Discussion in 'other software & services' started by Infected, Mar 18, 2015.
I know it doesn't hurt anything to run them both, but is it necessary or does it overlap?
No, it's not necessary. I would assume they would overlap if they use the same filters.
Better to run Admuncher and uBlock. It's a great combo.
Adguard? Not until v6 (if it ever arrives). Too slow and buggy right now.
AdGuard works fine for me, brilliant piece of software for those that still use IE 11. However, for FF and GC, I'd be choosing uBlock. Pwoah, it was a pocket rocket and a half on SlimJet (when I was using it).
Adguard works well with Chrome, it blocks a lot of bad websites. I use both Adguard and ublock. No conflicts, was just curious.
Adguard is redundant with uBlock, as they use the same databases, or you can turn the same ones on/off. uBlock will be quicker.
Admuncher is a better second choice IMO, mostly because of it's tiny size (machine code), and heuristic-like detection of scripts, webbugs, etc. The whole 'blocked potential' and 'suspected xyz blocked' is the heuristic type of admuncher detection I find that compliments uBlock so well. Once Adguard v6 comes out, maybe I will run that again. For now, v5 doesn't impress.
You are wrong on this, uBlock works much better alone.
AdMuncher injects too much code compared to the efficient uBlock approach. uBlock with Dynamic Filtering mode can do much more than Ad Muncher can dream of (including webbugs, scripts).
You may see that AdMuncher filter things that uBlock dont, but it is just because AdMuncher is a transparent proxy, so it will filter first.
You are incorrect.
Ad Muncher does far more than other ad blockers.
it's not just about blocking or allowing 3rd party connections.
Ad Muncher can rewrite any part of the HTML/JS/CSS which allows far more control over how a page behaves than just blocking 3rd party connections.
Please refrain from commenting about things you are not qualified to talk about.
You clearly have no idea how Ad Muncher works or what it can do.
AdGuard truly works with all browsers and at least one of its developers is very active and responsive on Wilders...Your bury your head in the sand attitude and crybaby "AdMucher is free" scam has distanced a lot of previously loyal customers and almost all of them are happy with the transition they made to AdGuard...Too little, too late...AdMuncher is a "has been" deal with it.
Please stay on topic.
Your comment has nothing to do with anything.
I was replying to specific comments made about how Ad Muncher works.
As for Ad Muncher being free is somehow a scam....I have no idea what that could even mean.
Since you are here, may i ask you about Admuncher Roadmap-
--> does it bring support for IE11, HTTPS..
--> Will v5 come? (i see on the website it is still on the road.. )
Also, can you tell me an example/s where it benefits than other adblockers in general, like any real world examples...just curious about the ability to update page source code as you have stated. Just wanted to know . And i admit, i know very very little about it..
I don't think this is the place to discuss Ad Muncher in detail, I merely wanted to prevent some false statements about how Ad Muncher works from being promulgated.
I have no desire to hijack this thread.
Feel free to come to our IRC chat room and I will do my best to answer any questions you may have.
Or perhaps the AdMuncher forum....I'm sure a lot of people would be interested in the replies...Transparency?
Ok. Is it is necessary to have Admuncher installed to come IRC room? If not link please. If so, will install some time during next week.
Just wanted to guage the benefits having it installed if a user already had say "ublock" for instance.. Although i dislike the idea of have two different blockers working for the same browser
I sencond this. Maybe on your forum would be nice!!
To anyone who actually has an open mind, I personally would suggest using Ad Muncher with default settings, and uBlock or similar browser add-on to handle HTTPS pages *only*
i.e. disable or exclude the browser add-on for HTTP sites.
this would be the best possible setup currently.
Sure, I will give a try. But that will not happen untill next week. And at work place i cannot run any executable! Corporate Rules
Edit: I just tried to login from my work place, but cannot login . Will definitely appreciate it if you suggest the benefits of activating admuncher over ublock (in my case) for http. I am sure many people are willing to know
My testing has shown uBlock w/Admuncher is actually the best combo overall. Both in speed, and security so I have deployed that configuration on a dozen machines I own without any issues at all. However, is there a way to selectively disable HTTP filtration on any of the extension based adblockers? I'd like Admuncher to handle all HTTP and something like uBlock to handle only HTTPS. Thoughts? But right now I see benefit in the way Admuncher seems to have a sort of heuristic intelligence about some 'junk' on pages. Also the fact that it is tiny, and highly efficient lend to the usability of it.
Adguard is good, but I find v5 buggy, and sometimes slow, I can't use it until v6 hopefully brings stability. So in the meantime, uBlock+Admuncher is the combo working the best for me. I just wish I could disable HTTP filtration in uBlock and selectively filter HTTPS only.
I'm sure it's possible to have uBlock ignore or allow all connections via HTTP.
gorhill is best equipped to answer how to do this exactly.
FYI..Not wanted to go A Vs B. Not my intention at all! Just wanted to understand more in detail
So, Is it beneficial over having uBlock work with dynamic filtering instead? I cannot test this till next week. So, curious about it.
With Dynamic Filtering, you can block 3rd Party connections by default. So, it stops the things even if something is not on the filter. (So, i believe this should compensate well for that heuristic part of Admuncher technically (i think) ) Also, in upcoming uBlock versions, we will have Blanket pop-up blocker (not filter based) too!
And can you give me an example (or two) where something is blocked by Admuncher and not by uBlock. I would like to test it with uBlock (with my config) and see how it pans out...
Yes it does, it actually allows ads on HTTPS pages, doesnt support Gzip, HTTP1.1, because of this some pages needs much more time to load, it truly does more for your system
In a serious note, I never talked about Ad Muncher control capacity (straw man fallacy), I talked about Ublock efficient aproach, it doesnt inject code in a generic way.
You clearly doesnt know about Ublock, it is top notch and development is very active, different of your loved AdMuncher.
Your agressive damage control is hilarious, use this time to fix your old piece of software and not attacking users with plain ad hominem.
I know about the great Ad Muncher capabilities (no sarcasm), but in the end Ublock and Aguard does a lot more and faster. Ublock Dynamic Filtering is faster, safer and more privacy conscious, and this is what matter for the end user.
On a side note (little off toppic) , i will install admuncher for IE next week. Till uBlock comes to it (i.e., on Project Spartan ). Things will get interesting when addons start to work (i hope) on new IE
Ad Muncher doesnt work in Internet Explorer 11.
Again you clearly show you have no idea of what you speak.
This goes beyond allowing or blocking connections to 3rd party servers.
it's about controlling and modifying the content that you do allow your browser to load.
Ad Muncher can modify both internal and external scripts.
dynamic filtering can only block or allow specific scripts.
I target then remove or rewrite individual portions of scripts to get the resultant behavior I want.
This can not be done by a machine automatically, it must be done by a human, since only a human knows how it should turn out.
Since the free version of Ad Muncher was made available I have released 499 filter list updates for Ad Muncher.
The fastest pace for filter releases in the history of Ad Muncher.
I'm still in the middle of the most complete rewrite/reworking of the filter list in its history.
Ad Muncher is free. Take it or leave it, no one is being forced to use it.
And again you are using Straw man fallacy, I never talked about Ad Muncher "control" , I know this.
My point is that Ublock aproach is much more efficient and in the end the results are better than Ad Muncher, what is so hard to understand?
You dont need Ad Muncher if you are using Ublock, but it doesnt mean that Ad Muncher is bad, that isnt my point. Ublock alone with Dynamic Filtering is faster and safer, period.
I am actually using Ad Muncher on a old computer, I wont leave for now, but it isnt the point of discussion.
Yes, this i dont think it can be done with uBlock.
So, how many filter lists (or which ever place you rewrite it) you are doing this? I mean an example (or two) of its benefits in real world.
Nope, it allows you to control more -
Scripts - 1st Party and 3rd Party
Frames - 1st Party and 3rd Party
And there is 3rd party cell - Which blocks all the 3rd part resources by default. And will allow you to unblock these resources at site level, through UI, if i am not mistaken.
Separate names with a comma.