Thread 106519432

posted without comment

wrong

>>106519492
your comment is

>>106519509
then provide a source for the 30k static rule limit not being a thing anymore.

>>106519509
>>106519530
well?

>>106519509
>>106519530
>>106519592
well?

>>106519509
>>106519530
>>106519592
>>106519640
well?

>>106519509
>>106519530
>>106519592
>>106519640
>>106519689
well?

>>106519509
>>106519530
>>106519592
>>106519640
>>106519689
>>106519896
well?

>>106519509
>>106519530
>>106519592
>>106519640
>>106519689
>>106519896
>>106519948
well?

>>106519509
>>106519530
>>106519592
>>106519640
>>106519689
>>106519896
>>106519948
>>106519994
well?

>>106519509
>>106519530
>>106519592
>>106519640
>>106519689
>>106519896
>>106519948
>>106519994
>>106520080
well?

>>106519509
>>106519530
>>106519592
>>106519640
>>106519689
>>106519896
>>106519948
>>106519994
>>106520080
>>106520215
well?

>>106519432 (OP)
tl;dr OP use and support Chromium based proprietary spyware and gets what he fucking deserves. Fuck you

The static rule limit in all Chromium-based browsers is 330,000 which way more than enough to max out even super bloated adblockers like (non-Lite) uBlock and AdGuard. You might be used to maxed-out bloated blockers using closer to 1,000,000 rules but declarativeNetRequest rules are much more efficient. At the most extreme, every single domain block in the entire extension is only a single rule, and other rules still stand for tens of thousands of webRequest rules. Also, you gotta remember that these limits only count towards dNR rules. Cosmetic filters are just CSS and are completely free.

ip counter removal was a mistake.

>>106521378
All this says is that uBOL is not meant to be a port of uBO to MV3, but a separate project with different goals.
The result is that there is no port of uBO to MV3, simple as.

Same as how he was astroturfing that "oh uBO advanced mode makes uMatrix obsolete" except it very much never did, not even close, and uMatrix was killed with no replacement.

>>106521538
wrong

>>106521549
proofs

>>106521378
Most of these arguments are not very convincing. I'm not entirely sure why ABP fails to filter on launch in his example but once the dNR rules are fed to the browser they persist across launches so you're only waiting for the service worker to catch up for cosmetic filters which is fine and happens with old uBlock too. He's either fishing for excuses or tired of working on uBlock but won't let it go.
>>106521549
It's very right, some of uMatrix's capabilities are mostly moot on a Flash-free web but the biggest problems are that you have to edit two separate "advanced" settings to enable i'm not a fucking retard mode to be allowed to allow dynamic requests, and uBlock never got a row for blocking cookies. So you could only very dumbly block either all third party cookies through your browser or no third party cookies. This very website is a good example of where you'd want more fine grained control than that. Just because reddit likes his software and it stops your grandma from getting computer aids doesn't mean you have to have knee jerk reactions to correct criticism of him.

>>106521378
>Non-declarative MV3-based content blockers will suffer unreliable filtering when their service worker has been suspended, since waking up a service worker requires a lot of initialization work and delays time-critical filtering abilities
I am actually so fucking confused what he even means here, does he think that if you ever define a single dynamic rule that suddenly all the static rules shipped with the extension vanish? Does he think all blockers except his need a service worker to load rules and that he has some super secret special aweseome version of the API documentation? All MV3 blockers are declarative. That's why it's called declarativeNetRequest!

you fucks can LITERALLY go out there and ASK Gorhill. But for some reason you don't. he is willing to explain shit.

>>106521774
https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate/to-service-workers

>>106521378
My favorite part of this document is how he keeps changing it every time he gets enough shit from Twitter for blatantly lying. Notice that on the 11th of July he mysteriously scratched out the "custom filters" bit without even removing it from the page lmfao.
>>106521793
That has literally nothing to do with whether you need a service worker to load dNR rules (you don't, Google itself has a code example that doesn't need it). You remind me of the indian level 1 tech supports at my job, or maybe an AI.

>>106521774
>does he think that if you ever define a single dynamic rule that suddenly all the static rules shipped with the extension vanish?
no, that's just your retarded interpretation of it because you have no clue how any of this stuff works.

>>106519432 (OP)
That's why I moved to system-wide Adguard instead, on top of Diversion on my router. It just werkz

>>106521819
My personal misc utility extension includes a dNR rule to redirect is2.4chan.org to i.4cdn.org. It does not have a service worker. How much is gorhill paying you to gobble up his feces and spread his FUD?

>>106521818
>you don't
exactly

>>106521827
>It does not have a service worker
it doesn't need one. are you retarded? where has gorhill stated that you need a service worker for dnr?
dumb retard

>>106521828
>>106521834
If you agree with me why are you still defending his cuck cage extension instead of installing Adguard

>>106521837
I do not agree with you, because you are retarded and don't know what you are talking about.
Gorhill does know what he is talking about.

I vaguely remember when the MV3/uBlock drama first happened, some anon who supposedly worked on the Chrome team explained Gorhill was throwing a temper-tantrum over nothing, and that all of uBlock's features should be possible in the MV3 API

>>106521848
I didn't claim he didn't, my original claim was that he was acting in bad faith to increase Firefox's marketshare. I'm the guy who wrote the bottom 4 posts in OP's screenshot.

>>106521854
Gorhill did eventually get off his ass (not saying he doesn't do a lot, but you know) and improve uBOL a lot. I should do more reading on this desu.

>>106521860
dumb retard, you have no clue and all your claims are wrong.

>>106521877
The absolute least you could do is claim that I'm gish galloping but you can't just dismiss literally everything I've said out of hand when AdGuard is a living and popular example of how to do MV3 adblocking correctly, and btw notice it has many more downloads than uBOL.

>>106521877
And I'm not even claiming anything like that the move to MV3 was good, developer treadmills are in general bad and Google has a pretty clear cut conflict of interest here. But that is all entirely irrelevant to the fact that gorhill is a liar and a faggot.

>>106521892
adguard is literally the same shit. how is it better than ublock lite?
https://adguard.com/kb/adguard-browser-extension/mv3-version/

>>106521906
>the same shit
It's not. It has custom rules and does not maliciously split rules into a fuck ton of tiny lists so you can't enable all of them. It also doesn't inject every scriptlet into every web page which is bad for performance and makes it extremely trivial to detect that a visitor is using ubol complete mode. It also has a functional context menu and element zapper and such, where ublock is just one big fischer price button. Last I heard he was adding an element zapper but it didn't work yet.

>>106519432 (OP)
Is there any uMatrix alternative? I don't mean noscript I mean the full functionality of uMatrix, per domain and subdomain filtering for CSS, JS, XHR, Frames, etc.

>>106521950
ubo can do all that, it's just that there's more manual work involved. if umatrix is still working for you, just stick with it. many people here still use it.

>>106519432 (OP)
Russian bot making wild claims about adguard without proof, or code to peruse. Maybe it's time to retire your copeepasta and find a different attack vector.

>>106521818
That's simply not true, you can see here
https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)/_history
How it's mostly formatting and updating links. You sound like an adguard drone. How many rubles per hour?

>>106521934
Adguard implements user rules using the user scripts api. This means that Adguard will suffer unreliable filtering when their service worker has been suspended, since waking up a service worker requires a lot of initialization work and delays time-critical filtering abilities.

>>106521825
Yeah, this thread reeks of Adguard marketing.

>>106521818
>Notice that on the 11th of July he mysteriously scratched out the "custom filters" bit without even removing it from the page lmfao.
That's because custom filters are now in ublock lite.

>>106522026
I don't give a shit what you do or use, but gorhill is still a whiny little bitch.

>>106522024
>This means that Adguard will suffer unreliable filtering when their service worker has been suspended
Not for all the other rules. Also the adguard service worker never gets suspended because it performs a noop every 15 seconds which the chrome team explicitly endorses as a way to never get killed >>106521793 so only the startup case matters.
>>106522056
Curious almost like it was possible and advantageous to the user all along.

>>106522180
>it was possible all along
wrong

>>106522374
None of the relevant APIs have changed in over two years.

>>106522024
>unreliable filtering
Even if this was true, which as other posters have pointed out it is not, an "unreliable" service worker that fails 0.01% of the time from a race condition is much more reliable than failing 100% of the time due to not trying which is what gorhill does. In my day we called that throwing a fit.

>>106522026
isn't adguard free except for the VPN?

>>106524635
yes

>>106521268
I'd like to know how removing the IP counter would have protected against this spam.
Indeed, the new(ish) mass reply limit - I think you can only reply to 10 posts before it kicks you in the goolies for "spamming" - that we have now kept that anon from going completely bonkers.