Adblock Plus Will Soon Block Fewer Ads

Actually, you did say it.

1) In this post of yours, you mentioned that a standard user has no write permission for the hosts file.

So far, I agree. And, that happens for a good reason.

2) Then, you said This is no problem at all, of course, if one is logged on as admin/has disabled UAC

This is where I disagree. Sure, if one runs as administrator, then he/she has full permissions to the hosts file. But, it isn't necessary to log in to the administrator account. You can use whatever tool from within a standard user account, just fine. Even run Notepad with administrative privileges without ever logging to the administrator account.

And, what exactly is a reason for so many people to disable UAC? To access the hosts file? Sorry, I'm not understanding the reason why you mentioned that so many people disable UAC.

Regarding Windows XP... If they're running as administrators, well... lack of permissions is not an issue... the issue would be precisely too much permissions. And, they can use a limited user account and run tools that allows them to elevate when needed, such as SuRun.

You're right about that. But, it doesn't come without its issues either. Yesterday, I was using a relative's computer running Google Chrome with Adblock Plus (I had installed it.).

I visited Softpedia's website and I was seeing ads. No, it wasn't the whitelist thing. I was seeing ads in other web sites too.

I had to delete the Adblock Plus cache in Chrome's profile in the Local Storage folder.

According to my relative, she started seeing ads for quite sometime in websites where they usually were blocked by ABP+.

So, issues are always present, regardless of what is used.

 

From what I have seen, total ignorance of what it actually does. I assisted a customer about a week ago that had disabled UAC as a fix from one of their other vendors that told them to disable it rather than provide an actual fix for their software. Due to their lack of understanding they did so. Then they started calling other vendors (including my company) to see if they could figure out why they lost their settings and preferences for several programs. I recommended they turn it back on and call that vendor back to request a proper fix. Giving employees full admin on an internet facing machine is dangerous for many reasons, HOSTS file included.

I got the Adblock Plus update a couple of days ago and haven't noticed a real difference in anything. Looks like I will still have to whitelist some of the sites I wish to support.

 

Yes, I'm aware many people disable because of ignorance. But, I was trying to understand if user tlu meant that, but linking it to the modification of the hosts file. Which again, would be ignorance.

Obviously, employees should never have admin privileges. But, I was targeting home users only. There's no need to switch or log in to an administrator account to modify the hosts file. One can do it from the comfort of a limited/standard user account. If we want to have under consideration that with UAC disabled they can't elevate from within a standard user account, then the modification of the hosts file isn't the only concern; there are installers, applications updates, applications settings that can only be modified by administrators...

 

So, it's an extension setting. Makes sense.

 

I know you know that and though I quoted you it was more of a general experience I have had than it was a response. I think the majority of people think the UAC slider in Windows 7 is only about prompts and do not understand what is behind them.

As for editing the HOSTS file I use a custom setup that I personally like. I drop a copy of nircmd.exe in the system directory and make a custom shell entry in the registry to run it. For example I use PSPad for text files. After installing that and nircmd I add a "PSPad as Admin" entry to the right click for "*" and launch it with the "nircmd.exe elevate" command. So right clicking a file and selecting "PSPad as Admin" from the context menu will prompt for UAC elevation and when I click "Yes" on the UAC prompt I get an editable file opened from wherever it resides rather than having to move it or launch a text editor as admin and browsing for it or having to type out some tedious command line to edit a file. The same could be done with any text editor. As a system admin little things like that save me a lot of time and aggravation.

 

Okay, okay Let's say: I was not precise enough, and I was also a bit ironic.

What I meant: Many people seem to be irritated by UAC prompts and therefore tend to disable it. Updating the hosts file is one example that causes such an UAC prompt. And "replacing" UAC or a limited account with a hosts file is not a good idea.

Oh, really? (Hint: I was the guy who started the lengthy SuRun thread years ago. ) But how many people are using/aware of SuRun?

I don't know what to say. This might be a Chrome specific issue. And the Chrome version of ABP is not yet completely on par with the FF version.

 

How true!
Neither ABP/Chrome nor TPL/IE are as effective as ABP/FF...

 

The TPL isn't even on par with Chromes' ad blocking, from my experience. I've almost given up on Chrome getting it right, what with several delays in getting this webrequest API thing going.

 

No more delays DW. I've been keeping track. You'll have a stable WebRequest API very soon.

 

About time. Thanks, Hungry.

 

A fork:
http://www.trueblockplus.org/

 

Of course, talking about forks ... Iron has an adblocking .ini which works very well indeed.

 

Forgot to mention that it's available from AMO but it is pending review.

 

Adblock Plus is no longer a featured add-on in AMO, could it be because of the new feature? BTW, that fork is not really needed as there is an opt-out feature anyway. That fork makes the acceptable ads an opt-in feature.

 

Interesting! Any idea how this "Featured" list (72 when I just looked) is generated?

 

I also have no idea, although I also witnessed an extension being removed from the featured list before. It's the download status bar, it is removed when the author has been changed and the new author made an update to the add-on that inserts ads to the users, or something like that.

 

I can't see any reason why Mozilla themselves would remove the addon from its featured list over this "feature". This isn't a case of an extension including ads, simply an ad blocker not blocking certain ones. That being said, after exploring this so called "feature" for days now, I have to call the "protecting free websites" claim a wagon full of horse crap. That list has more than one major corporation in it, and it's very obvious from the list that this is not so much about protecting some little upstart than about something else.

"Acceptable ads" is an acceptable concept until you see the list, then it just looks like the guy is getting a little something for doing it. The man needs money, we all do, but don't try to screw with people by claiming a championing cause that's BS. It's no wonder the guy is catching heat.

 

EDIT: MISUNDERSTOOD
I'm still sleepy when I've login, lol.

 

I don't think dw426 was saying it to you. It was about ABP developer. Note what dw426 mentioned:

The acceptable adds feature is way more than that, according to user dw426, because it appears there are way more in the white list. dw426 is saying that ABP developer shouldn't screw with people.

That's my understanding, anyway.

 

M00n gets it, lol. No, Skudo, my comments weren't directed at you And yes, I have a serious issue with anyone saying they're doing something for someone, yet it's benefiting their self and everyone else but the person it's supposed to. I fully support keeping the web a free place and supporting those small companies/people that don't have millions but have great ideas. The list of acceptable ads contradicts the developers' supposed good intentions.

 

FWIW, as of yesterday and today, there are less than 72. Odd. Eggnog effect?
Here's the sorted list, including repeats:

Code:

Add to Search Bar
Boo.ly Shopping - Best Prices, Coupons & Offers
Brief
Browser Backgrounds
Browser Backgrounds
Cache Status
Ciuvo - Price check in your Browser
Ciuvo - Price check in your Browser
Clippings
Clippings
Context Search
Cooliris
Cooliris
Destroy the Web
Destroy the Web
Drag & DropZones
Drag & DropZones
Echofon for Twitter
Echofon for Twitter 
Fire.fm
Flagfox
Flagfox
FlashGot
FlashGot
FoxyProxy Standard
Ghostery
Google Redesigned
Google Shortcuts - All Google Services at a glance
ImTranslator - Online Translator, Dictionary, TTS
Integrated Gmail No Restart
Integrated Gmail No Restart
InvisibleHand
Lazarus: Form Recovery
Menu Editor
My Homepage
Organize Search Engines
Price Comparison for Firefox - WindowShopper
PriceBlink - Automatic Price Comparison & Coupons No Restart
Print Edit
Print Edit
QuickDrag
QuickDrag
QuickWiki
Rainbow Color Tools
Read It Later
ReminderFox
Restartless Restart No Restart
Session Manager
Springpad No Restart
Status-4-Evar
Stylish
Stylish
Stylish
Super Start
Super Start
Tab Mix Plus
Tab Mix Plus
Tab Scope
Tab Scope
TableTools2 - Copy/Sort/Chart/Filter Table&More!
Textarea Cache
Textarea Cache
Tile Tabs
TinEye Reverse Image Search
TinEye Reverse Image Search
TinyURL Generator
Twitter Address Bar Search No Restart
Twitter Address Bar Search No Restart
Video DownloadHelper
Web Search Pro
Xmarks Sync
Yoono: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn YouTube GTalk AIM

 

Don't like it, don't use it: untick a checkbox and it's gone forever.

For 1. Palant really deserves being recompensed; and for 2. a bigger money flow improves any project.

 

If you'll bother to read my previous posts, I have no issue with the man having money to feed his family, pay his bills and what not. So 1: Yes he does, but not by trying to guilt trip people and by talking about "poor little websites dying because people block ads". That little "less than 72" item list contains big players and allows innumerable ads. As far as 2: Money itself improves nothing, a developer makes or breaks his or her own project by what they choose to do.

 

All I can say is "this is all rather worrying".

 

From: https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#list