Cem Kaner said that all the pedantry about whether or not something is a bug is irrelevant. He says a bug is anything a user perceives as wrong.
I used to worry about calling things not-really-bugs, but when I adopted his viewpoint it gave me a better perspective on what's important in software.
I try to go the other way and push people towards avoiding calling anything a "bug" as much as possible. It helps a lot in change control to know what's a "new feature", what's an "improvement", what "needs clarification" - but it's administrative hell trying to work out priorities from hundreds of indeterminate "bugs".
Firefox's memory usage is much better than it used to be, thanks to the MemShrink project (https://wiki.mozilla.org/Performance/MemShrink). Judging from sites like Hacker News, more people have trouble with memory usage on Chrome than on Firefox these days, and the same is true of performance in general.
But the general sentiment four years ago, when I started MemShrink, was very clear that Firefox's memory usage was a problem. Every discussion thread about browsers on this very site would degenerate at some point into discussion about Firefox's memory usage. (Indeed, this was a big part of why I started MemShrink.)
That's no longer true. Comments about Firefox's memory usage are much rarer now. And when somebody does say that Firefox has bad memory usage, more often than not they'll get pushback from other commenters who have a different experience. Not to say that they're wrong or Firefox is perfect, but the situation is so much better than it used to be, particular when it comes to avoiding the bad memory spikes that cause the worst problems.
Out of control memory bloat on vital apps like my stock trading platform forced me over to Chrome around the FF 4 days. Missing the great Add-ons, I returned to Firefox about a year ago, and can't believe the difference. The MemShrink team has done a fantastic job. Thank you!
I switched to Chrome about 6 months before MemShrink, right around the time everyone from Mozilla kept blaming addons for memory problems and saying there wasn't a problem with Firefox. When the MemShrink project was announced I just laughed.
I've got it installed for development and I have no complaints, but now that I've got Chrome set up for syncing and all that it's just become my default. I'm sure I'll get annoyed at Chrome at some point and switch back.
With that in mind, in the future perhaps you could think twice before posting snarky comments based on your experiences from five years ago.
In a rational universe that would be a reasonable request. Too bad we don't live in a rational universe.
Bad experiences weigh much more heavily on us than good experiences. For example, there is a chain of stores I won't go to, because I bought some inferior products from them over 35 years ago. Is that rational? No. But it is human nature.
This is Mozilla jargon. Anything that is tracked in Bugzilla is a "bug". I've opened bug in Bugzilla to change the chair at my desk, for example (I work at Mozilla).
We've since switched to another system, bugzilla was apparently a bit hard to use for non-technical people, and the new tool has better workflow management features.
ABP memory usage in Chrome made me switch to router-level ad blocking. Added bonus: it works on mobile too. I have weird page renderings sometimes, and whitelisting a legit site is a pain, but it's overall a huge value to off-load the blocking to the router.
Or set up a VPN to the same network that the router level blocking is on. Presumably if you can set up router level blocking, a VPN shouldn't be that big of a hurdle.
or just use firefox for android then, which also works with ublock origin anyway, and uses way less ram than chrome for android with and without ad blocking.
You'll need to set up Privoxy on a machine on your network (unfortunately the config is not the easiest to get to grips with) and then set up your devices to use it as a HTTP/HTTPS proxy.
If you have a VPN, you can configure clients to automatically use your proxy. For instance, on OpenVPN, add a couple of lines to the server.conf, using your own ip + ports:
It's safe to assume I have a standard Linux system. I have an Ubiquiti EdgeRouter now, and a few regular x86_64 always-on systems behind it I can proxy traffic through if necessary.
Do you have any tips for performance. I use chrome and ublock, umatrix and disconnect. Disconnect is a few second penalty but worth it for a free proxy. However, I am not sure whether ublock runs before uMatrix, or how much that matters. I was hoping to find a few great regex heuristics to speed things up and procide better blocking. I personally don't use 3rd party block by default because honestly why bother, sites display so shitty you might as well just noscript and whitelist.
tldr; parent or anyone interested do you have suggestions surrounding:
> good filter configurations in ublock
> whitelist & regex config
> use uMatrix?
> how to optimize for performance?
uBlock can use disconnect's filter lists, its in the options. I'm not sure why you think disconnect is giving you a "free proxy", that doesn't seem to be a feature.
What people doesn't know is that uBlock makes use of EasyList as one of its default block lists. EasyList is maintained by ABP's parent company. That list itself has built-in whitelist that could not be turn off without revamping the list itself. That list contains upward of 60k of rules and no one has time to evaluate that for free.
uBlock can make all kind of independence claims it wants, but at the end of the day, uBlock is still relying on ABP for its blocking rules--which is no guarantee at all.
edit: lol why are people downvoting me for pointing out that uBlock is relying on ABP? uBlock never acctually claimed to not having acceptable ads. By using ABP's EasyList, they could already be running an "acceptable ads" whitelist.
Because the comment has nothing to do with the parent.
The fact that uBlock uses ABP lists is completely irrelevant. People choose uBlock because it uses compute resources more efficiently. Regardless of the list.
It's not irrelevant. People may assume they are switching to an entirely independent project when moving to uBlock, but a dependency has now been pointed out. Whereas previously, I may have assumed that if Ad Block ceased to be, or their servers were having problems I would be completely unaffected, now I know I might be. This is useful information for anyone who "switched to uBlock Origin and never looked back."
Because while some of the facts are true, most are are not and are baseless speculation. As it stands, the "acceptable ads" list is not in uBlock Origin.
Yes, you are right, but just to make this point clear: The whitelisting that occurs in EasyList doesn't allow ads to pass through and is in no way related to the "acceptable ads" feature in ABP. The whitelisting in EasyList is because some sites check for Adblock and blocked elements, so EasyList needs ways around that.
I'm not too sure if the "acceptable adds" whitelist is built in, they still allow you to turn "acceptable adds" off.
Haven't investigated it thoroughly, but if I recall correctly the adds on reddit.com are block by uBlock, but not by AdBlock Plus (unless you disable the "acceptable adds").
EasyList/EasyPrivacy are community-driven filter lists.[1] Whatever whitelisting in EasyList/EasyPrivacy is to address site breakage. Not addressing site breakage would lead to less people using these lists, and thus less people benefiting from the protection they offer (see graph at link below).
The "acceptable ads" fitlers are in a separate list, which is not part of uBlock Origin.[2]
Here are the benefits of using EasyList/EasyPrivacy (the "Easy mode" bar): https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode#. If you know filter lists which can accomplish the same protection with the same reliability at not breaking sites, I will be happy to use them in uBlock. Filter lists which lead to site breakage won't be used by a majority of users because the majority of users just want an install and forget approach. So the net result would be less people protected, the complete opposite of the goal I set for uBlock.
> uBlock can make all kind of independence claims it wants, but at the end of the day, uBlock is still relying on ABP for its blocking rules
No, uBlock Origin depends on community-driven EasyList/EasyPrivacy, just like many other blockers: ABP, AdBlock, AdGuard, BluHell, Adblock Fast, etc.
In the final analysis this question is equivalent to "Is it difficult to make a site that can have any piece of it fail to load or be removed at any time?" since website developers have no control over what may or may not make it onto the list of an adblocker.
Ad blockers don't just block third party things though. Or even necessarily sane things. Our site is a classified ad aggregator. At the time at least, we learned that Adblock Plus would just blithely delete any element with 'ad' as part of its class. (A major section of our results page had the class 'ad block' (ironically) and was blocked.)
Yes, these things can be worked around, but not every site maintainer will bother. (Especially since those adblock users likely don't earn them any direct revenue.)
The most egregious site breakage from ad blockers is when sites can't handle the absence of their Adobe or Google JS. Some sites have large amounts of content that is only loaded via three levels of third-party-JS indirection. Others will try to fire an event to Google Analytics on every click, but if GA doesn't load, an error is thrown that prevents the click's default action.
I was making a $1000-range purchase on an ecommerce site that was utterly broken by my refusal to be tracked in intimate detail, and their product manager was basically, "eh." So I worked around it by catching the errors for them in the browser inspector. This is the type of breakage that site developers absolutely should be fixing.
Adobe makes more than Flash. They have a number of user tracking, profiling, and A/B testing systems, plus an email delivery and segmentation system. Some or all of those things started as Omniture. Google also has Google Tag Manager, which is a third-party JS for injecting more third-party JS. When half your site's content is loaded by Adobe into "mbox"es, triggered by JS loaded by Google Tag Manager, it's a nightmare for real developers and end users alike even with everything working.
Depends on what their business is. Apple's $99-a-year developer portal recently broke because I block Adobe's Omniture tracking. The same happened to me on an ad-free, crowdfunded news site that I've backed. In these cases, "does not work with ABP/ublock/Ghostery" is a valid bug report.
There are situations when it is difficult or at leas annoying: sometimes blocking rules are too loose that generates false positives. Few examples from my personal memory:
- "Block any image on any domain that has `/ad/` in its path."
(Encountered in certain local block list, not present in such pure form at time of writing.)
Found this one while inspecting bugreport of our client who complained he cannot see some images on his presentation we maintained. Our CMS serves static binary data with "folderized hash paths" where occurrence of `/ad/` is not completely avoidable. Even now Easylist [1] inludes many general `adsomething` rules that FMOPW could do many false positives.
- "Block any flash that has `clickthru` parameter." This rule is still present in aforementioned easylist [1]: `.swf?clickthru=`, but amusingly is very easily avoidable (rule insists that this parameter is first). Back in times this parameter was de facto standard for embedded flash serving as hyperlink to tell it where to link to. Found this one when another client complained that his flash-based part of main navigation (supplied by third party studio) does not work.
- Even now the question "Have you disabled your adblocker?" often relevant response to general WTFs during web-development.
I switched back to ABP when uBlock started universally blocking Sourceforge. I understand Sourceforge has engaged in a number of very shady practices lately, but I need Numpy for my job and I don't have time to work around nanny software.
Uninstalling uBlock, installing and setting ABP up takes less time than temporarily or even permanently disabling the blocking of SF by simply clicking on a button?
uBlock didn't start to universally block sourceforge, they just added sourceforge to their "uBlock filters - badware risks" list, which is justified imo. If you don't want this behaviour, just disable the list.
One doesn't even need to turn off uBlock if one disagrees with the wholesome blocking of sourceforge.net: right in the warning page, uBlock Origin offers the user to remove temporarily or permanently the wholesome blocking for the site.
[Here's a comment that I made on this topic on my blog back when this was discussed in July, which is still relevant. The numbers have probably changed a bit, but I doubt enough to affect my point. (The link is https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2015/07/01/firefox-41-w...).]
I’ve seen variations on this comment many times in discussions of this post. It’s totally wrong-headed.
There are ~70x as many AdBlock Plus users as there are uBlock users. Unless you personally convince all 20 million AdBlock Plus users to convert to uBlock, they won’t see any benefit. (And good luck explaining to them the uBlock vs. uBlock Origin split! What a mess that is.) Meanwhile, when Firefox 41 comes out in September, all 20 million of those AdBlock Plus users will immediately benefit, without having to lift a finger, thanks to Cameron’s patch.
Sometimes it’s worth thinking outside the tech elite bubble (the one where “everybody knows uBlock is better”) and thinking about ordinary users in the real world (where most people haven’t even heard of uBlock).
Thanks for the data. As another uBlock user (who does not care about the split by the way) and as someone who is not a tech-bubble elite, I can tell you with much confidence, that there is no such thing as "ordinary users" when it comes to Adblocking.
I don't know man, plenty of people are fed up with ads (installing adblock isn't really technically challenging) and now there are plenty more non-tech people using adblock because of Apple.
Yes, I taught them what to do if the website doesn't work. They're surprisingly adept now at only accepting domains that look trustworthy, selectively. My parents being 60+ years old, I'm also amazed at it...
Adblock Edge also still has 0.71 million daily users despite the fact that it is no longer maintained. (The maintainers recommend uBlock Origin instead.) That's more than all of the uBlock add-ons combined.
In the past, it was not uncommon for me to update Firefox, try to figure out why an add-on stopped working, and only then realize that the add-on in question hadn't been maintained for more than a year.
If the maintainers of ABE really want their users to switch to uBlock, they could push a final update that displays a notice about its own deprecation. There's no need to rely on the app store to do that.
But they're not doing it, and I suppose it's because even without further updates, ABE will continue to work perfectly fine for the foreseeable future. In fact, according to the article, it will work even better than before.
I used to do that but found it ultimately too fiddly - like if you need to unblock a site manually editing your etc/hosts, then you have to get your browser to refresh it's DNS cache.
It's been known for 14 years that sharing this data might help some pages. But it was only last year that it became clear that it would provide big wins in a compelling use case (i.e. for AdBlock Plus users). See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=988266#c8
And then it took another 15 months to get fixed because it was a significant and complicated change.
My one huge problem with Ghostery is that it doesn't appear to provide any way to pinpoint the source of an ad. I only want to block intrusive ad providers, but the only way to go from "see an annoying ad" to "block its provider" in Ghostery is to play trial-and-error with potentially dozens of different trackers, blocking and reloading one at a time until the offending ad goes away. In ABP, you could do this with a couple of clicks.
personally i dont wanna keep "acceptable ads" because I believe there is no such thing. its unsollicited and always in my face => its an ads, and it annoys me - and im not even going to buy the product behind it.
thus, i find ublock (for ex) much simpler to deal with than ghostery.
Any info on Adblock Fast[1] ? They advertise as being lightweight with only 7 rules and I wonder how they compare to uBlock Origin (I'd still choose Origin because of the customization options).
Well yes, I'm aware it's highly suspicious, just didn't want any name calling. Just wanted to see the authors opinion about it and if he ever tested it out, or will in the future, specially if they claim such bold enhancements regarding ABP. If anyone can comment on this topic, it's gorhill.
Adblock Fast is like BluHell -- last time I looked into it, the seven huge regexes were a direct import from BluHell. I ran a mini-benchmark for which I reported the results here:
uBlock Origin itself has higher memory footprint, but given that it blocks more (using default settings), on average it will cause web pages to consume less memory, so eventually with many tab opened, uBlock Origin may end up being more efficient than Adblock Fast memory-wise.
Wow, that's quite weird. Not just the back button but refresh, bookmark (star icon), Save Page As ...
As I type this comment, I'm noticing that you get almost this same reduced context menu when you right click on the edit box (with additional items like Paste and Check Spelling).
Maybe the intent is that you don't unintentionally reload the page or back out when you're selecting.
But then Backspace will navigate back regardless of whether you have a selection, and the main navigation bar's back button also works.
It's been that way in Firefox for as long as I can remember (user since Firefox started). I believe the actual intent is that the right click menu is a "context" menu and not a shortcut menu. In this, case, the context is that you have text highlighted. Without a selection, the context is the page.
(Yet somehow, the NoScript add-on's command ends up on all these menus, haha!)
Here is a point also: if you make a selection in one tab, and switch to another tab, the selection in the original tab persists. Yet in the other tab, the context menu is that of the page. This underscores the page versus selection semantics.
Yet, it would probably be more effective if the context menu were the same, just with certain things greyed out based on state.
For instance in, oh, Notepad on Windows (let's drag out that user interface superstars, why don't we) if you have text selected then the context menu enables Cut. If you don't have text selected, then Cut is still there, but greyed out. Hey look, it is that way in this very Firefox edit box that I'm typing in.
The fact that we don't see "Cut" in the page context menu is just as bad as that we don't see the backbutton when there is a selection. Seeing a disabled Cut lets us know that we can select something and then Cut will be available.
On that topic, here is another thing: the page context menu has Select All. That makes it clear that the context menu has a relationship to selections.
It seems to work the same way in Chrome as well. I'm not sure what the problem is?
The problem is for some of us (fast typist/clickers) it breaks consistency.
Suddenly, out of the blue, for no good reason, the user interface changes and my plan of action fails. No big deal but it is part of death by thousand papercuts.
The reason is so non-intuitive that people has made it all the way to reporting it on bugzilla[0] without clear steps to reproduce..! .
A second unrelated problem with your argument: "... It seems to work the same way in Chrome as well". For some of us FF/FF-flone users that is not a very convincing argument. : )
There are minor benefits without ABP. For each page/iframe that is created, we can avoid running the CSS cascade (and share those data structures) for the UA style sheets. It's saves something like 100 KiB per document.
If other add-ons insert a common style sheet into all documents (it's plausible Stylish does something like this? though I've never checked) then we'll again be able to avoid running the cascade and having duplicate data structures for the cascade across different documents.
I just wanted to take the time to thank you for fixing that bug. Since I keep dozens of tabs open all the time, the memory consumption of FF has caused me a lot of pain (the browser gets really slow if it crosses 2.5GB real RAM consumption).
On your typical 50-100MB web-appy page (e.g. gmail) a couple MB is a few percent.
On about:blank, which is normally a few hundred KB, a couple MB is several thousand percent.
So if a page has lots of subframes and those subframes don't have much in them, you get large wins. The canonical things that have lots of subframes are techcrunch and the like, which have "like" buttons for several different social networks and whatnot all over them. Each of those "like" buttons is a separate iframe. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=988266#c7 has some relevant numbers for techcrunch; the difference there was 300MB vs 520MB or so (which means that the page has about 100 iframes, of course).
I have a reasonable number of tabs open. Besides that, I don't see how this could be my fault (except through plugins installed, but about:addons-memory does not show anything suspicious).
I honestly use use Ghostery which blocks all trackers. It prevents a lot of ads from loading/working because they often have to redirect to serve me the right one (which Ghostry prevents). Waaay less of a resource suck.
119 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 186 ms ] threadJung would have something to say about synchronicity, I'm sure.
I used to worry about calling things not-really-bugs, but when I adopted his viewpoint it gave me a better perspective on what's important in software.
YMMV, but it might be worth trying Firefox again.
Maybe it's just that Chrome has more users.
But the general sentiment four years ago, when I started MemShrink, was very clear that Firefox's memory usage was a problem. Every discussion thread about browsers on this very site would degenerate at some point into discussion about Firefox's memory usage. (Indeed, this was a big part of why I started MemShrink.)
That's no longer true. Comments about Firefox's memory usage are much rarer now. And when somebody does say that Firefox has bad memory usage, more often than not they'll get pushback from other commenters who have a different experience. Not to say that they're wrong or Firefox is perfect, but the situation is so much better than it used to be, particular when it comes to avoiding the bad memory spikes that cause the worst problems.
I've got it installed for development and I have no complaints, but now that I've got Chrome set up for syncing and all that it's just become my default. I'm sure I'll get annoyed at Chrome at some point and switch back.
But there were plenty of other problems fixed too. See https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/category/memshrink/ for lots of details.
With that in mind, in the future perhaps you could think twice before posting snarky comments based on your experiences from five years ago.
In a rational universe that would be a reasonable request. Too bad we don't live in a rational universe.
Bad experiences weigh much more heavily on us than good experiences. For example, there is a chain of stores I won't go to, because I bought some inferior products from them over 35 years ago. Is that rational? No. But it is human nature.
> Zarro Boogs found.
I don't know what I expected -- there's no "Other > Desk furniture" in the products list of the public Bugzilla....
You'll need to set up Privoxy on a machine on your network (unfortunately the config is not the easiest to get to grips with) and then set up your devices to use it as a HTTP/HTTPS proxy.
If you have a VPN, you can configure clients to automatically use your proxy. For instance, on OpenVPN, add a couple of lines to the server.conf, using your own ip + ports:
I run it here on tomato and use something similar to: http://www.linksysinfo.org/index.php?threads/auto-dl-hosts-f...
tldr; parent or anyone interested do you have suggestions surrounding: > good filter configurations in ublock > whitelist & regex config > use uMatrix? > how to optimize for performance?
Ideally in chrome.
uBlock can make all kind of independence claims it wants, but at the end of the day, uBlock is still relying on ABP for its blocking rules--which is no guarantee at all.
edit: lol why are people downvoting me for pointing out that uBlock is relying on ABP? uBlock never acctually claimed to not having acceptable ads. By using ABP's EasyList, they could already be running an "acceptable ads" whitelist.
edit 2: Here's the link to easylist for anyone that care to check out the included whitelist: https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/easylist.txt
Warning, the list is over 1mb.
The fact that uBlock uses ABP lists is completely irrelevant. People choose uBlock because it uses compute resources more efficiently. Regardless of the list.
Haven't investigated it thoroughly, but if I recall correctly the adds on reddit.com are block by uBlock, but not by AdBlock Plus (unless you disable the "acceptable adds").
EasyList/EasyPrivacy are community-driven filter lists.[1] Whatever whitelisting in EasyList/EasyPrivacy is to address site breakage. Not addressing site breakage would lead to less people using these lists, and thus less people benefiting from the protection they offer (see graph at link below).
The "acceptable ads" fitlers are in a separate list, which is not part of uBlock Origin.[2]
Here are the benefits of using EasyList/EasyPrivacy (the "Easy mode" bar): https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode#. If you know filter lists which can accomplish the same protection with the same reliability at not breaking sites, I will be happy to use them in uBlock. Filter lists which lead to site breakage won't be used by a majority of users because the majority of users just want an install and forget approach. So the net result would be less people protected, the complete opposite of the goal I set for uBlock.
> uBlock can make all kind of independence claims it wants, but at the end of the day, uBlock is still relying on ABP for its blocking rules
No, uBlock Origin depends on community-driven EasyList/EasyPrivacy, just like many other blockers: ABP, AdBlock, AdGuard, BluHell, Adblock Fast, etc.
[1] https://forums.lanik.us/
[2] "Acceptable ads" list: https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.tx...
(Your response worries me in that it is an exceptionally convenient argument for sloppy developers not to fix their sites)
In the final analysis this question is equivalent to "Is it difficult to make a site that can have any piece of it fail to load or be removed at any time?" since website developers have no control over what may or may not make it onto the list of an adblocker.
Yes, these things can be worked around, but not every site maintainer will bother. (Especially since those adblock users likely don't earn them any direct revenue.)
I was making a $1000-range purchase on an ecommerce site that was utterly broken by my refusal to be tracked in intimate detail, and their product manager was basically, "eh." So I worked around it by catching the errors for them in the browser inspector. This is the type of breakage that site developers absolutely should be fixing.
When sites that require flash break, isn't that a win for the user?
Ad blockers don't just block ads.
- "Block any image on any domain that has `/ad/` in its path." (Encountered in certain local block list, not present in such pure form at time of writing.) Found this one while inspecting bugreport of our client who complained he cannot see some images on his presentation we maintained. Our CMS serves static binary data with "folderized hash paths" where occurrence of `/ad/` is not completely avoidable. Even now Easylist [1] inludes many general `adsomething` rules that FMOPW could do many false positives.
- "Block any flash that has `clickthru` parameter." This rule is still present in aforementioned easylist [1]: `.swf?clickthru=`, but amusingly is very easily avoidable (rule insists that this parameter is first). Back in times this parameter was de facto standard for embedded flash serving as hyperlink to tell it where to link to. Found this one when another client complained that his flash-based part of main navigation (supplied by third party studio) does not work.
- Even now the question "Have you disabled your adblocker?" often relevant response to general WTFs during web-development.
[1] https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/easylist.txt
I’ve seen variations on this comment many times in discussions of this post. It’s totally wrong-headed.
Here are the usage stats for these add-ons:
- AdBlock Plus: 20.3 million daily users (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-plus/...)
- uBlock: 0.22 million daily users (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock/statis...)
- uBlock Origin: 0.08 million daily users (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin...)
There are ~70x as many AdBlock Plus users as there are uBlock users. Unless you personally convince all 20 million AdBlock Plus users to convert to uBlock, they won’t see any benefit. (And good luck explaining to them the uBlock vs. uBlock Origin split! What a mess that is.) Meanwhile, when Firefox 41 comes out in September, all 20 million of those AdBlock Plus users will immediately benefit, without having to lift a finger, thanks to Cameron’s patch.
Sometimes it’s worth thinking outside the tech elite bubble (the one where “everybody knows uBlock is better”) and thinking about ordinary users in the real world (where most people haven’t even heard of uBlock).
They're ordinary users, and they use adblocking without even knowing it.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-edge/...
If the maintainers of ABE really want their users to switch to uBlock, they could push a final update that displays a notice about its own deprecation. There's no need to rely on the app store to do that.
But they're not doing it, and I suppose it's because even without further updates, ABE will continue to work perfectly fine for the foreseeable future. In fact, according to the article, it will work even better than before.
https://www.ublock.org/faq/
is ublock origin a single developer?
ah this helps a tiny bit more
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-vs.-uBlock-Ori...
but also adds more confusion as to which one to use
Do you use an app to manage your hosts file?
http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/29949/gas-mask
https://careers.mozilla.org/en-US/position/ooIv1fwm
And then it took another 15 months to get fixed because it was a significant and complicated change.
I haven't measured the memory consumption, but I havent had any noticeable issues so far.
Am I missing something?
thus, i find ublock (for ex) much simpler to deal with than ghostery.
[1] http://adblockfast.com/
And thank you for making browsing the Internet awesome.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10198994
uBlock Origin itself has higher memory footprint, but given that it blocks more (using default settings), on average it will cause web pages to consume less memory, so eventually with many tab opened, uBlock Origin may end up being more efficient than Adblock Fast memory-wise.
As I type this comment, I'm noticing that you get almost this same reduced context menu when you right click on the edit box (with additional items like Paste and Check Spelling).
Maybe the intent is that you don't unintentionally reload the page or back out when you're selecting.
But then Backspace will navigate back regardless of whether you have a selection, and the main navigation bar's back button also works.
Here is a point also: if you make a selection in one tab, and switch to another tab, the selection in the original tab persists. Yet in the other tab, the context menu is that of the page. This underscores the page versus selection semantics.
Yet, it would probably be more effective if the context menu were the same, just with certain things greyed out based on state.
For instance in, oh, Notepad on Windows (let's drag out that user interface superstars, why don't we) if you have text selected then the context menu enables Cut. If you don't have text selected, then Cut is still there, but greyed out. Hey look, it is that way in this very Firefox edit box that I'm typing in.
The fact that we don't see "Cut" in the page context menu is just as bad as that we don't see the backbutton when there is a selection. Seeing a disabled Cut lets us know that we can select something and then Cut will be available.
On that topic, here is another thing: the page context menu has Select All. That makes it clear that the context menu has a relationship to selections.
Suddenly, out of the blue, for no good reason, the user interface changes and my plan of action fails. No big deal but it is part of death by thousand papercuts.
The reason is so non-intuitive that people has made it all the way to reporting it on bugzilla[0] without clear steps to reproduce..! .
A second unrelated problem with your argument: "... It seems to work the same way in Chrome as well". For some of us FF/FF-flone users that is not a very convincing argument. : )
[0]: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1144394
It's not entirely out of the question for people on HackerNews complaining about Firefox features to think about submitting patches.
If other add-ons insert a common style sheet into all documents (it's plausible Stylish does something like this? though I've never checked) then we'll again be able to avoid running the cascade and having duplicate data structures for the cascade across different documents.
So, you just made my life better, thanks :)
On your typical 50-100MB web-appy page (e.g. gmail) a couple MB is a few percent.
On about:blank, which is normally a few hundred KB, a couple MB is several thousand percent.
So if a page has lots of subframes and those subframes don't have much in them, you get large wins. The canonical things that have lots of subframes are techcrunch and the like, which have "like" buttons for several different social networks and whatnot all over them. Each of those "like" buttons is a separate iframe. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=988266#c7 has some relevant numbers for techcrunch; the difference there was 300MB vs 520MB or so (which means that the page has about 100 iframes, of course).