µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

Updated info from: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/

My underlining added.

Also see: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md

 

I see, thank you As a quite new Firefox user I am not sure what AMO stands for, but to this date since I started using uBlock I have only downloaded new uBlock versions from github so I will continue to do that then.

 

Personal preference. Hard to say how much the projects will diverge.

 

AMO is just an initialism for the Mozilla Add-ons store. Due to review backlog, weeks behind official releases. According to page stats, a large majority of FF uBlock installs are using older builds and not manually updating.

If you ever grow weary of manually updating, eventually AMO will catch up. A slightly older build is currently in preliminary review, when a later build is submitted and passes full review, it should speed up the update process.

 

Right, that's what I thought AMO stand for but I wasn't sure. Yes I have heard they are behind due to the slow process, but it's so easy to update manually from github so it doesn't bother me at all, and I like to read through the uBlock changelog on github as well. But it would be good if AMO catch up for those that rely on it so they no longer use older releases for too long.

 

Anybody know if there's a way to authenticate the manual installs from Github? Is there a PGP key associated and hashes I can reference?

 

Sooner or later we all have to decide which repo to follow....

Which one are you guys going to use?

 

I trust gorhill for his coding, security/firewall knowledge and his creativity. Although I am a Chrome user. If I were a Firefox user, I would probably be unsure at the moment and it would be a more difficult question.

I think that, without the massive pressure on gorhill, he may very well surprise us in a good which in which he has many times in the past with useful and interesting features. But not under the pressure of many users demanding features, etc. I really think it all comes down to pressure. But I am confident that if we let the guy code in peace (coding is what he loves most) then he will surprise us one day. Constant pressure can destroy the best of us.

 

You tell me, I have used gorhill's to this day. I have to keep up with the difference between them as they are "essentially" the same today. But later on....

Indeed

When that (bold) starts happening I hope someone will keep us updated in this thread.

 

Problem happend again tho I disabled strict blocking for Wilders...
But it's not consistent.
Well, what screenshot is required? I'm noob about how to find culprit in uBlock (and apparently it seems harder than ABE...)

I hope this helps...
http://i.imgur.com/NHK6Mvx.png
http://i.imgur.com/PPOOvR3.png
Tho not in the screen shot, I use another filter

 

Thanks for the replies. These are just a few thoughts I'm having right now:

1) Let's assume a user wants a new feature, he/she will most likely have to go to the official one where Chris may be more accepting of new feature requests as compared to gorhill who consider his feature-complete. The only saving grace is if gorhill decides to add the same feature into his repo while maintaining his own coding differences.

2) Let's assume the majority decides to be 'loyal' to gorhill's repo instead of giving the new official one a chance regardless of how well it may be. Sooner or later, the official one may potentially become redundant or Chris decides to forgo his repo.

3) Assuming gorhill decides to add something in his repo, will Chris add gorhill's code into his?

 

Currently, I am sticking to Gorhill's repo. Using latest Dev Build. And it is perfect no Issues.

With this new version, he introduced one more site specific feature -
- Enable/Disable Cosmetic filtering per site.
- Allow Site Specific switches to be edited in the dashboard. This will be a quite powerful feature! (i.e., one can disable strict blocking globally or enable pop-up blocking globally)

 

For the price of $25.

 

Finally an adblocker that blocks those annoying ads in Photobucket that open new tabs!



Most excellent.

 

The issue is similar with ABP and AdBlock, the crank behind TheWeatherSpace is pushing malware to those he detects as users of ad-blockers, and I've reported his site to every safe-browsing entity I could think of (Google, Microsoft, hpHosts, AVG, Avira, Avast, Symantec, McAfee, Peter Lowe, Bluetack, Squidblacklist, MalwareURL, MalwarePatrol, Malware Domains, Malware Domain List, and even WOT).
I also let his DNS provider and the abuse contact in his WHOIS know about it.

message I've sent around the 'Net below (he might be redirecting to more malvertisers than these)...
---
As the site owner announced on this thread: https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28581

He is redirecting visitors whom he deems to be using ad-blockers to a page on pc1.dntrax.com that then redirects people to malvertisers, like one on support.www-cm.com and one on go.trackgold.net

 

I will do my best to submit pull requests for things which are important -- i.e. bugs really.

I think people should give a try to the official repo (uBlock, not uBlock0). I think Chris has a better sense of good UI than I do, I have to admit I kind of like most of the changes he made already. It has been difficult to let go after working so long on a project, but I had to do it, and though I have been conflicted in the past few days about the new ownership, it's settling for me -- I now feel optimistic about the outlook of uBlock under the new ownership.

 

On both of the latest versions you can't entirely read the bottom of the popout showing which websites that are connected. I downloaded the Opera version, changed it to .crx, which is version 0.9.2.3 and that shows the entirety of the connected sites.

 

Can't remember how you add 3rd Party filters from the bottom of '3rd Party Filters' tab. Do you just remove the "!" -- or do your remove it and replace it with a "+" and click 'Parse'?

 

Just remove the "!" and click "parse".

 

I just updated uBlock to Chris' version of 0.9.3 (Firefox). In the 3rd party filter section, it indicates that there's a new version of 'uBlock filters' and 'uBlock filters - Privacy'. I've attempted to update them several times, but with no success. Just wondering if this is an issue with Chris' version -- or with the filter updates themselves?

 

I've decided to stick with gorhill's releases..They're working fine for me and maybe it will need bug fixes when new versions of Fx appear or filter lists cause problems...Otherwise I fail to see what else needs to be added to it.

 

Same here. If Chris adds something unique and compelling then I'll test it out, but extensions like this work better by keeping it simple and effective. With Umatrix combo I've got all I need

 

I have a question regarding strict blocking.
I've landed on a page blocked by uBlock :

uBlock has prevented the following page from loading
Filter is : ||feedsportal.com/c/
Disable strict blocking for da.feedsportal.com

This is normal, no problem. The problem is that this filter has not been created by me within uBlock's My Filters but belongs to a 3rd-party filters list.
Now, if I tell uBlock on the above mentioned page to disable blocking permanently, how can I possibly revert this choice should I happen to change my mind?
If I decide to disable i.e. above mentioned ||feedsportal.com/c/ , this choice is listed nowhere I'm aware of except maybe in the ublock.sqlite file; it does appear in no whatever filter blacklist.
When 3rd-party filter will have been updated I believe my choice of disabling one of its filter will remain, thus this filter disabling choice is recorded somewhere, but where?

Thanks

 

If you disable strict blocking, it will be listed under the 'My rules' tab as something like:

Code:

no-strict-blocking da.feedsportal.com on

 

Version 0.9.4.0 is out. It addresses strict blocking issues in it:

It's less zealous. For instance, the example you give would not cause strict blocking to kick in. But still, all the sites in malware lists would be properly blocked. I have to find a good balance, as if it is too annoying, users might forfeit it completely (by uninstalling uBlock).

You can now disable for the whole domain. Using your example, you could now disable for whole feedsportal.com, istead of being offered only the choice of da.feedsportal.com (except that now that particular filter won't trigger strict blocking).

The strict-blocking switches can now be manually edited from within the My rules pane. So if someone really can't stand strict blocking at all, it's always possible to manually add no-strict-blocking: * true to completely disable the feature, i.e. uBlock would now behave just like ABP.