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

291–300 of 338 posts

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#291

Post by tomc1985 »

jsloss wrote: post #289
tomc1985 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There used to be a rich history of one-man products maintained selflessly by their creators, even up until the early 2010's. Entrepreneurship and business assholes destroyed that -- we gave this up when we made tech so easy to use that every brother and their mother got on board. Now tech is too big, with too much money, that it cannot help but attract sharks that buy up these sorts of things and then destroy them

Tech should just be for tech people! Mothers and brothers be damed! I get the frustration, but shouldn’t we be working towards models that allow for better compensation for creators rather than ... well I’m not exactly sure what you’re advocating for here ...

Better compensation for creators is not going to stand up to a multi-million or multi-billion-dollar buyout. Much of the western world has this crazy fascination with tech for the sake of tech, and it is that fascination and subsequent vulnerability that attracts the personalities that have been systematically pillaging all the great things that tech -- particularly lone-wolf individuals -- have built over the years.

It'd be really cool to see more barriers to entry limiting people's ability to access some tech, and limiting the size of businesses that are built around it. The internet was much better when it belongs to and was embraced by nerds, and not the general public, for example.

Our modern world is too complicated for most folks and now we have to build things so overly simplified that it is nearly impossible to be a power user or do advanced tasks when everything is reduced to single-button, shitty-app solutions in the cloud maintained by megacorps with more money than God

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#293

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

asark wrote: post #262
ec109685 wrote: post #67

It's crazy how good uBlock is and everything it blocks. What happens if more of the Internet learns about this extension? Subscriptions for all sites? Some other business model?

Lots of ad-supported sites and services could/would be replaced by something free and volunteer-driven—and in some cases probably a little worse, in others, a little better, than their existing commercial counterparts—if ads just went away tomorrow. There's low motivation to do so now because you're "competing" with deep-pocketed ad-supported orgs for users, but if a gap opened up due to ads no longer being viable, i…

You're a little too optimistic, IMO.

Running a website has costs. Even if it can be run by a single person in their spare time, servers and bandwidth costs money.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#294

Post by notpushkin »

pmoriarty wrote: post #274
jvolkman wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can pay for a YouTube premium account which doesn't have ads.

Or you can use youtube-dl[1] to download youtube videos without ads. [1] - https://rg3.github.com/youtube-dl/

...or you can use Invidious which just serves videos from YouTube without ads and no almost no JS :)

https://github.com/omarroth/invidious https://invidio.us/ (one of the hosted instances)

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#295

Post by FabHK »

Marsymars wrote: post #280
FabHK wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm running uBlock Origin 1.16 on Safari 12.1.1 right now, unless I'm mistaken.

Apple hasn't completed the Extension Gallery deprecation process, but it will be entirely unusable with Safari 13.

Ah, thanks, damn. Might be time to give Firefox another shot.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#296

Post by cowgoesmoo »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #288
zamadatix wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note DNS ad blocking is a very limited subset of what browser-level blockers support. Better than nothing but certainly not a replacement.

With the changes coming to Chrome, is there a most realistic option than network-level blocking?

Firefox?

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#297

Post by michaelmrose »

jversd673 wrote: post #84
michaelmrose wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pale moon is a bad product made by horrendous individuals. For the technical reasons read https://www.howtogeek.com/335712/update-why-you-shouldnt-use... For the interpersonal reasons please see the lead developer acting like a spoiled child here. https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86 Friends don't let friends use a crappy, out of date, insecure, janky browser.

No, Pale moon is not bad product at all, as for the horrendous individuals, well that's wrong too. >For the technical reasons read https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=135424#p135424 >For the interpersonal reasons please see the lead developer acting like a spoiled child here. (btw mattatobin is not a lead developer, get your fact straight please) https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=134236#p134236 >Frien…

A set of instructions that would allow the end user to build something cannot be subject to any copyright license insofar as it doesn't actually contain the software that is bound by said license.

The unofficial patches are presumably by definition not copyright the project considering they are written by a third party.

This is kind of how multiple source based packages work. Nothing is being distributed by the repo save instructions the end user does the fetching and building.

Normally people do a small amount of research before attacking volunteers who are providing free labor to make their package more broadly available.

An example dialog could have been opened like so.

"We at the Pale Moon project prefer that distributions package as close as possible to the default experience to ensure that all users have the same experience and aid in troubleshooting. Can we talk about the patches that are being distributed with Pale Moon to see if they are really needed for our product to work on your OS?"

If no agreement can ultimately be reached respectfully ask for it not to be distributed but use the know how generated to add a forum post "Building on OpenBSD" not burning any bridges AND actually profiting from the experience.

Instead Pale Moon devs appear to have learned nothing from the interaction.

I've noticed that you didn't bother to address the technical reasons whatsoever. Your browser is probably the best vector into your system and malware no longer just screws up your system. It's now common for malware to encrypt your files and hold them for ransom.

In effect an out of date firefox means that malware authors can use up to date firefox's security fixes to target users using old software that perforce is vulnerable to the same attacks. This needn't be specifically targeted at JUST palemoon users. All users of out of date firefox represent a possible victim pool with attractively low security.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#298

Post by asark »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #293
asark wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of ad-supported sites and services could/would be replaced by something free and volunteer-driven—and in some cases probably a little worse, in others, a little better, than their existing commercial counterparts—if ads just went away tomorrow. There's low motivation to do so now because you're "competing" with deep-pocketed ad-supported orgs for users, but if a gap opened up due to ads no longer being viable, i…

You're a little too optimistic, IMO. Running a website has costs. Even if it can be run by a single person in their spare time, servers and bandwidth costs money.

Nah, I just remember what it used to be like. Most of the stuff that's valuable's not that expensive to run. Some of it's fairly decentralizable. The part that makes it difficult and expensive is centralization and control. File distribution's solved and practically free to the distributor if you just want to publish and don't care about retaining control, counting views, and so on. Anyway the sites with the highest costs (video and audio files) tend to be the ones that could probably survive on subscriptions and "native" ads.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#299

Post by Endy »

sjwright wrote: post #61
Endy wrote: post #35

Cool. Is there a non-WebExtensions XUL version for us Pale Moon users?

I would strongly advise not using Pale Moon—for numerous reasons specific to that particular distribution (which aren't interesting enough to repeat here) but mostly for reasons that apply to all minor web browser projects; particularly ones based off old code: — How quickly will serious vulnerabilities be patched? Given the project is so small, I wouldn't trust their future response to be rapid even if they have bee…

I have found that, as much as Moonchild & Tobin can be difficult, I trust their judgment far more than I do Mozilla's. I want to be in control of my browser, I want to determine what gets downloaded and uploaded from my PC. They tend to be on that side.

Also, my problems with the browser product itself are simple: the UI is awful and cannot be meaningfully fixed, and multi-process programs cause my computer to hang (so I set up a script to auto kill them). Pale Moon respects me as a User, not as an ad profile for Google.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#300

Post by mikhailt »

icebraining wrote: post #257
mikhailt wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of the impact if the site is blocked by the browser's red malware warning UI (Google's safe browsing or smartscreen in IE) because a compromised file was hosted on the main domain. It is much harder to get the site whitelisted once it has been compromised since it is on the same domain. In my job, we had a site domain that was falsely flagged as malware-infected and it took about a few days before it was confir…

AFAIK, Google Safe Browsing will show that warning on your site even if the malware came from a third-party domain.

But what's easier to remove; your site or the third party links on the website?

I don't remember third party domains being problematic to remove compared to the first party stuff?

Post reply on HN