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

331–338 of 338 posts

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#331

Post by ycombonator »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #144
ycombonator wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1 ! Loving the pihole setup myself. Optimized the dnsmasq & raspbian network a little bit. I have 248,000 hosts on block list. Can you share your block lists if you can ?

What optimisations, please? Not OP, but FWIW I'm just using standard lists (you asked, I'm not sure what use it is): https://raw.githubusercontent.com/StevenBlack/hosts/master/h... https://mirror1.malwaredomains.com/files/justdomains http://sysctl.org/cameleon/hosts https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/blocklist.php?download=domainbl... https://s3.amazonaws.com/lists.disconnect.me/simple_tracking... https://s3.amazonaws.com/…

Sorry just catching up. Just the regular Linux network sysctl optimizations. Not all of them may apply to Raspbian or the hardware you are running it on.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#332

Post by LordLestat »

michaelmrose wrote: post #50
Endy wrote: post #35

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

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.

I rather would use Pale Moon before i would touch Mozilla Firefox - Mozilla which killed almost all customization options just to be able to be as attractive to Chrome users as possible.

In fact, i also would use Vivaldi every day over Firefox. Mozilla has turned into a greedy sell-out developer with zero respect for power- or geek users!

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#333

Post by LordLestat »

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…

Using Firefox from that sell-out developer with zero respect for power- and geek users.. from the developer who rather wants to attract Chrome/simple users and not supporting their own target user-base..

Mozilla is morally wise a totally unacceptable developer. They have been on the good side in the past, but what is left is almost as disgusting as Google itself... the Google - which Mozilla tries so hard to become itself.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#334

Post by detaro »

LordLestat wrote: post #333
sjwright wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Using Firefox from that sell-out developer with zero respect for power- and geek users.. from the developer who rather wants to attract Chrome/simple users and not supporting their own target user-base.. Mozilla is morally wise a totally unacceptable developer. They have been on the good side in the past, but what is left is almost as disgusting as Google itself... the Google - which Mozilla tries so hard to become i…

Why do you think normal users are not Mozilla's "target user-base"?

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#335

Post by michaelmrose »

LordLestat wrote: post #332
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.

I rather would use Pale Moon before i would touch Mozilla Firefox - Mozilla which killed almost all customization options just to be able to be as attractive to Chrome users as possible. In fact, i also would use Vivaldi every day over Firefox. Mozilla has turned into a greedy sell-out developer with zero respect for power- or geek users!

The problem with this narrative is that it is entirely fictional. The web extensions addons that have replaced the old style are just as featureful and Mozilla has done a good job of providing the functionality to build powerful addons.

Example Pentadactyl -> Tridactyl, noscript, ublock origin, stylus.

I'm not clear where you are coming from with the "greedy" accusation nor where you get off calling them sell outs. Based on what?

Your refrains betray "reduced to 180 characters" level of understanding of the matter and I strongly suggest you gain a more complete understanding of technical and business matters before attacking people who are producing so much value for the open source community.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#336

Post by nvrspyx »

icebraining wrote: post #150
nvrspyx wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quoted bit was about a built-in ad blocker specifically. I think the real major point is: “There are a couple components I want to touch on here - As mentioned elsewhere, we're still evaluating the adblock Manifest V3 changes, so we're not quite ready to commit to a statement one way or another on that issue.” And: “Second, we're committed to a strong extension ecosystem, including ad blocking. We're still evalua…

That's mostly fluff. Google also says they're not restricting ad blocking for business reasons, but for performance, and they haven't banned all ad-blocking, just forced addons to use their new mechanism, so they can still claim to support an ecosystem that includes ad-blocking.

Agreed. It doesn’t mean much, but I thought I would just point out the actual relevant bits even if they don’t hold much weight.

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#337

Post by vermaden »

vasili111 wrote: post #20
vxNsr wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a link to that? My only issue is that chrome is great bec I can have multiple profiles on the same windows user account, but that’s kinda anathema to the paradigm of how Microsoft wants us to use Edge. I use chrome profiles the same way ppl use Firefox containers, my only hope is that edge builds something similar. I’ve also been using Vivaldi, I love it but I’m worried about using duh a small project tha…

Try also Brave. It is fully open source and based on Chromium.

In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20096868 You asked: > Anyone uses FreeBSD on laptop? How is your impressions?

I do since years and here are the tips you may find useful if You would also like to run FreeBSD on the desktop.

https://vermaden.wordpress.com/freebsd-desktop/

... and please stay away from Project Trident or TrueOS or Lumina, they are from from being ready.

... eventually GhostBSD is quite OK.

... sorry for hijacking the 'Brave' thread but I am not able to reply to the original comment (time).

Re: uBlock Origin 1.20

#338

Post by albedoa »

iwasakabukiman wrote: post #256
bmn__ wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hunt is under the impression that he has a right to force Web clients to consume content like he wants to after it has left his server. This is, of course, not how the Web works, and he should know better. There is no point in getting upset about it and then writing a blog entry. Content blocking is a direct consequence of past abuse. He must understand even though he thinks he does nothing wrong, the bar of acceptab…

> He must understand even though he thinks he does nothing wrong, the bar of acceptability for people who subscribe to content blocker update lists – after past abuse – is: no distraction at all. Simple solution for you then: Don't visit sites with advertising. By repeatedly visiting sites with advertising, you're basically saying, "I want all this content but I'm not willing to support them financially."

A much simpler solution is to keep visiting them.
Post reply on HN