I use a facebook (linked to nowhere land) account to post on ESPN and a couple of other sites so I saved the ublock dashboard as a bookmark and turn Fanboys Anti Facebook on when I need it and off otherwise.
Hello AutoCascade, You can do the same thing by clicking the uBlock icon, then clicking on the black "uBlock v0.3.1.0" bar as shown in the attached screenshot and it will take you to the uBlock dashboard...
It doesn't phone home surfing data. How it works is described [at this link](http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/browser/privacy/whitepaper.html#malware). So mainly, URLs are checked against a downloaded list, and only if there is a match, only a portion of a hash of the URL is sent to Google, from which apparently they can't determine the exact URL. To me this is much more acceptable than how some others do it, i.e. in a way that reveals your surfing habit (ex: Adguard).
I'm more concerned about this: So what is sent to their servers if you visit suspicious site and have usage statistics disabled?
This is a Chromium feature, not a feature specific to Google Chrome. Chromium is open source. Here: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/chrome/browser/safe_browsing/
My comments are of course intended to provide further information for people who use Chromium or derivatives, not to people who don't care about Chromium and other Chromium-based browsers.
Raymond, I have not found any incompatibilities or over-ambitious blocking, so what is keeping you from calling the next release a VERSION 1.0? Regards Kees
I don't know, nothing is planned really. It might take a while before I feel that it is mature enough to mark it v1.0, which would mean I would not expect any more major issues. Just yesterday a serious one was brought to my attention: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/116. So mostly I don't want to create false expectations that users are dealing with a mature application.
I hope to see below issues to be fixed before v1.0 - When user browses, incognito mode, clicking on the settings menu after its already openend, would not take the use back to settings menu. Also, another instance of it will be spawned behind the incognito without coming to the foreground. I have this bug created for HTTPSB. This issue is just an annoyance. I always need to make sure the settings window has been closed once it is used. Opening setting from another tab will be a problem otherwise.. Apart from this uBlock is all well and good
Can you open an issue about this for uBlock? I tend to focus on what is on the list of issues and if it's not there I will forget about these. I just the tried the above and there is a problem indeed, not related to incognito, as it can be reproduced by just having two normal windows.
Gorhill, does make any sense to use uBlock in combination with HTTP SB? Is uBlock similar to some "average setting" of HTTP SB about tracking protection?
I have been testing µBlock for a while and it seems slightly faster than AdBlock on Vista and Win8. There is however, one annoying thing happening when I first start Chrome (with or without Sandboxie), namely the home page is not completely filtered from ads (The New York Times), upon refreshing the page all ads disappear. Ads are at times visible on Facebook and Gmail as well, but that happens sporadically, and again refreshing the page wipes them out completely. Any suggestions? (It never happened with AdBlock) OSs: Vista and Win8
it's kinda normal. Chrome first loads the pages where you left off, then the extensions. If you start from a blank page, this does not happen.
Interesting. Given the recent ABP/Firefox startup issue, and one or more comments saying it happens with ABP/Chrome as well, I've wondered what other combinations (such as HTTPSB and/or uBlock under Chrome) might have blocking issues when the browser is launched. What happens when an external component causes Chrome to launch and load an explicit URL? Such as when someone clicks on a Internet shortcut in a folder or an application uses the default browser to open a webpage? Can/do things slip through the filters in that type of scenario as well? Is there any way to tweak things so that Chrome doesn't attempt to load content until after all extensions are ready?
Extensions can't block Chromium-based browsers, and they have no say about when they are themselves executed. There is no documentation anywhere that extensions are guaranteed to be loaded by the time web pages are loaded. If it was possible, then for sure Chromium developers would start to receive lots of report that the browser is slow to start, as not all extensions are altruistic. There are maybe tab management extensions out there to mitigate this problem. Re. ads on Facebook and Gmail, the rule is if it doesn't happen in ABP, then this needs to be reported, with details on how to repro, a screenshot so that I can see which DOM element in the page is not being removed, etc. (I don't have a Facebook account, and just an empty Gmail account for testing purpose, so the more details the better).
I must doubt that. I think such a "delay page loads until extensions ready" feature could be made: 1) Disabled by default 2) Less visible to users, especially the vast majority who never go looking for "hidden" settings/switches or even come across discussions about said. 3) Accompanied by a brief but informative "warning" and/or even [one-time] confirmation prompt that makes users well aware of the potential consequences. 4) Controlled via switch that is inaccessible to extensions themselves. So that when extensions are installed or updated they can't change the setting and in that way cause user surprises. 5) Selective, so that it would not apply to some browser (proper) requests deemed too critical to be delayed or overridden by extensions. Note: I would prefer browser developers to allow users to make such a decision for themselves. 6) Adjustable, so that only certain extensions could be marked as "critical, must delay page loads until it is ready". Which theoretically could help users to balance the trade-offs and be even less likely to complain. Frankly, I must think the potential for complaints to browser developers would be reduced to an inconsequential level. I think the relatively tiny numbers of users who would 1) jump the hurdles to enable it, and 2) run into a slow/delayed startup that significantly bothers them, and 3) took the time to actively push for improvements, would be most likely to take the matter up with the appropriate *extension developers*. I can understand developers not wanting to have to deal with such reports, even if they turned out to be a small number. However, the issue at hand is somewhat critical. Just ONE instance of a filter bypass has the potential to have a serious negative impact. So we must do everything in our power to eliminate that potential. Sounds like you are up the creek with the rest of us, but somehow we need to try to get browser developers to support waiting for extensions to be ready.
gorhill, could you add the regional romanian filter as well? There is one: # Title: ROList+EasyList Thank you!
Ublock is not autoupdating in Chrome I always have to choose the developer mode to update it, is this for everyone or am I having this problem.Since yesterday I am waiting to update but it is still at v 0.3.2.3 Ubuntu 14.04 LTS chrome Version 36.0.1985.143
I read somewhere (I can't remember where) that it may take up to 24h for an update to be pulled, probably to spread evenly the server load. In any case, this delay prevented you from suffering that one bug I introduced in 0.4.0.0 (fixed now).