Any advantage to using uBO Lite in Firefox over the full uBO?

[dftf-stu]

Hi all

I currently use uBO (full) in Firefox and uBO Lite in Microsoft Edge.

I notice uBO Lite has become available again in the Firefox Add-Ons store:

Is there any advantage to using it in Firefox though, over the full uBO extension?

Is it faster, or does it use less resources or something?

Thanks

[dftf-stu]

I did find this page, linked from an FAQ page on here, but it is rather technical:
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox

I was hoping for a simple "Differences between uBO and uBO Lite in Firefox", looking at Firefox specifically.

The page there compares uBO Lite in Chromium-browsers to uBO (full) in Firefox. Should we assume that if uBO Lite is used in Firefox all the same restrictions and differences still apply?

[stephenhawk8054]

Yes, uBOL has the same restrictions as on Chromium.

Some other limitations of MV3: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)#filtering-capabilities-which-cant-be-ported-to-mv3 . However, there are even more limitations comparing to uBO on Firefox that we can't list all on the wiki page also.

[u-RraaLL]

I only see one reason to use uBO Lite on Firefox and that is its element picker. It's especially useful on mobile where you can't inspect with the browser to help you craft filters.

What I do on mobile is I use uBO (mostly default) and I have uBO Lite with all lists disabled only to have it available for filter crafting.

[dftf-stu]

Or maybe as an alternative, the panel could at least say something like:
You've set 5 custom filters on this site
View these filters...

Clicking the "View these filters..." link would then open the uBO settings to the "My Filters"
page, and then enter the domain into the search box (e.g. github.com ) and the list
would get filtered to only show matching entries?

At-least that would cut-down on the steps somewhat

[garry-ut99]

dftf-stu: @ garry-ut99 : you can undo easier in the "Lite" version; after creating a rule, "Remove a custom filter" appears, and from there a small window appears where you can disable the rule, and see what comes back.

I don't see how it's any easier when one of the comments in the links I gave you already mentions about the exact same thing. You sound like I was unaware of uBOL "Remove a custom filter", but you're the one who missed the comment:

uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues#3601 (reply in thread): Ideally, maybe one day I will have time to implement the uBO Lite way, a "Remove a custom filter" approach.

---

dftf-stu: In the Mv3 "Lite" version, if a wrong element was chosen (in this example, let's pretend the header-bar on here)......it's super-simple to click "Remove a custom filter", click them to see which is causing the issue, then remove it.

You sound like you forgot about the preview button, which is meant exactly for making sure before creating a filter, instead of mindlessly clicking add. Unless you meant some other case, but since you didn't specify one, I am only referring to what you wrote - which is "a typical mistake when creating a filter."

---

dftf-stu: Pity the "classic" uBO doesn't offer something similar.

dftf-stu: I wish the Mv2 version had a simple feature like this instead of needing to go to "Open the dashboard" -> "My filters" -> scroll right to the bottom -> delete the most-recently added lines for that website -> click "Apply changes" every time.

While uBO doesn't have such a simple "Highlight & Remove a custom filter" feature yet, reading your comment, one gets the impression that you don't even know about the existence of the DOM inspector in uBO: uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues#3224 (comment), which was mentioned in uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues#3601 (reply in thread) as well.

[dftf-stu]

@garry-ut99 : reading that link, two points:

1. "Cosmetic filtering", and the row of icons that options is on, are not shown by-default on a fresh install of uBO; you have to click "More \/" to reveal them. They start-out hidden as they are seen as more-technical options that most users shouldn't play with.
2. Even if you do follow the steps outlined in the link you directed me to, it still remains in uBO Lite it is far easier to do the same thing. Just made an incorrect rule? Simply click the uBOL extension icon, click "Remove a custom filter" and delete it from the pop-panel.

I also haven't forgot you can Preview changes before making a rule, indeed, I always do that. But what you cannot preview in-advance is the effect it may have when a page is reloaded, or scrolled-down. You've probably been thrown by my screenshot example, thinking "who wouldn't know the header-bar would get removed if they did a preview". That was just to provide a fast example. Where the issue occurs most is when you get webpages that show a message in the middle of the page and stop you scrolling (e.g. "Sign into Facebook to see more" or "Reddit is better when you sign in"; I think they're called "modal messages"?). I've often tried creating a filter to block them, so I can continue using the page, only to find-out the page will dim and lock-up, not let me scroll.

In uBOL, I can undo that last rule easily.
In uBO, it's a trip to Settings > My Filters > scroll to the bottom > Delete > Apply changes every time.

[gorhill]

In uBOL, I can undo that last rule easily

So this answers your "Any advantage to using uBO Lite in Firefox over the full uBO?" question and we can close this discussion.

[dftf-stu]

Discussion closed following request above

[krystian3w]

Theoretically there is an error in the link because it forces the English language.

https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/ublock-origin-lite/
https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/2887803/

[garry-ut99]

dftf-stu: Is it faster, or does it use less resources or something?

Don't ask questions which are already answered in documentation:
https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)#is-ubol-more-efficient-cpu--and-memory-wise-than-ubo

[dftf-stu]

@garry-ut99 : what I was wondering is, essentially, "is the Mv3 version better in Firefox than in Chromium browsers".

Obviously thesedays the Mv3 version is the only one for Chrome, Edge, Opera and Vivaldi; Brave have made an exception to still support a handful of Mv2 extensions, of which uBO is one, but not forever. Firefox though is totally different, as it's not a Chromium-derived browser, so hence me wondering if the Mv3 one is somehow less-limited under Firefox than Chromium.

Though obviously having two extensions in the store may confuse non-technical users. It'll go something like this:

"God not more f-----g ads on YouTube, might be nice to watch a f-----g video sometimes"
"Dude, have you not got uBlock?"
"What's that?"
"It blocks ads... I ain't see any on YouTube in like forever."
"Ah, sweet... how do I get that?"
"Do a search for Firefox extensions, then when you're on that page, search for uBlock"
"Cool, thanks"
** user searches and the two come up **
[thinks] 'Okay, there's like two... they seem to be made by the same-person. This one's got like 11 million users, but this one says Lite so does that mean it's gonna be faster and use less memory and not r--e my CPU, maybe that one might be better?'
** clicks on each **
"Okay, so the one with 11 million users says "Finally, an efficient wide-spectrum content blocker. Easy on CPU and memory". Okay, and the Lite one says "An efficient content blocker. Blocks ads, trackers, miners, and more immediately upon installation." That one sounds better: I dunno what "wide-spectrum" means (sounds like an Autism thing? LOL), but this Lite one says it blocks ads and trackers, and I've heard of those, and it says it does that immediately after I install it. The full one doesn't say that, so does that mean I need to spend ages setting it up after I install it? F--k that s--t, I just wanna install something and it does it right-away.

Maybe the descriptions could amended to make-clear the non-Lite one is the preferred and recommended option to users? 🤔

[garry-ut99]

I don't get it...previously you were asking about uBOL MV3 in Firefox vs uBO MV2 in Firefox:

dftf-stu: Is there any advantage to using it in Firefox though, over the full uBO extension?
dftf-stu: I wanted a comparison purely between Mv2 on Firefox and Mv3 on Firefox.

now you changed it to MV3 in Firefox vs MV3 in Chromium:

dftf-stu: what I was wondering is, essentially, "is the Mv3 version better in Firefox than in Chromium browsers".
dftf-stu: Is Mv3 on Firefox better in ways than Mv3 on Chromium-browsers, or do they share the exact same limitations?

---

dftf-stu: but this one says Lite so does that mean it's gonna be faster and use less memory and not r--e my CPU, maybe that one might be better?'

There already exists such a discussion regarding the uBOL's name, a duplicate of:

• uBO Minus/Lite discussion uBlock-issues#2261

dftf-stu: Maybe the descriptions could amended to make-clear the non-Lite one is the preferred and recommended option to users? 🤔

There already exists such a discussion, a duplicate of:

• Extension description should be updated uBlock-issues#2441

Best to continue in the already existing threads.

[dftf-stu]

@garry-ut99 :

I don't get it...previously you were asking about uBOL MV3 in Firefox vs uBO MV2 in Firefox:
now you changed it to MV3 in Firefox vs MV3 in Chromium:

I don't see any issue in expanding my question: they are related points. I asked the other question later on, when I thought of it -- after-all, this is the Discussion area on this GitHub, not the Issues section. Issues is where people are expected to be clear, direct and stick only to one point -- the thing they need fixing. Discussion isn't that. So I first asked if there is an advantage to using the Mv3 over Mv2 in Firefox, given while Mv2 is fully-supported I'm not-sure a reason for choosing it (to which someone said: it offers better filter-creation options on the mobile version). But then later I asked if Mv3 performs better, or can offer more features, in Firefox versus Chromium. I don't see the issue? It's not exactly a major tangent; both pertain to "is Mv3 worth using in Firefox while Mv2 remains supported".

* * *

Issue 2261 you linked me to ("uBO Minus/Lite discussion") is in closed status: I cannot add a comment.
(Even if I could... what's the point on a closed ticket? That means "the project owners are not interested further".)

Issue 2441 I could look into... but remember what I've opened here is a "discussion", not an "issue".
Discussions are allowed to go off-topic: that's what this area on GitHub is designed for: so the Issues section isn't polluted.
But technically the store descriptions aren't an issue: the descriptions there were written by the owner intentionally.
So is "Issues" really the right place for it, when it's not a bug, feature-request or security-issue? It's simply opinion.... 🤔

[garry-ut99]

I mean, when you wrote "what I was wondering is," it sounded rather like you were trying to say that you had changed your mind about what your main question was from the initial comment, than expanding it.

dftf-stu: Issue 2261 you linked me to ("uBO Minus/Lite discussion") is in closed status: I cannot add a comment.

I wonder how, given that the textarea input field and the Reply button are still active.
It's just closed, not locked, users can still comment in closed threads.

dftf-stu: Even if I could... what's the point on a closed ticket? That means "the project owners are not interested further".)

You're drawing the wrong conclusions, the project maintainers still do read and participate in closed threads and they still receive notifications when a new message appears. On the uBlock repos it's preferred to continue issues / discussions in already existing closed threads rather than opening duplicates that unnecessarily clutter the repository. Discussing too many issues at the same time makes the current discussion confusing.

dftf-stu: I could look into... but remember what I've opened here is a "discussion", not an "issue". Discussions are allowed to go off-topic: that's what this area on GitHub is designed for: so the Issues section isn't polluted.

The fact that discussions are allowed to go off-topic means it's acceptable to a certain extent, but that doesn't mean there are no limits. Either way have fun, I'll leave it to the moderators.

[dftf-stu]

@garry-ut99 : as per the repo owner's request, I've marked a reply as "answered". I would suggest no further replies to me, as they clearly want this discussion brought-to-a-close

@gorhill : from your admin-side, maybe set this discussion as locked to prevent further replies? Thank you