[HN Gopher] uBlock-Origin - 1.52.0
___________________________________________________________________
uBlock-Origin - 1.52.0
Author : archo
Score : 136 points
Date : 2023-09-11 20:13 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| archo wrote:
| uBlock Origin - Wiki : https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki
| [deleted]
| ireallywantthat wrote:
| What if we implemented ublock origin in native code from
| Browser's side instead of implementing it as extension? Will
| there be performance, efficiency and memory improvements?
| seanw444 wrote:
| The answer is almost certainly yes. But I wonder if the APIs it
| uses are already fast enough that doing so would yield
| negligible benefits?
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| Yes, see https://github.com/uazo/cromite
|
| But the history of minimalistic Chromium forks is kinda sad, as
| they seem to get little attention and maintaining them requires
| a ton of work. They tend to burn out, like the dev of Bromite
| did.
| pvg wrote:
| That's more or less the goal of DeclarativeNetRequest in
| Chrome/manifest v3 and similar facilities in Safari.
| stonogo wrote:
| It achieves "efficiency" by dropping functionality and
| limiting rule counts. There are mitigations. Extensive
| discussion here: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-
| issues/issues/338
| dewey wrote:
| I somehow doubt the goal of the people behind Chrome is to
| make ad-blocking performance better.
| scq wrote:
| That is their stated goal.
|
| > There's been a lot of confusion and misconception around
| both the motivations and implications of this change,
| including speculation that these changes were designed to
| prevent or weaken ad blockers. This is absolutely not the
| goal. In fact, this change is meant to give developers a
| way to create safer and more performant ad blockers.
|
| -- https://blog.chromium.org/2019/06/web-request-and-
| declarativ...
| wtallis wrote:
| Implementing DeclarativeNetRequest is mostly about making
| (simple) blocking perform better. Instituting
| unrealistically low limits on the number of rules that
| can be registered is _not_ ; if anything, the new APIs
| should have been enabling much larger filter lists that
| are currently in widespread use through the old APIs.
| pvg wrote:
| It's not a particularly difficult thing to assess
| technically.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| I think Brave claims to be doing something like that?
| freedomben wrote:
| gorhill is a hero and legend to me. One of the most important
| players in making the modern web.
|
| I'm still holding out hope that either he or someone else picks
| uMatrix back up. It's such an incredible tool, and I'm worried
| about the day when it no longer works.
| amaranth wrote:
| Wasn't uMatrix dropped because at this point it's just a more
| powerful UI to do the same things uBlock Origin lets you do?
| contact9879 wrote:
| That was my understanding.
| contact9879 wrote:
| What does uMatrix have that uBlock Origin doesn't provide?
| wtallis wrote:
| A better UI for fine-grained control over what kind of
| requests get blocked.
| freedomben wrote:
| Exactly. Say I want to block cookies, media, and XHR
| requests on the current site as well as on a linked 3rd
| party site (like cloudfront), but allow css, scripts, and
| frames? In uMatrix such a configuration is trivial. In uBO
| AFAICT you're probably gonna have to write the rules
| manually. The grid UI in uBO doesn't get that granular,
| just "network request" level.
| pmontra wrote:
| The UI is many orders of magnitude better. uMatrix vs uBlock
| Origin is a textbook case. UbO's matrix is the masochist's
| teapot in the cover page of The Design of Everyday Things
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Design_of_Everyday_Things
| uMatrix is a teapot with the handle where it should be.
|
| If uMatrix will stop working I'll install NoScript. I'll keep
| using UbO for ads and cosmetic filtering.
| drewmol wrote:
| You use both(UbO and uMatrix)? I didn't realize uMatrix dev
| had been discontinued until just now, but between Brave
| shields and uMatrix I do a lot of clicking just to get
| stuff to work properly when browsing. Do you have to
| toggle/config uBlock often?
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| How so? I think uBO has a pretty nice UX for what I want to
| do.
|
| Especially like the element picker UI, where you can
| independantly control what element you want in the
| hierarchy and also how specific the selector should be.
| Dwedit wrote:
| As far as I've seen, the most recently committed fork of
| uMatrix is this one:
|
| https://github.com/nicolaasjan/nuTensor
|
| Why not just use the final release of uMatrix? Because it has a
| bug where it can delete your logon cookies when you navigate to
| another site. It also has bugs where the wrong rule is applied
| for a particular request (it picks the action defined for a
| different site).
| frogelos wrote:
| Personally i use AdNauseam but if i click on uBlock button and
| then select "more" twice i get similar interface to uMatrix.
| Are there any features lacking in there compared to uMatrix?
| squarefoot wrote:
| > Are there any features lacking in there compared to
| uMatrix?
|
| uMatrix had a much better UI which allowed finer granularity
| and immediate feedback when blocking this or that for a given
| site.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| > uBO works best on Firefox.
|
| Those looking for performant adblocking in Chrome should also
| check out Cromite:
|
| https://github.com/uazo/cromite
|
| Its a resumption of Bromite for Android/Windows, hence the
| adblocking and tracking protection is far less limited since its
| native, not an extension.
|
| Of course, YMMV with lone Chromium fork devs.
| jacooper wrote:
| Just use brave
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| Theres a list of small things I don't like about Brave,
| including the ad-replacement business model and the rewards
| things.
|
| I prefer "simple" forks that stick closer to Chromium, and
| Cromite is basically that.
| ploum wrote:
| Those looking for adblocking should not use Chrome at all. If
| Chrome is really needed, it should be in its own container
| without any personal data.
|
| Adblocking in chrome is like smoking cigarettes with filters
| because "it's better for my health".
|
| No, it's not.
|
| For people knowledgeable enough to read HN, there's no excuse
| to still use Chrome as a daily driver.
| stathibus wrote:
| Ads pay for the internet.
| stonogo wrote:
| Someone should inform my ISP.
| e2le wrote:
| My CPU is not free real estate for any site to abuse as
| they see fit.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| 99% of what goes through my browser is either SEO trash,
| social media attention baiting, a straight up scam,
| paywalled, or something ethically questionable from Big
| Tech.
|
| I whitelist cool/niche sites, but things worth whitelisting
| are increasingly rare. Whatever discomfort I felt using an
| adblocker before is long gone.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| The customized forks are lightyears better than vanilla
| Chrome.
|
| Still, you have a point, and this feature in particular is
| quite telling:
|
| > internal firewall to block all unauthorised calls made from
| the browser patch (issue 147)
| lucb1e wrote:
| Anything in particular the submitter (u/archo) is excited about?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-11 22:01 UTC)