µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

It might not be available yet because:

-https://github.com/chrisaljoudi/uBlock/tree/0.9.3.0

Or scroll to the bottom of this page for the .XPI manually loaded version for Firefox:

-https://github.com/chrisaljoudi/uBlock/releases/tag/0.9.3.0

I'm not sure if it's latest version for Firefox.

 

https://github.com/chrisaljoudi/uBlock/releases/download/0.9.2.3/uBlock.firefox.xpi

 

Thank you -- really appreciate it.

 

im using version 0.9.3.0 just fine here on firefox.
https://github.com/chrisaljoudi/uBlock/releases

 

gorhill renamed his version to uBlock₀

 

How does one go about testing the Dev builds? I've never done so, always waited for the final releases but have since taken interest in trying builds out early, but before I do I'd like to read up on installation processes before downloading the zips and just trying to wing it.

 

@Kharom: I can do it now, but I couldn't before. I installed uBlock v0.9.3.0 after writing previous post. And I see that listings with the ability to search them has been implemented in the new version. This was a pleasant surprise.

All that's missing is a keyboard shortcut for accessing the "Network Request Log." Don't know if this is a hard thing to implement, but if you ever feel like doing it gorhill it'd be handy. Adblock Plus uses Ctrl+Shift+V.

@PallMall: my uBlock bookmark hasn't changed either. It remains https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock

 

Does anyone else experience this significant problem/bug?

When rules such as:

site1 site2 image allow
site1 site2 3p allow
or
* site2 image allow
* site2 3p allow

are entered into the rule editor, they all get rejected.
why does this occur?
Is it because the uBlock addon has not being developed to such a capability?
And if so, shouldn't this limitation have being included in the documentation?

Because of this bug it is not possible to use uBlock to selectively allow particular request-types (such as image or 3p) that come from a particular destination website

It seems that the best that uBlock can do (in respect to destination-hostname) is to allow every request-type.

ie,
site1 site2 * allow

note that version 0.8.8.2 allows for these "non-acceptable" rules to be set in the rule editor - but they have no effect

----------------

How did i verify this issue?
1. Loaded firefox browser with webpage with all request-types set to block, and no exceptions
2. The page loaded without images
3. On the pop-up interface, 3p and images were then set to allow (green)
4. Reloaded the page, and all images were loaded as well
5. Since the images are obviously images and third-party, i created two rules to allow this behavior (as described above)
6. In version 0.9.3.0 the rules were rejected, and in 0.8.8.2 the rules were accepted, but had no effect (i.e., images did not load)

 

Please check the following link:

https://github.com/chrisaljoudi/uBlock/issues/840

 

Thanks a lot for that.
At least there is a work-around mentioned on that link

Also,
At that website, i did a search for "colors" - because when you change the the firefox page colors via options>content>colors and choose your own colors (not everyone likes white backgrounds), and then deselect the two checkboxes, the red/grey/green colors vanish from the ublock popup window.
Further testing found that the "Allow pages to choose their own colors" checkbox was incompatible with the ublock popup
This does not happen with the policeman addon popup, where the red and green colors remain, despite using custom page colors.

I could find nothing about this issue
perhaps there is something in popup.css that can be tweaked, in order to make it compatible?

 

Anyone finding version 0.9.3.0 a little aggressive at "breaking" sites?

 

When it comes to breaking web pages, I didn't notice any difference from previous versions.

 

Have seen this coming for quite some time.
Due to the pervasive nature of fear and greed.
Not too long ago many websites would load fast enough while on dial-up, now there is a trend to get you to download as much tracking, ads, and phoning-home code, as possible.
It should not be seen as a fault of uBlock if websites break.
In other words, there is a philosophy (actually, more like scumosophy) and attitude akin to that of a drug pusher - first of all it starts off nice with a few freebies, until you are hooked, and then, before you know it, your are consequently subjecting yourself to a horrendous bunch of soul-destroying depravity, just so you can get your fix.
In this case, depending on what you are browsing for, the fix might not be as bad as being hooked on drugs, but the owners of the websites couldn't care less, since many are opportunistic corporate thugs, or are complicit in being subject to their bullying.
The point is that it is that you feel some need to do it - which creates a demand, and a field of opportunity.
Most of the folk on this planet are subservient to various insane dictatorships - which is a reflection of general stupidity, ignorance, distraction, occupation, ill-heath and slavery
Years ago i heard that folk in korea had radios in their homes that they were not allowed to turn off
The computer/internet is heading in the same direction - TPTB know that you need it now, and they have started to pull out the fluffy rug from underneath.
It seems that as browsers bloat with bells and whistles, so does the hole in the backdoor
At one time you only had to deal with an occasional ant - but over time, it has grown to include cockroaches, rats and goblins.
Everyone that i have spoken to has no clue about topics such as uBlock
Their computers have being turned into zombies - just like them
How many times have you heard someone say, "if i haven't done anything thing wrong, then i have nothing to fear".
Unfortunately, little do they consider that such an attitude can lead to their demise.

 

From where should we update exactly ? I ask since I see gorhill still have one for Firefox, wasn't he supposed to only work on a Chrome version from now on? Or did I miss some detail somewhere. It's still unclear to me which person that will do this or that and from where we should download it.

from here
https://github.com/chrisaljoudi/uBlock/releases

or here
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases


I got 0.9.3.0 for firefox downloaded from chris's github page couple days ago, but gorhill has a dev build on his github page that is also available for firefox, does that mean he's working on the firefox version too ? What is the difference (if any). ublock for firefox = ublock for firefox yes? Or will 0.9.4.0 once released be different depending on from where we download it ?

 

I couldn't more agree. Personally I don't hesitate to boycott sites that push the trickery too far. If I have to spend more than 5 minutes handling a page with uBlock, then allow 3d parties for that site, then 3d-party frames, then whitelist the site for testing to finally observe that the page is still broken because of my system-wide security (HOSTS file, PeerBlock ...), I will not hesitate to blacklist the place (via uBlock on Firefox but more generally by adding it to my HOSTS file managed by the HostsManager application.)
As always you will have mentalities that strive for a dialog (fair-play) and others which believe that the other guy (consumer, user) is an enemy which should be fought until "he accepts my rules" (my=his). Well, I dismiss in that case. By-bye birdie, off we go to another "civilized" site...

 

I noticed this. Even when I try to post in Wilders here, I have to disable uMatrix uBlock. I guess this is due to strict site blocking introduced from v9.3.0.
As noted in the link, most ABP filters do not assume it, so make problems.
I think if you disable strict blocking, problem will be solved, but not yet tested by myself.
(Now I disabled strict blocking for Wilders. I will see if it makes difference.)

 

As a daily driver, you would want to download from Chris's repository. That is where the Firefox version receives official support from Alex Vallat, the AMO/Firefox maintainer.

AMO updates will stem from Chris's repo.

 

And for Google Chrome or Chromium?

 

That might be caused by uMatrix or combination uBlock + uMatrix. uBlock alone didn't cause any problems for me so far. If strict blocking would block the site, you would get notification as shown in tutorial and wouldn't be able to load the page until temporarily or permanently unblock it.

 

@142395 As Minimalist said, Strict blocking is introduced in uBlock. And when u disable uMatrix to fix wilderssecurity issues, hints me that it is something to do with uMatrix rather than uBlock.

However, the heuristic for Strict Blocking is bit relaxed with Raymond's latest commit.

 

Thanks for explanation, but then why the issue...

Sorry that was my mistake, what I had to disable was uBlock, not uMatrix.

 

It seems after disabling strict blocking, now I can post w/out disabling uBlock entirely.

 

Can you show us a screenshot, when blocked?
So, we can find the culprit filter..

 

How do you disable strict blocking? Can you disable it globally or is it site by site only?

 

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Quick-guide:-popup-user-interface#the-site-based-switches