uBlock allows ads

oh fuck off with your sensationalized bullshit

>Is it still worth using for the lowered resource usage at the expense of ads?

its shilled on /g/ all the time so yes its perfect in every way. just enjoy the ads boys.

>>46361504
I use policeman so I don't have that problem ;^)

uBlock is more for the element hiding than anything

File: 1420696196557.png (106KB, 600x650px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 600x650px

just use bluhell firewall

>>46361504
>Hi /g/, the author of uBlock has said that the add-on does not block requests for the first time.

Thought that was a Chrome API limitation. Does it behave like that on Firefox as well?

>>46362075
Firefox does have superior, real element blocking whereas in Chrome ad blockers are simply limited to "hiding" stuff.

I guess the uBlock dev simply ported it to Firefox without making use of FF's special capabilities.

Well, this is another lesson on why you shouldn't trust your tech to sensationalist /g/ threads. The same question about uBlock invaded me the previous week when I restarted my Firefox profile and decided to give uBlock a try; thanks for working the answer out for me OP

>>46362400
So does ublock just hide ads in firefox? That's pretty shit.

>>46362400
>I guess the uBlock dev simply ported it to Firefox without making use of FF's special capabilities.
That's fucking sad. Although it's still very much in beta stage on Firefox.
Perhaps he'll come to his senses and implement proper blocking before labeling it as stable…

Guess I won't be switching to µBlock anytime soon either way.

>>46362400
>in Chrome ad blockers are simply limited to "hiding" stuff.
My god nobody on /g/ has the slightest idea of what they're actually talking about. Chrome extensions can block requests without problems since 2012. Three fucking years ago. And you keep repeating this bullshit.

https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/webRequest
>Use the chrome.webRequest API to observe and analyze traffic and to intercept, block, or modify requests in-flight.
>Since Chrome 17.

There are some edge cases, like requests from Flash.
>2015
>still using Flash

>>46361504
They aren't talking about request blocking, they're talking about cosmetic filters.

Seriously, just go to the site and monitor your network activity. It blocks all the requests it should, but the social stuff isn't removed until the page finishes loading.

>>46362400
>Well, this is another lesson
Or maybe you should read their github page, it's still not fully developed for firefox.

And I thought you would understand this with the current number version, 0.x.x

>>46363203
Read the OP faggot:

>I have the two fanboys Antisocial filters that should block them.
If the social widgets are shown "until the page finishes loading" they didn't get blocked.

File: Untitled.png (116KB, 844x695px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 844x695px

I see zero external requests for ads. I'm pretty sure if the ads were simply being hidden under css they'd be downloaded first.

Either there's more to this than OP is letting on or this is false.

>>46363258
>Read the OP faggot

>the author of uBlock has said that the add-on does not block requests for the first time

The requests are blocked on the first visit. The placeholder elements aren't removed until the cosmetic filters are added, which happens after the page is rendered for the first time.

>>46363203
That's like all blockers work. And it's not "social stuff", it's just a bunch of locally hosted pictures without scripts attached.

>>46363482

Thanks for clarifying anon

>>46363548
This. Shame it's not gonna stop trolls from bringing up this misinformation every time µBlock is mentioned from now on.

>>46362400
How can one single man be so wrong? Don't believe anything this guy spouts.

>>46361504
>using an extension to block ads

>>46361504
>the author of uBlock has said that the add-on does not block requests for the first time
FUD, more and more expected sadly, given how the incumbents feel threatened. Spreading FUD is easier than writing good code.

Network requests = blocked all the time

Specific cosmetic filters: applied before page loads

Generic cosmetic filters: applied once main document finishes loading (this is what saves you having 20,000 css rules multipled by (page + n iframes) injected

It's that simple.

>>46362758
>That's fucking sad
No that's fucking FUD. You fell for it. On /g/.

>>46364394
>FUD, more and more expected sadly
You don't think scrutiny of meme-addons is a good thing?

>>46362846
>There are some edge cases, like requests from Flash
These can be blocked all fine too. The edge case is webSocket.

>>46364432
If you actually did scrutinize anything, you would see OP is FUD.

1. open any ABP-compatible filter list.
2. two classes of filters.
3. line starts with "!" = comment
4. line with "##" or "#@#" somewhere = element hiding filters, to remove DOM elements
5. everything else is network filters = blocked before the browser can fire them

2015 and yet too difficult to grasp for so many on /g/

0/10

B-But /g/ told me it was good!

>>46365365
/g/ is not one person

/g/ is a collection of retards and me

So the uBlock on firefox simply "hides" it after displaying it?

Top fucking lel. Back to adblock it is.

>>46363458
reading comprehension obviously entirely absent. requests are not blocked the first time ---> they are blocked afterwards

I prefer Bluhell Firewall

>>46365378
No you moron. It blocks the request, but renders the element. Next time you visit, it will use cosmetic filters to remove the element.

What filters do you guys use on uBlock?

>>46364101
what do you use? How-to maybe?

>>46366710
I use Opera 12.16 with Fanboy's list as the urlfilter.ini

>>46366786
>I use Opera 12.16

Fag

>>46365370

>/g/ - A collection of retards...and a faget

>>46366786
>I use Opera 12.16
Bro, stop.
I used 12.16 Opera for the longest time but most of the newer websites are laggy as fuck.
Just use Chromium + uBlock.
pls listen

>>46367122
Yep.

RIP uBlock

What to trust, a random FUD post on /g/ or the people at Prism Break?

https://prism-break.org/en/projects/ublock/

>>46365499
>requests are not blocked the first time
>>46365768
>Next time you visit

But this is fucking useless if you're the kind of person who does a lot of searching/exploring.
There are tons of websites I'll only ever visit once in my lifetime. And I have to just deal with that bullshit and never see the benefits of them being blocked as I never come back.

LOL

"un" block shills are getting mad

>>46368586

And "ublock nothing" shills should stop promoting an inferior adblocker

No one is falling for it

>>46361504
>still using 0.8.5.0

Instead of people shilling left and right, why can't someone post conclusive evidence?
Seeing as both Firefox and µBlock are open source, it should be quite possible to find out once and for all.

>>46368814
the fact that he refuses to release it to public through mozilla addons is fishy enough

>>46368843
>the fact that he refuses to release it to public through mozilla addons is fishy enough

But isn't the entire source available on GitHub already?

>>46368843
Being on AMO honestly doesn't make a whole lot of sense at this stage in development.
By the time they preliminary review one build, there's probably three new builds waiting.

I think we'll have to wait until µBlock reaches stable/"finished" status and see if he uploads it to AMO then.
If he doesn't do that, THEN we can start conspiring.

Daily reminder: the author of ABP is assdamaged because ublock BTFOs his addon. This topic was either created by him or a paid shill in an attempt to soothe his chapped buttocks

>>46368843
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/550#issuecomment-72313569

"µBlock is not an ad blocker; it's a general-purpose blocker. µBlock blocks ads through its support of the Adblock Plus filter syntax. µBlock extends the syntax and is designed to work with custom rules and filters.

That said, it's important to note that using a blocker is NOT theft. Don't fall for this creepy idea. The ultimate logical consequence of blocking = theft is the criminalisation of the inalienable right to privacy.

Ads, "unintrusive" or not, are just the visible portions of privacy-invading apparatus entering your browser when you visit most sites nowadays. µBlock's main goal is to help users neutralize such privacy-invading apparatus — in a way that welcomes those users who don't wish to use more technical, involved means (such as µMatrix).

EasyList, Peter Lowe's Adservers, EasyPrivacy are enabled by default when you install µBlock. Many more lists are readily available to block trackers, analytics, and more. Hosts files are also supported."

>>46361504
I've read the thread and still I can't get where's the truth.
Aside from anons calling out each other retards or shills (why do you even post on /g/), I'd like to investigate OP's issue.

>>I have the two fanboys Antisocial filters that should block them.
This means that this behaviour happens only with the Antisocial filters?
Maybe antisocial filters are deemed to kick in later on a mere cosmetic level, so that we can say they behave differently from standard adblock filters?

We have seen that Chrom{e,ium} does not lack the capability to block elements ( >>46362846 ), so it doesn't make sense that ublock's port have to lack such capability.

Still gorhill's reply in unclear.
>>Yes it is normal, given how uBlock works.
>>You can get around this behavior by creating a filter specific to the site, i.e. www.formulatv.com###social in the current case

This means that you can get around the behaviour *of antisocial filters* or *of uBlock*? If it's ublock's behaviour, why isn't enabled per default the "better" behaviour? how does
>www.formulatv.com###social
change the requests made by your browsers?
I don't have much hope that any of you have actually given a look at the source code (for that I might be luckier with reddit) but one can hope...

>>46369294
But how does Adblock Plus compare in this scenario?
Does it "properly" block everything (requests as well as elements) on first visit?

>>46369361

Yes, Adblock plus blocks them from the first visit, that's why the question was asked

"Adblock plus user who never saw ads tries the new adblocker and sees ads"

>>46369819
So does anyone know if this proper blocking will eventually make it to µBlock?
Or is this an inherent problem to µBlock and perhaps the reason it claims better performance?

>>46367733
>implying Prism Break isn't a pet project of a /g/ neckbneard

>>46369910

The better performance is on the system not on the result. ABP unfortunately is a bloated adblocking tool but also the most effective

uBlock could get to ABP level of effectiveness but in turn could become bloat hence losing the point of being ABP alternative

>>46370207
What I meant to ask was actually if being able to "properly" block is the culprit of the performance issues that supposedly plague ABP, or if µBlock could implement the same functionality but maintain performance by using superior coding compared to ABP.

um
adblocker doesnt actually remove things anyway
have you guys already forgotten the reasons we switched? one of the reasons was to get at things before they load in. sure, ublock doesnt do it the first time, but adblock never gets it before it loads. how is that suddely better than ublock again?

>>46370279
>but maintain performance by using superior coding compared to ABP.

Its plausible

>>46370311
>adblock never gets it before it loads
[citation needed]

>>46370350
>Its plausible
ABP is, after all, quite old.
µBlock started with a relatively clean slate.

adblock edge anyone

>>46370311
Openwrt (router firmware) is even better than any adblocking script if you want to block ads at source

>>46370355
dude, it was the main reason everyone was switching. resources on every path was better: cpu, memory, network. ublock actually stops them before they load, adblock just removes their element

>>46370396
m8 im running pfsense. this is all yall niggas problem

>>46370419
>dude, it was the main reason everyone was switching
I don't believe that's true. At least not if you look at the shill threads on /g/
Seriously the main/sole reason people are switching is >muh RAM/bloat

>>46370389
uBlock>ABE>ABP.

If you don't trust ublock (that means you listen to retards in this site), abe is the best option.

>>46371384
>adblock 2edgy4me
>being too retarded to uncheck a box
How does it feel having the IQ of a four-year-old?

>>46371438
>Being so retarded to see outside the simple option.
The whole deal about ABE is not because some stupid option, is about how ABP and its devs had change to become happy merchants.
Also ABP is far more bloated than ABE.

>lowered resource usage

maybe if you didnt use some 20 year piece of shit thinkpad with 128mb of ram you wouldnt act like a fucking tool and start dumb 'discussions' about muh resources

>mfw reading this thread
Someone really doesn't want people using uBlock.

>>46371584
And this is why we can't have games that run smoothly. Hardware is not an answer to poorly optimized code, fuck you and fuck developers who think like you.

>>46371546
>bloat
ABE removes a checkbox
otherwise they are exactly the same...except ABE is usually a version behind ABP

>>46371584

> stop optimising code

fuck off now, I don't wanna see your sorry ass ever again on this website

>>46371584
Usage of memory isn't bad you cunt.
Slowing everything to a crawl is.

>>46371586
I can't tell if it's legitimate shilling or just trolling for reactions.

>>46372110
One usually causes the other.

>>46371546
The only "bloat" that ABE removes is the aforementioned checkbox, which can easily be removed from ABP.

extensions.adblockplus.subscriptions_exceptionscheckbox => false

The "acceptable ads" then show up as any other filter (assuming you didn't already uncheck the box before) and can then be deleted like a normal filter.

>>46371384
Adguard is better than ABE

>>46372298
No it doesn't, with the exception of completely filling RAM.

>>46361504
>http://www.formulatv.com
I still get the G+ social button, with all antisocial filters enabled. What the fuck.

>>46372417
gorhill confirmed for being paid by google

File: 1367247942981[1].jpg (17KB, 245x204px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 245x204px

jesus fuck the stupidity in this thread is making me angry, yet i keep coming back

>>46372417
So make a custom filter, lists are not perfect.

what is /g/'s obsession with using beta and alpha software and then complaining when it doesn't work right?

>>46370279
>if µBlock could implement the same functionality
It does. The whole thread really looks like ABP/AB et al. panicking for the impending losses and grasping at straws.

Try in Chromium/FF, with ABP/AB/uBlock/Adguard:
http://raymondhill.net/ublock/tiles1.html

>>46373607
>It does.
But it doesn't. People are seeing random stuff showing (at least on first visit) that they're not getting with ABP/ABE.

>>46374122

you seriously need to calm the fuck down

>>46370207
>bloated
I wish people would stop throwing that word around as if they knew what it meant. OMG WINDOZE CUMS ON A HOLE DVD BLOATED TO FUCK

>b-b-but it still loads ads
It's like nobody here even gets the point of an ad blocker.

>>46375230
Yeah the point is to block ads.
You can understand why people are rustled when something doesn't properly block then.

File: 1421874833952.png (123KB, 1033x874px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1033x874px

>>46374122
>they're not getting with ABP/ABE
Because they are holding back page rendering while they inject their 22,000 CSS rules on the page and every single frame on that page. Not exactly cheap.

Navigate to other pages on the same site, and ABP will still inject 22,000 CSS rules for each one of these pages (and frames in it); meanwhile uBlock remembers to inject that one generic CSS rule which it saw was needed the first time, and without holding back page rendering and without hogging memory and CPU.

Were you really really annoyed the first time? As shown in OP, create custom CSS filter for the site and it won't ever happened again. And these are so rare instances (as opposed to what you suggest) that it is interesting to see such focus on such non-issue.

You like to focus on small issue? Look at pic, this is what ABP did to test page when launching FF: weirdly messed up, one frame loaded with wrong content, and add to this the social widgets were not all properly filtered either.

>>46375553
>Because they are holding back page rendering while they inject their 22,000 CSS rules on the page and every single frame on that page.
As it should be.
>Not exactly cheap.
Not exactly a problem on a machine from 2001 or later.

File: 1421950375541.png (73KB, 1043x931px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1043x931px

>>46375553
Launching of FF+uBlock with test page, see difference: one of them is not right.

>>46375513
>Yeah the point is to block ads.
No, the point is to block *annoying* ads. The original intent of ABP, which is still its intent now, is to send a message to advertisers that do distracting animations, video with sound, margin capture and stuff that hovers over the content that those things are not ok.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adblock_Plus
>to hide elements such as text ads on a page as they load instead of blocking them

https://adblockplus.org/en/filters#elemhide
>You need to download the web page so you will necessarily download the advertisements. All you can do here is to hide the advertisement so you don't need to see it.

hurrdurr abp doesn't block ads either!

>>46375725
PANIC!

>>46375725
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adblock_Plus
>>to hide elements such as text ads on a page as they load instead of blocking them

Actually, the whole paragraph is
>Like Mozilla's built-in image blocker, Adblock Plus blocks HTTP and HTTPS requests according to their source address and additional context information and can block iframes, scripts, and Flash. It also uses automatically generated user stylesheets to hide elements such as text ads on a page as they load instead of blocking them, known as element hiding
>Adblock Plus blocks HTTP and HTTPS
>Adblock Plus blocks
>It also uses automatically generated user stylesheets to hide elements
>also

>>46375725
>>https://adblockplus.org/en/filters#elemhide
>>You need to download the web page so you will necessarily download the advertisements. All you can do here is to hide the advertisement so you don't need to see it.

Actually, that section begins with
>Sometimes you will find advertisements that can't be blocked because they are embedded as text in the web page itself.
>Sometimes
>can't be blocked
>because embedded as text

Someone here is excellent in distorting truth.

>>46375638
>>Yeah the point is to block ads.
>No, the point is to block *annoying* ads

No, the point is the ability to block ads tout court.

>>46361599
I'm wondering if I could get some sort of rundown on Policeman? I guess I'm too big of a fucking idiot to figure it out.

>>46376869
tl;dr - it can't block some ads

adblock plus?
more like adhide plus ROFL

>>46376869
>No, the point is the ability to block ads tout court.
Then you're clearly not looking for an ad blocker.