µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

Hey guys.

Just wanted to let you know, that Avast has judged uBlock (for Firefox) to be an undesirable extension and it wants me to remove this excellent ad-blocker from my browser. I've been using a German version of the application, but the translation is "Several plugins with bad reviews have been found in your browser".

http://i.imgur.com/Oy4CtD0.png


After a little bit of research into how their rating process works (see source on their forum), it has become clear, that this process is not only automated but done badly as well. Less well known extensions, but even more so those which aren't listed in the official browser extension stores, are being punished since no data on them exists. Avast takes that to mean untrustworthy and recommends removal.

If it came down to a choice between uBlock and Avast, this handy ad-blocker would win hands down. Maybe I'm better off looking for an alternative to Avast anyway.

I just wanted to let you know my experience

 

See result diffs of the latest benchmark.

 

@Kharom, although I rate Avast! AV overall fairly highly, in my experience it is a bit too enthusiastic in judging browser extensions and even other software as being suspicious.

 

Yeah, that's why most Avast users, among all the bloat, only choose to have the "Software Updater" installed, although it is also fairly limited in the amount of programs it tracks. The Browser cleaner flags any addon which is not on half a million user's system as "desirable to remove" only because Avast doesn't have a clue about what the addon's purpose is.

 

What's you opinion of any advantages using NoScript with µBlock with most of the filters ticked in FF?

 

Currently, default-deny for 3rd-parties will allow everything from a specific 3rd-party when you un-block that 3rd-party (except for what is statically filtered). So for someone who wants to keep blocking the scripts for such un-blocked 3rd-party specifically while allowing the rest, NoScript is needed.

 

@gorhill can you answer my question in the post #572?
Thanks, Malwar

 

Thanks for the response. NoScript and µBlock are working well together with 10 filters activated and using less memory than the previous ad blocker I was using.

 

ublock issue going back to adblock plus less buggy. Adblock plus does not show leftovers of ads before blocked like this this will show up on ublock where adblock plus its gone right away.

http://i.imgur.com/r48hb6F.jpg

 

There is no leftover of this ad and i use uBlock a long time.

 

Happens to me every time just using ublock.

Adblock, Adblock plus, Adguard no such issue,

 

With easy privacy i find it pointless i found at least on websites i use. They block same things ghostery will just slow things down.

 

can't seem to replicate this issue with Ublock, so I'm not sure why it would be doing that

 

I tried uninstalling chrome did same thing. Im doing clean install delete all info.

For some reason firefox ublock works fine for me its only i use it on chrome. For now ill just keep using ABP since i want to use chrome and i there is no real speed difference for me in ABP and ublock its only memory which i have lots of.

 

testing this out. i was running ad block edge which worked very well. this so far seems good, a bit lighter i have seen some quirky page loading though a few times i normally do not see. otherwise so far so good. abe and abp did really make the cpu run on certain web pages i have not seen this happen yet with ublock.

 

Ill test again in a few months but right now i feel there are few trade off i noticed being some sites like image i post not blocking instantly and such. Ill take the higher ram usage for now as long as there is less bugs in pages loading etc...

 

Yeah, I've seen the element hiding "effect" also, when images are blocked you could see their text counterparts for a fraction of a second, never noticed that with ABP, but won't switch back because of such a small issue.

 

Solution: `www.youtube.com###header`. It's just a matter of creating a specific cosmetic filter. That's the proper way to fix this. uBlock won't ever support injecting gigantic stylesheet à la ABP.

I know you are not really looking for a solution, so the answer is not for you @cooperb21, it's for other users.

For other users, I can also find ind cases where ABP doesn't look to good: http://raymondhill.net/ublock/tiles1.html. Try with ABP alone, then with uBlock alone.

Edit: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/commit/9d166f1fa1e96ec9be06ccb3832035548fc5b132

 

More likely to occur on Chromium/Chrome, because they use a sad face as placeholder, while I believe Firefox just blank the area, so less noticeable. Note that AdBlock replace the sad face with it's own blank document, however this potentially renders AdBlock incompatible with HTTPS Everywhere.

 

Https everywhere works fine with ABP not sure about adblock.

 

Minor GUI adoption to explain the rows

 

"AdBlock Gold Edition", a source code copycat of uBlock (0.8.6.4 at time of writing), with most UI commented out (but still in the package): https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adblock-gold-edition/kmooncpopldajlgigepneepagpcnehgg#

I expected this would happen eventually.

 

Good idea: it does not require extra vertical space. One problem I apprehend though is that the limited horizontal space may not be suitable to all languages.

 

At least they should mention that...

 

Regarding "flickering" with generic cosmetic filters you'll find good background info here and here. I hardly notice any flickering, and as gorhill already said, using specific cosmetic filters prevents it completely.