zap" button when a certain page is getting particularly annoying, and see all those rectangles become suddenly blank.

Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs

#240
handy trick: install "incognito this tab" https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/incognito-this-tab... if adblocker is interfering with page, right mouse click and bring up tab in incognito mode (which doesn't load extensions unless specified).
Post reply on HN