33 ms·

uBlock Origin 1.20

742 points by babak_ap 7y ago

vasili111 7y ago
After Chrome API changes announcement uBlock Origin news at HN became more popular than before. I like it.
- victor9000 7y ago
  It's become a pattern across many Google assets. The massive price increase of the Maps API, the order of magnitude limitations placed on the YouTube API, and now the neutering of ad blocking on Chromium. Google built an empire, and now they're cashing in their chips. I can't say I blame them, but they are no longer a platform that enables innovation. So now my only question is what's next? Which Google product will be the next to transform into an anaconda in their attempts to squeeze cash from their customers. Personally, I'm rethinking everything from Gmail to Android.
  - hi5eyes 7y ago
    drive/docs/photos seems to be their next move google recently changed the way photos synced with drive that and the aggressive android push https://www.engadget.com/2019/06/12/google-drive-google-photos-sync-changes/ https://www.engadget.com/2019/06/12/google-drive-google-phot...
    - sundvor 7y ago
      I recently considered cloud backup for my photos; could easily have paid for 2TB of Google Drive however Google's reputation in the past couple of years has really nosedived (in my eyes). I don't trust them anymore, they'll just eff up most things I like - eventually. So went with the Norwegian Jottacloud. Looks quite good, performs well even from down under - uploaded 1.1TB in just a few days. I have a lot of RAW images; their photo browser displays them fine, however they could do well to update the navigation a bit as it is cumbersome to jump say 15 years back in time. Edit: It's still amazing to see my collection of NEFs and phone dumps (I clean our phones once or twice a year by moving all photos to the NAS) organised by time, extracted from the dark depths of my NAS drive folder hierarchies.
  - throwaway2048 7y ago
    The Youtube API restrictions are completely ridiculous, you use up the entire daily allocation by searching 3 times, or viewing like 10 video metadata blobs. They might as well just scrap the free API completely, because its now worthless.
  - exergy 7y ago
    The funniest thing is, I would happily pay Google a reasonable amount each month to have access to their service! Caveat being that they agreed to drop all tracking and adverts, of course. But I love Gmail, Drive, Youtube and, most of all, Maps and Earth! As things stand, though, if I gave Google any money, I'd be essentially wasting my time, because all I'd get in return would be dubious 'premium' features.
    - vel0city 7y ago
      When it comes to at least Gmail and Drive, they do have a paid option with contracts preventing them from using your data for tracking, and it removes advertisements within those applications. https://gsuite.google.com/ https://gsuite.google.com/
      - exergy 7y ago
        Thanks for the link! The website is a bit opaque. Would you happen to know if the Basic suite already includes tracking prevention and no advertising?
        vel0city 7y ago
        This is a link with more information. I imagine any of the paid tiers of Google Suite are covered by these standards, but I am not a representative of Google. https://gsuite.google.com/security/?secure-by-design_activeEl=data-centers#transparency https://gsuite.google.com/security/?secure-by-design_activeE... "Google does not collect, scan, or use your data in G Suite services for advertising purposes and we do not display ads in G Suite. We use your data to provide G Suite services, and for system support, such as spam filtering, virus detection, spell-checking, capacity planning, traffic routing, and the ability to search for emails and files within an individual account."
    - mackrevinack 7y ago
      I switched to openStreetMap over two years ago now and I havnt looked back. it could be hit and miss depending on where you live though. it really depends on how much contributors are (or were) in your area. there doesn't seem to be any google earth replacement around but then again its not really that important to have one, not for me anyway as its mostly something i just browse for entertainment every now and again
kylek 7y ago
Thank you gorhill. >> Free. Open source. For users by users. No donations sought.
6nf 7y ago
When will the planned changes to the Chrome API actually roll out to the public?
- sp332 7y ago
  They'll be rolled out with Manifest V3 which as of last week was "still very much in development" https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/chromium-extensions/DFWZ5b_Rghg/Qc8GmfCVBgAJ https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/chromium-exte...
- ehsankia 7y ago
  The best estimates would be rolling out by next year, and enforced in probably 2 years. And they will probably change quite a lot until then.
  - tbodt 7y ago
    I expect by the time anything actually ships, the API will be extended enough to allow most of uBlock Origin's functionality to stay.
neonate 7y ago
If you already have it do you need to manually install the new version?
- babak_ap 7y ago
  It was updated automatically for me, both on Firefox desktop and Firefox for Android.
  - neonate 7y ago
    Good to know. Thanks.
  - nosianu 7y ago
    Still stuck on the previous version. The store shows 1.20, but even switching to "developer mode" in the Chrome extension overview and clicking on "Update" (button) and restarting the browser had no effect. Still the old version.
    - wyclif 7y ago
      Same here. Why won't it update to the new version?
      - TheKIngofBelAir 7y ago
        "I see some Chrome/Chromium users wondering why they are not updated to uBlock Origin 1.17.0: When I publish a new version of uBO, I deploy gradually, starting with 5% of users then increasing every day: 12%, 25%, 50%, 100%." https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/1044670065889734657 https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/1044670065889734657
    - nosianu 7y ago
      Update to my question: Someone wrote this blog post about this exact problem, even with this exact extension (dated September 25, 2018), and how to manually update the extension: https://www.ghacks.net/2018/09/25/how-to-update-chrome-extensions-manually/ https://www.ghacks.net/2018/09/25/how-to-update-chrome-exten... UPDATE After reading the comments on the linked blog article, frantically hitting the "Update" button (in developer mode) many times indeed helps! I had clicked it quite a few times already, but "normally", going crazy and hitting it a lot and quickly indeed lead to the update occurring. Wow, what a crazy user interface that requires users to go berserk on the buttons...
paul7986 7y ago
Just read Microsoft will allow ad blocker extensions (May build one in) in their new Chromium browser. Looks like I’m going to rewind 13 years and use IE again(IE of today). Such a stupid move by the do no evil company! Now they do no stupid too. EDIT: Here is link... https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2019/06/16/microsoft-just-dealt-a-blow-to-googles-ad-blocking-plans/#459c060c16ff https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2019/06/16/micr...
- joenathanone 7y ago
  Link?
  - jccalhoun 7y ago
    there was a reddit ama where someone asked about adblockers and they said: "we occasionally hear requests for a built in ad blocking experiences in Edge. For most users, we find that extensions (combined with strong defaults around tracking prevention) are the best option here because you can choose from a variety of experiences and defaults, but we absolutely want to hear from you if you think this should be built in." https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/c094uf/hi_reddit_were_the_team_behind_microsoft_edge_and/er34xbw/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/c094uf/hi_reddit_were...
    - nvrspyx 7y ago
      The quoted bit was about a built-in ad blocker specifically. I think the real major point is: “There are a couple components I want to touch on here - As mentioned elsewhere, we're still evaluating the adblock Manifest V3 changes, so we're not quite ready to commit to a statement one way or another on that issue.” And: “Second, we're committed to a strong extension ecosystem, including ad blocking. We're still evaluating some of the latest changes here in Chromium, but we're committed to the customer scenario as a principle. To be clear, we will not artificially restrict ad blocking for business reasons related to advertising.”
      - icebraining 7y ago
geniium 7y ago
Thanks for the great work!
mrsmee89 7y ago
This is great! Any plans for Safari support?
- linux2647 7y ago
  Not the most up to fate, but exists: https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari
  - newman314 7y ago
    This will no longer be usable on Catalina unless someone else takes up the charge. The problem afaik is similar to what Chrome has done.
- lostgame 7y ago
  I absolutely detest the way Extensions in Safari are handled in Mojave. Is there any way to install them without the App Store?
  - girvo 7y ago
    Same. It's absolutely garbage that it requires a Mac App -- while there's workarounds for now, how much longer until they don't work either. It's a shame because I quite like Safari as a browser. Oh well, more incentive to switch back to Firefox!
  - briandear 7y ago
    Part of the logic is that many extensions are very dangerous to users: the Grammarly extension, for example, vacuums up everything you type and sends your history to their servers. Most normal people don’t realize the trouble they can get into when installing extensions. Extensions can be as privacy destructive as anything on the web.
    - ClassyJacket 7y ago
      That should be my choice, not Apple's. What if there's an addon I want to see everything I type?
superkuh 7y ago
Too bad it only targets Chrome webextensions. No support for people still using the Firefox version of Firefox instead of the modern Chrome style Firefox.
- vxNsr 7y ago
  There's no dev team here, its a single guy building something for free, if you want this to be supported on the older version of firefox, build it!
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  Pre quantum being unsupported and therefore by dint of lacking security updates insecure will end up with 0.1% marketshare. This is probably why nobody cares. You are of course free to maintain a fork for you and the other 28 users.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    gorhill is such a trooper that he's actually still maintaining a Firefox-legacy version, latest release just a couple of weeks ago: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/firefox-legacy-1.16.4.11 https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/firefox-legac...
    - superkuh 7y ago
      Wow! I happily eat my words. I'm wrong. This is excellent. Thank you.
- contravariant 7y ago
  I can understand being upset that firefox removed support for non-webextension extensions, but I can't really understand someone who evidently chose to remove the webextensions support themselves and then complains that some extensions stopped working.
Endy 7y ago
Cool. Is there a non-WebExtensions XUL version for us Pale Moon users?
- canistel 7y ago
  I don't think there is an updated one. For the brief period when I had used Basilisk, I used an old version of uBlock Origin (downloaded from the Mozilla website).
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  Pale moon is a bad product made by horrendous individuals. For the technical reasons read https://www.howtogeek.com/335712/update-why-you-shouldnt-use-waterfox-pale-moon-or-basilisk/ https://www.howtogeek.com/335712/update-why-you-shouldnt-use... For the interpersonal reasons please see the lead developer acting like a spoiled child here. https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86 https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86 Friends don't let friends use a crappy, out of date, insecure, janky browser.
  - jversd673 7y ago
    No, Pale moon is not bad product at all, as for the horrendous individuals, well that's wrong too. >For the technical reasons read https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=135424#p135424 https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=135424#p135424 >For the interpersonal reasons please see the lead developer acting like a spoiled child here. (btw mattatobin is not a lead developer, get your fact straight please) https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=134236#p134236 https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=134236#p134236 >Friends don't let friends use a crappy, out of date, insecure, janky browser. https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?t=21626 https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?t=21626 https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=168679#p168679 https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=168679#p168679
    - michaelmrose 7y ago
      A set of instructions that would allow the end user to build something cannot be subject to any copyright license insofar as it doesn't actually contain the software that is bound by said license. The unofficial patches are presumably by definition not copyright the project considering they are written by a third party. This is kind of how multiple source based packages work. Nothing is being distributed by the repo save instructions the end user does the fetching and building. Normally people do a small amount of research before attacking volunteers who are providing free labor to make their package more broadly available. An example dialog could have been opened like so. "We at the Pale Moon project prefer that distributions package as close as possible to the default experience to ensure that all users have the same experience and aid in troubleshooting. Can we talk about the patches that are being distributed with Pale Moon to see if they are really needed for our product to work on your OS?" If no agreement can ultimately be reached respectfully ask for it not to be distributed but use the know how generated to add a forum post "Building on OpenBSD" not burning any bridges AND actually profiting from the experience. Instead Pale Moon devs appear to have learned nothing from the interaction. I've noticed that you didn't bother to address the technical reasons whatsoever. Your browser is probably the best vector into your system and malware no longer just screws up your system. It's now common for malware to encrypt your files and hold them for ransom. In effect an out of date firefox means that malware authors can use up to date firefox's security fixes to target users using old software that perforce is vulnerable to the same attacks. This needn't be specifically targeted at JUST palemoon users. All users of out of date firefox represent a possible victim pool with attractively low security.
keyle 7y ago
I've just noticed Safari is stuck at 1.16 and I've been using a fork. Anyone here uses Safari as their main browsing tool and has a good alternative? I mean 1.16 seems to do the job just fine, but if it falls behind too far...
- krtkush 7y ago
  I use AdGuard but it is no uBlock Origin.
  - geowwy 7y ago
    I use AdGuard too. It does the job.
  - leadingthenet 7y ago
    The paid version is even better than uBlock Origin.
    - AnaniasAnanas 7y ago
      Would you mind elaborating? What does it have that uBlock Origin doesn't?
- hutattedonmyarm 7y ago
  AdGuard or even 1Blocker if you're willing to spend cash
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
  Setup a Pi-Hole and don't depend on browser-level but network-level ad blocking.
  - ycombonator 7y ago
    +1 ! Loving the pihole setup myself. Optimized the dnsmasq & raspbian network a little bit. I have 248,000 hosts on block list. Can you share your block lists if you can ?
aluren 7y ago
I am dumbfounded that uBlock Origin, arguably the single most important extension in modern web browsing, and one that makes millions of lives easier by making their web experience bearable at all, all of this depends on one single person, working for free. Now there's also the list maintainers, who also work for free. Still makes you wonder about how the world works. There's probably many other similar instances. In any case, I think these people deserve more recognition than they currently do and we shouldn't take anything they do for granted.
- foepys 7y ago
  The biggest and most important lists (Easylist and its localizations) are heavily maintained by eyeo GmbH, the company behind AdBlock Plus. It might be a community project but in reality it's more like Chromium or Go.
  - feanaro 7y ago
    How would this make the uBlock Origin project like Chromium? The lists work and if the bigger lists choose not to block everything you'd like, you can simply enable additional lists. It's just a data source.
    - louiz 7y ago
      It makes the list like chromium, not ublock origin.
      - feanaro 7y ago
        Okay, sure. I interpreted it as the OP referring to the extension itself since the grandparent post was primarily talking about being impressed with it being run by a single person.
  - earenndil 7y ago
    Not really, no. The lists themselves are ultimately less interesting than the technology used to run them; there are other lists, and if easylist soured, a community-sourced alternative could be made relatively easily.
ec109685 7y ago
It's crazy how good uBlock is and everything it blocks. What happens if more of the Internet learns about this extension? Subscriptions for all sites? Some other business model?
- neuronic 7y ago
  Blocking of ad-blocking?
  - suprfnk 7y ago
    This is a game of cat-and-mouse which I don't think companies want to spend time playing.
- Tepix 7y ago
  You probably mean uBlock Origin, not uBlock.
- michalu 7y ago
  It already happened in a way. uBlock Origin is the the version maintained by its founder that stays in line with the original vision. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14335190 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14335190
- asark 7y ago
  Lots of ad-supported sites and services could/would be replaced by something free and volunteer-driven—and in some cases probably a little worse, in others, a little better, than their existing commercial counterparts—if ads just went away tomorrow. There's low motivation to do so now because you're "competing" with deep-pocketed ad-supported orgs for users, but if a gap opened up due to ads no longer being viable, it'd be filled. In some cases the alternatives already exist, they're just not well-trafficked and are somewhat neglected. Maintainers/supporters and users would flow in and they'd quickly grow and improve if the commercial alternatives died. We've seen the open web and protocols stagnate because capturing users to spy on them is so lucrative, and open protocols make it harder to capture them. The open web would be revived without all the ad money and (consequent) developer time going into that capture effort. For the rest, yeah, probably subscriptions.
proszkinasenne2 7y ago
Is there a good short answer for why uBlock is using constructs like this: if ( self.browser instanceof Object ) { self.chrome = self.browser; } else { self.browser = self.chrome; } Instead of using a polyfill like that one https://github.com/mozilla/webextension-polyfill https://github.com/mozilla/webextension-polyfill?
- gridlockd 7y ago
  This may sound shocking to "modern Javascript" developers: Often, a little copy is better than a little dependency. More often, a little copy is better than a large dependency.
  - Klathmon 7y ago
    I'd argue that it's not exactly "better", but more that it just makes different tradeoffs. Using a full well-written* dependency for something not part of your "core competency" (even something seemingly trivial) is often a better choice in my opinion. That dependency will often know the "unknown unknowns" to you since their "whole purpose" is solving that one issue. In this case, and from what I can see from my VERY small glance at the code, I'd argue using a polyfill would be a better choice in this situation. The polyfill has cross-browser tests, ensures compatibility, continually tests against new browser versions and will alert you and shield you from things if they change, download size is less of a worry for extensions and most of it no-ops away in 100% supported browsers, and it's maintained by mozilla. Obviously there might be additional reasons why the uBlock origin developer isn't using it, it might be super overkill for his needs, he might consider the browser API part of his "core competency" and therefore shouldn't be relying on 3rd party code for it. I'd trust him more than myself here since I know so little about the domain. And I had a similar question to the GP commenter of why he decided to avoid the polyfill. Your little saying isn't a useful answer, and the dig at "modern javascript developers" is not only unnecessary but also a real annoyance for me because it's used to dismiss just about every opinion while providing no real reasoning why you think that way. If you think a little copy is better, explain why! Don't just put down a group and leave without giving out any useful information! * A "well written" dependency meaning something well tested, has a solid development team or dedicated person, and has somewhat widespread usage. Obviously it will differ depending on your needs.
Arbalest 7y ago
As much as Advertisers want to be able to use their own domains to be able thwart fake clicks, this approach leaves them open to ad blocking. At what point with the wish to deliver ads outweigh the want to measure user engagement? Once ads are slipstreamed, adblockers are going to have to get a lot more aggressive, more like antivirus scanning for code signatures. Thanks to the team (and especially Ray) for keeping us free of performance bogging, malware delivering scripts.
- exergy 7y ago
  That wouldn't be the worst future though. In my head, once the adverts are being hosted on the website domain, there'd be a lot more incentive to a) NOT deliver malware, and b) NOT have those wearisome video/sound/flashing/js-heavy adverts.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    Why? It's not like the user can distinguish the two, so in term of giving a bad image, it's essentially the same.
    - mikhailt 7y ago
      Think of the impact if the site is blocked by the browser's red malware warning UI (Google's safe browsing or smartscreen in IE) because a compromised file was hosted on the main domain. It is much harder to get the site whitelisted once it has been compromised since it is on the same domain. In my job, we had a site domain that was falsely flagged as malware-infected and it took about a few days before it was confirmed as removed (it is not automated apparently). It was never made clear why it was flagged in the first place but it scared us and we had to isolate any downloadable files (installer, ads, etc) away from the main domain as much as possible.
      - icebraining 7y ago
        AFAIK, Google Safe Browsing will show that warning on your site even if the malware came from a third-party domain.
deanclatworthy 7y ago
Has the author of uBlock origin said what the plans are post-this-change? Should Chrome actually follow through with what it says it will do, the performance of uBO will drop overnight. Is this acceptable? Will development continue?
FabHK 7y ago
Does anyone know about the status of the Safari port? That hasn't seen a release since 1.16 in April 2018. https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/releases https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/releases
- thomas 7y ago
  I've found the same. I honestly can't get uBlock Origin to work well on any of my browsers lately.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
jermaustin1 7y ago
I love uBlock Origin. I wish I could donate to gorhill, and I'm actually kind of annoyed he wont even put up a paypal me link or something. That said, I've noticed more and more sites are starting to do the ad blocker detection and not allowing you to see the content until you white list them. It started with a simple body {overflow:hidden} and a modal box, but they are now truncating their content. And I don't mind a site advertising, they have to make their money somehow, but I don't like how the modern ad-tech is so kludgy.

uBlock Origin 1.20

742 points by babak_ap 7y ago

vasili111 7y ago

After Chrome API changes announcement uBlock Origin news at HN became more popular than before. I like it.

victor9000 7y ago
It's become a pattern across many Google assets. The massive price increase of the Maps API, the order of magnitude limitations placed on the YouTube API, and now the neutering of ad blocking on Chromium. Google built an empire, and now they're cashing in their chips. I can't say I blame them, but they are no longer a platform that enables innovation. So now my only question is what's next? Which Google product will be the next to transform into an anaconda in their attempts to squeeze cash from their customers. Personally, I'm rethinking everything from Gmail to Android.
- hi5eyes 7y ago
  drive/docs/photos seems to be their next move google recently changed the way photos synced with drive that and the aggressive android push https://www.engadget.com/2019/06/12/google-drive-google-photos-sync-changes/ https://www.engadget.com/2019/06/12/google-drive-google-phot...
  - sundvor 7y ago
    I recently considered cloud backup for my photos; could easily have paid for 2TB of Google Drive however Google's reputation in the past couple of years has really nosedived (in my eyes). I don't trust them anymore, they'll just eff up most things I like - eventually. So went with the Norwegian Jottacloud. Looks quite good, performs well even from down under - uploaded 1.1TB in just a few days. I have a lot of RAW images; their photo browser displays them fine, however they could do well to update the navigation a bit as it is cumbersome to jump say 15 years back in time. Edit: It's still amazing to see my collection of NEFs and phone dumps (I clean our phones once or twice a year by moving all photos to the NAS) organised by time, extracted from the dark depths of my NAS drive folder hierarchies.
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  The Youtube API restrictions are completely ridiculous, you use up the entire daily allocation by searching 3 times, or viewing like 10 video metadata blobs. They might as well just scrap the free API completely, because its now worthless.
- exergy 7y ago
  The funniest thing is, I would happily pay Google a reasonable amount each month to have access to their service! Caveat being that they agreed to drop all tracking and adverts, of course. But I love Gmail, Drive, Youtube and, most of all, Maps and Earth! As things stand, though, if I gave Google any money, I'd be essentially wasting my time, because all I'd get in return would be dubious 'premium' features.
  - vel0city 7y ago
    When it comes to at least Gmail and Drive, they do have a paid option with contracts preventing them from using your data for tracking, and it removes advertisements within those applications. https://gsuite.google.com/ https://gsuite.google.com/
    - exergy 7y ago
      Thanks for the link! The website is a bit opaque. Would you happen to know if the Basic suite already includes tracking prevention and no advertising?
      - vel0city 7y ago
        This is a link with more information. I imagine any of the paid tiers of Google Suite are covered by these standards, but I am not a representative of Google. https://gsuite.google.com/security/?secure-by-design_activeEl=data-centers#transparency https://gsuite.google.com/security/?secure-by-design_activeE... "Google does not collect, scan, or use your data in G Suite services for advertising purposes and we do not display ads in G Suite. We use your data to provide G Suite services, and for system support, such as spam filtering, virus detection, spell-checking, capacity planning, traffic routing, and the ability to search for emails and files within an individual account."
  - mackrevinack 7y ago
    I switched to openStreetMap over two years ago now and I havnt looked back. it could be hit and miss depending on where you live though. it really depends on how much contributors are (or were) in your area. there doesn't seem to be any google earth replacement around but then again its not really that important to have one, not for me anyway as its mostly something i just browse for entertainment every now and again

kylek 7y ago

Thank you gorhill. >> Free. Open source. For users by users. No donations sought.

6nf 7y ago

When will the planned changes to the Chrome API actually roll out to the public?

sp332 7y ago
They'll be rolled out with Manifest V3 which as of last week was "still very much in development" https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/chromium-extensions/DFWZ5b_Rghg/Qc8GmfCVBgAJ https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/chromium-exte...
ehsankia 7y ago
The best estimates would be rolling out by next year, and enforced in probably 2 years. And they will probably change quite a lot until then.
- tbodt 7y ago
  I expect by the time anything actually ships, the API will be extended enough to allow most of uBlock Origin's functionality to stay.

neonate 7y ago

If you already have it do you need to manually install the new version?

babak_ap 7y ago
It was updated automatically for me, both on Firefox desktop and Firefox for Android.
- neonate 7y ago
  Good to know. Thanks.
- nosianu 7y ago
  Still stuck on the previous version. The store shows 1.20, but even switching to "developer mode" in the Chrome extension overview and clicking on "Update" (button) and restarting the browser had no effect. Still the old version.
  - wyclif 7y ago
    Same here. Why won't it update to the new version?
    - TheKIngofBelAir 7y ago
      "I see some Chrome/Chromium users wondering why they are not updated to uBlock Origin 1.17.0: When I publish a new version of uBO, I deploy gradually, starting with 5% of users then increasing every day: 12%, 25%, 50%, 100%." https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/1044670065889734657 https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/1044670065889734657
  - nosianu 7y ago
    Update to my question: Someone wrote this blog post about this exact problem, even with this exact extension (dated September 25, 2018), and how to manually update the extension: https://www.ghacks.net/2018/09/25/how-to-update-chrome-extensions-manually/ https://www.ghacks.net/2018/09/25/how-to-update-chrome-exten... UPDATE After reading the comments on the linked blog article, frantically hitting the "Update" button (in developer mode) many times indeed helps! I had clicked it quite a few times already, but "normally", going crazy and hitting it a lot and quickly indeed lead to the update occurring. Wow, what a crazy user interface that requires users to go berserk on the buttons...

paul7986 7y ago

Just read Microsoft will allow ad blocker extensions (May build one in) in their new Chromium browser. Looks like I’m going to rewind 13 years and use IE again(IE of today). Such a stupid move by the do no evil company! Now they do no stupid too. EDIT: Here is link... https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2019/06/16/microsoft-just-dealt-a-blow-to-googles-ad-blocking-plans/#459c060c16ff https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2019/06/16/micr...

joenathanone 7y ago
Link?
- jccalhoun 7y ago
  there was a reddit ama where someone asked about adblockers and they said: "we occasionally hear requests for a built in ad blocking experiences in Edge. For most users, we find that extensions (combined with strong defaults around tracking prevention) are the best option here because you can choose from a variety of experiences and defaults, but we absolutely want to hear from you if you think this should be built in." https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/c094uf/hi_reddit_were_the_team_behind_microsoft_edge_and/er34xbw/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/c094uf/hi_reddit_were...
  - nvrspyx 7y ago
    The quoted bit was about a built-in ad blocker specifically. I think the real major point is: “There are a couple components I want to touch on here - As mentioned elsewhere, we're still evaluating the adblock Manifest V3 changes, so we're not quite ready to commit to a statement one way or another on that issue.” And: “Second, we're committed to a strong extension ecosystem, including ad blocking. We're still evaluating some of the latest changes here in Chromium, but we're committed to the customer scenario as a principle. To be clear, we will not artificially restrict ad blocking for business reasons related to advertising.”
    - icebraining 7y ago

geniium 7y ago

Thanks for the great work!

mrsmee89 7y ago

This is great! Any plans for Safari support?

linux2647 7y ago
Not the most up to fate, but exists: https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari
- newman314 7y ago
  This will no longer be usable on Catalina unless someone else takes up the charge. The problem afaik is similar to what Chrome has done.
lostgame 7y ago
I absolutely detest the way Extensions in Safari are handled in Mojave. Is there any way to install them without the App Store?
- girvo 7y ago
  Same. It's absolutely garbage that it requires a Mac App -- while there's workarounds for now, how much longer until they don't work either. It's a shame because I quite like Safari as a browser. Oh well, more incentive to switch back to Firefox!
- briandear 7y ago
  Part of the logic is that many extensions are very dangerous to users: the Grammarly extension, for example, vacuums up everything you type and sends your history to their servers. Most normal people don’t realize the trouble they can get into when installing extensions. Extensions can be as privacy destructive as anything on the web.
  - ClassyJacket 7y ago
    That should be my choice, not Apple's. What if there's an addon I want to see everything I type?

superkuh 7y ago

Too bad it only targets Chrome webextensions. No support for people still using the Firefox version of Firefox instead of the modern Chrome style Firefox.

vxNsr 7y ago
There's no dev team here, its a single guy building something for free, if you want this to be supported on the older version of firefox, build it!
michaelmrose 7y ago
Pre quantum being unsupported and therefore by dint of lacking security updates insecure will end up with 0.1% marketshare. This is probably why nobody cares. You are of course free to maintain a fork for you and the other 28 users.
- icebraining 7y ago
  gorhill is such a trooper that he's actually still maintaining a Firefox-legacy version, latest release just a couple of weeks ago: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/firefox-legacy-1.16.4.11 https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/firefox-legac...
  - superkuh 7y ago
    Wow! I happily eat my words. I'm wrong. This is excellent. Thank you.
contravariant 7y ago
I can understand being upset that firefox removed support for non-webextension extensions, but I can't really understand someone who evidently chose to remove the webextensions support themselves and then complains that some extensions stopped working.

Endy 7y ago

Cool. Is there a non-WebExtensions XUL version for us Pale Moon users?

canistel 7y ago
I don't think there is an updated one. For the brief period when I had used Basilisk, I used an old version of uBlock Origin (downloaded from the Mozilla website).
michaelmrose 7y ago
Pale moon is a bad product made by horrendous individuals. For the technical reasons read https://www.howtogeek.com/335712/update-why-you-shouldnt-use-waterfox-pale-moon-or-basilisk/ https://www.howtogeek.com/335712/update-why-you-shouldnt-use... For the interpersonal reasons please see the lead developer acting like a spoiled child here. https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86 https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86 Friends don't let friends use a crappy, out of date, insecure, janky browser.
- jversd673 7y ago
  No, Pale moon is not bad product at all, as for the horrendous individuals, well that's wrong too. >For the technical reasons read https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=135424#p135424 https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=135424#p135424 >For the interpersonal reasons please see the lead developer acting like a spoiled child here. (btw mattatobin is not a lead developer, get your fact straight please) https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=134236#p134236 https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=134236#p134236 >Friends don't let friends use a crappy, out of date, insecure, janky browser. https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?t=21626 https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?t=21626 https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=168679#p168679 https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=168679#p168679
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    A set of instructions that would allow the end user to build something cannot be subject to any copyright license insofar as it doesn't actually contain the software that is bound by said license. The unofficial patches are presumably by definition not copyright the project considering they are written by a third party. This is kind of how multiple source based packages work. Nothing is being distributed by the repo save instructions the end user does the fetching and building. Normally people do a small amount of research before attacking volunteers who are providing free labor to make their package more broadly available. An example dialog could have been opened like so. "We at the Pale Moon project prefer that distributions package as close as possible to the default experience to ensure that all users have the same experience and aid in troubleshooting. Can we talk about the patches that are being distributed with Pale Moon to see if they are really needed for our product to work on your OS?" If no agreement can ultimately be reached respectfully ask for it not to be distributed but use the know how generated to add a forum post "Building on OpenBSD" not burning any bridges AND actually profiting from the experience. Instead Pale Moon devs appear to have learned nothing from the interaction. I've noticed that you didn't bother to address the technical reasons whatsoever. Your browser is probably the best vector into your system and malware no longer just screws up your system. It's now common for malware to encrypt your files and hold them for ransom. In effect an out of date firefox means that malware authors can use up to date firefox's security fixes to target users using old software that perforce is vulnerable to the same attacks. This needn't be specifically targeted at JUST palemoon users. All users of out of date firefox represent a possible victim pool with attractively low security.

keyle 7y ago

I've just noticed Safari is stuck at 1.16 and I've been using a fork. Anyone here uses Safari as their main browsing tool and has a good alternative? I mean 1.16 seems to do the job just fine, but if it falls behind too far...

krtkush 7y ago
I use AdGuard but it is no uBlock Origin.
- geowwy 7y ago
  I use AdGuard too. It does the job.
- leadingthenet 7y ago
  The paid version is even better than uBlock Origin.
  - AnaniasAnanas 7y ago
    Would you mind elaborating? What does it have that uBlock Origin doesn't?
hutattedonmyarm 7y ago
AdGuard or even 1Blocker if you're willing to spend cash
JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
Setup a Pi-Hole and don't depend on browser-level but network-level ad blocking.
- ycombonator 7y ago
  +1 ! Loving the pihole setup myself. Optimized the dnsmasq & raspbian network a little bit. I have 248,000 hosts on block list. Can you share your block lists if you can ?

aluren 7y ago

I am dumbfounded that uBlock Origin, arguably the single most important extension in modern web browsing, and one that makes millions of lives easier by making their web experience bearable at all, all of this depends on one single person, working for free. Now there's also the list maintainers, who also work for free. Still makes you wonder about how the world works. There's probably many other similar instances. In any case, I think these people deserve more recognition than they currently do and we shouldn't take anything they do for granted.

foepys 7y ago
The biggest and most important lists (Easylist and its localizations) are heavily maintained by eyeo GmbH, the company behind AdBlock Plus. It might be a community project but in reality it's more like Chromium or Go.
- feanaro 7y ago
  How would this make the uBlock Origin project like Chromium? The lists work and if the bigger lists choose not to block everything you'd like, you can simply enable additional lists. It's just a data source.
  - louiz 7y ago
    It makes the list like chromium, not ublock origin.
    - feanaro 7y ago
      Okay, sure. I interpreted it as the OP referring to the extension itself since the grandparent post was primarily talking about being impressed with it being run by a single person.
- earenndil 7y ago
  Not really, no. The lists themselves are ultimately less interesting than the technology used to run them; there are other lists, and if easylist soured, a community-sourced alternative could be made relatively easily.

ec109685 7y ago

It's crazy how good uBlock is and everything it blocks. What happens if more of the Internet learns about this extension? Subscriptions for all sites? Some other business model?

neuronic 7y ago
Blocking of ad-blocking?
- suprfnk 7y ago
  This is a game of cat-and-mouse which I don't think companies want to spend time playing.
Tepix 7y ago
You probably mean uBlock Origin, not uBlock.
michalu 7y ago
It already happened in a way. uBlock Origin is the the version maintained by its founder that stays in line with the original vision. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14335190 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14335190
asark 7y ago
Lots of ad-supported sites and services could/would be replaced by something free and volunteer-driven—and in some cases probably a little worse, in others, a little better, than their existing commercial counterparts—if ads just went away tomorrow. There's low motivation to do so now because you're "competing" with deep-pocketed ad-supported orgs for users, but if a gap opened up due to ads no longer being viable, it'd be filled. In some cases the alternatives already exist, they're just not well-trafficked and are somewhat neglected. Maintainers/supporters and users would flow in and they'd quickly grow and improve if the commercial alternatives died. We've seen the open web and protocols stagnate because capturing users to spy on them is so lucrative, and open protocols make it harder to capture them. The open web would be revived without all the ad money and (consequent) developer time going into that capture effort. For the rest, yeah, probably subscriptions.

proszkinasenne2 7y ago

Is there a good short answer for why uBlock is using constructs like this: if ( self.browser instanceof Object ) { self.chrome = self.browser; } else { self.browser = self.chrome; } Instead of using a polyfill like that one https://github.com/mozilla/webextension-polyfill https://github.com/mozilla/webextension-polyfill?

gridlockd 7y ago
This may sound shocking to "modern Javascript" developers: Often, a little copy is better than a little dependency. More often, a little copy is better than a large dependency.
- Klathmon 7y ago
  I'd argue that it's not exactly "better", but more that it just makes different tradeoffs. Using a full well-written* dependency for something not part of your "core competency" (even something seemingly trivial) is often a better choice in my opinion. That dependency will often know the "unknown unknowns" to you since their "whole purpose" is solving that one issue. In this case, and from what I can see from my VERY small glance at the code, I'd argue using a polyfill would be a better choice in this situation. The polyfill has cross-browser tests, ensures compatibility, continually tests against new browser versions and will alert you and shield you from things if they change, download size is less of a worry for extensions and most of it no-ops away in 100% supported browsers, and it's maintained by mozilla. Obviously there might be additional reasons why the uBlock origin developer isn't using it, it might be super overkill for his needs, he might consider the browser API part of his "core competency" and therefore shouldn't be relying on 3rd party code for it. I'd trust him more than myself here since I know so little about the domain. And I had a similar question to the GP commenter of why he decided to avoid the polyfill. Your little saying isn't a useful answer, and the dig at "modern javascript developers" is not only unnecessary but also a real annoyance for me because it's used to dismiss just about every opinion while providing no real reasoning why you think that way. If you think a little copy is better, explain why! Don't just put down a group and leave without giving out any useful information! * A "well written" dependency meaning something well tested, has a solid development team or dedicated person, and has somewhat widespread usage. Obviously it will differ depending on your needs.

Arbalest 7y ago

As much as Advertisers want to be able to use their own domains to be able thwart fake clicks, this approach leaves them open to ad blocking. At what point with the wish to deliver ads outweigh the want to measure user engagement? Once ads are slipstreamed, adblockers are going to have to get a lot more aggressive, more like antivirus scanning for code signatures. Thanks to the team (and especially Ray) for keeping us free of performance bogging, malware delivering scripts.

exergy 7y ago
That wouldn't be the worst future though. In my head, once the adverts are being hosted on the website domain, there'd be a lot more incentive to a) NOT deliver malware, and b) NOT have those wearisome video/sound/flashing/js-heavy adverts.
- icebraining 7y ago
  Why? It's not like the user can distinguish the two, so in term of giving a bad image, it's essentially the same.
  - mikhailt 7y ago
    Think of the impact if the site is blocked by the browser's red malware warning UI (Google's safe browsing or smartscreen in IE) because a compromised file was hosted on the main domain. It is much harder to get the site whitelisted once it has been compromised since it is on the same domain. In my job, we had a site domain that was falsely flagged as malware-infected and it took about a few days before it was confirmed as removed (it is not automated apparently). It was never made clear why it was flagged in the first place but it scared us and we had to isolate any downloadable files (installer, ads, etc) away from the main domain as much as possible.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      AFAIK, Google Safe Browsing will show that warning on your site even if the malware came from a third-party domain.

deanclatworthy 7y ago

Has the author of uBlock origin said what the plans are post-this-change? Should Chrome actually follow through with what it says it will do, the performance of uBO will drop overnight. Is this acceptable? Will development continue?

FabHK 7y ago

Does anyone know about the status of the Safari port? That hasn't seen a release since 1.16 in April 2018. https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/releases https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/releases

thomas 7y ago
I've found the same. I honestly can't get uBlock Origin to work well on any of my browsers lately.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

jermaustin1 7y ago

I love uBlock Origin. I wish I could donate to gorhill, and I'm actually kind of annoyed he wont even put up a paypal me link or something. That said, I've noticed more and more sites are starting to do the ad blocker detection and not allowing you to see the content until you white list them. It started with a simple body {overflow:hidden} and a modal box, but they are now truncating their content. And I don't mind a site advertising, they have to make their money somehow, but I don't like how the modern ad-tech is so kludgy.