Replies: 12 comments 65 replies
-
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
My point still holds. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I wonder, why was Minus perceived as "controversial"? Users should know that Chromium (Google) crippled content blockers and Minus aptly implies that, "uPrivacy" doesn't. As gorhill has said before, Google isn't serving the user agent anymore. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I think uBO should be loud and clear on Chrome web store that Chrome version is lesser than true uBO (and reasons why). It should even mention other browsers in description in which uBO works for it's best potential and suggest users to migrate to them. Some people won't care and will still install lesser uBO but some people could change their browser. Just removing uBO from Chrome web store or changing it's name to something totally different would IMO be kind of hiding. Then people would not become aware of Google's mischiefs. I think being upfront and loud would be the best option. uBO should not back down from Chrome web store. uBock Origin Lite is probably a good name. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
If possible paste links without ban addon, link can protect long instruction to extend "quota" in textarea or censorship by Google team "to check description and code". |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Not just a good name, but also makes it a better abbreviation "UBOL" 🤌 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@MasterKia @peace2000 The extension name should not be used politically to accuse or critisize anyone (or Google). @gorhill 's public attitude toward MV3 has always been neutral and he's always seeking for what can be done on MV3. Whether Google's move is good or not is what each user should decide. If one is happy with uBOL's capability, it's pure improvement over uBO. What I said is simple, uBO without dynamic filtering is, IMO, NOT uBO. Sure, only gorhill can define what uBO is, but its origin is HTTPSB which gives noob user like me at the time full control over what requests are allowed. Static filtering was a later addition as PoC and even then gorhill used to recommend using ABP alongside with it. It evolved over time to the point I can't say dynamic filtering is the sole identity of uBO, but still lacking it means loosing roughly 50% of what it is. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Yep, confirmed supporing simple cosmetic filters. No support for procedural, style, scriptlet, or redirect tho. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
The extension is to be permission-less at install. I do plan into looking at letting users explicitly grant uBO superior powers on whatever sites they choose to, either one, a handful, or everywhere. These are are called optional_host_permissions. I started to work on that MV3 stuff less than 2 weeks ago, so people will have to accept it it won't have everything which can be had right now, there will be a progression. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Sounds like in Android where a app is by default always bare-bones and post-install you start enabling permissions to make certain features work. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
More iOS, because many Android apps can crash without allow insane premissions. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Regarding permissions, it's clear that MV3 tends to be more secure interms of extension control. Google themselves know how convoluted the unknown extensions lurking around the web store, ready to hijack user's privacy & security. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Why does the manifest say that it requires at least version 105? I thought that MV3 was available in earlier versions of Chromium, although some of the new MV3 APIs that this extension relies on might not be. My problem is that I couldn't install it in Brave because I use a flag that puts a "99." in front of the version in my User-Agent string, just in case some old websites think I'm using a version 10 or 1 browser; it's not a big deal, because I could just turn that flag off (I also noticed that Bloomberg BusinessWeek gives me an old-browser warning precisely because the first number in the version is reported as 99). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
The Chrome Web Store apparently does check the |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
So move this to UA overrider add-on and monthly update brave numbers at end of user-agent. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Oh, an easier workaround is to stop using that flag, because Brave does not prepend |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I think add-ons in brave also can't touch web store, but mv3 firewall block something by network rules - maybe Google fail. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I just bothered to actually try disabling the #force-major-version-to-minor flag to see what would happen, and indeed, uBO Lite is marked as "Not Compatible" when the flag is enabled, and it is able to be installed when the flag is disabled. This seems like a WONTFIX because there is a legitimate reason for setting 105 as the minimum Chromium version, and the Chrome Web Store is behaving exactly as expected upon seeing Brave sending a version string starting with |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@gorhill |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
RU AdList |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Anyway, I can reproduce at will and I am pretty sure I understand the issue, which is not that |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Can this be fixed for uBOL? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Maybe I made a mistake when testing, I can't reproduce anymore with uBO, but I can reproduce with uBOL or with uBO/uBOL. Maybe uBOL was still enabled when I thought it was disabled. So now I am thinking the issue is with the missing |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Ok I found the problem, it's much simpler than I thought. This will be fixed in next release. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
This reasoning is understandable. However, the page opened in the background tab will still be visited by the user in the end. And there will be unblocked ads on this page. To avoid this, for those sites where the It is difficult to find such rules on ukr.net, so redirect rules are used there. It would be great if you could modify the This issue does not require immediate resolution, but please keep it in mind for the future if possible. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
My last comment says it's fixed, the procedural filters were first applied only after a DOM mutation in uBOL -- this was a mistake in the new code. If you have a case for uBO where there is an issue with cosmetic filters in background tab, just provide repro steps so that I will investigate what is the real cause (I was wrong above for uBOL, the issue was elsewhere than usage of requestAnimationFrame). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
For uBO: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
What am I supposed to see or not see? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Due to the fact that the |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
requestIdleCallback doesn't suffer from that, can be used as a replacement. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Will importing filter lists be an option for ublock lite? If not, why? Thanks |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@gorhill Will uBOL ever get dynamic filtering ? That's the only thing stopping me from using UBOL in chrome. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Didn't he say it's impobbile as MV3 lacks a way to implement noop (falling to static filers) in reddit? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Dynamic filtering requires the listing of all hostnames for which there was a network request, which means a webRequest listener, which means the service worker would be constantly be brought to life, which would make uBOL no longer declarative. Beside, uBOL would be unable to easily tell whether a network request was blocked by itself or another extension, or even just a network error. So answer is no. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I don't know as I'm not on reddit anymore. I thought things must have changed in two years as many things that looked impossible have now been added to uBOL, shame looks like mv3 truly killed innovation for sure. Will be sticking to mv2 then. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
For the time being, UBO Lite does not support cookie consent blocking. https://github.com/OhMyGuus/I-Still-Dont-Care-About-Cookies the maintainer currently declares 1462 static rules + 1 dynamic rule per whitelisted domain. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hi @SampeiNihira : Just bringing this thead over here as requested. Yes, I'm aware. The whole MV2/MV3 thing caused me to begin a transition from Chromium to Firefox about a year ago. Now I'm using FF as my daily driver and only boot up chromium when there is a page rendering issue. I'd estimate I have to use chromium only once or twice a month. For me, uBO is the "can't live without it", deal-breaker piece of software while the browser is (mostly) fungible. I get that I'm in a backwards, "tail wagging the dog" scenario, but my decision works for me, quite well. My guess is that a few people might switch to FF over the MV2/MV3 thing, just like I did. Time will tell. Edit to add: I made the earlier comment that I did because my personal belief is that for people who want the additional uBO functionality but unwilling to use Firefox, they have an option to make up a lot of the difference in functionality by using the extension created by Adguard which requires full permissions. So there is an option for those folks. But creating a new extension with additional permissions is outside @gorhill's stated project goals for uBOL. Just like he's stated over and over again, his users don't want him to burnout over this like he did on uMatrix. So it makes sense to respect his clearly stated project boundaries. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Any update on cosmetic filters for UBO Lite? I installed the latest version from the chrome web store but don't see the option to enable/add any cosmetic filters. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Specific cosmetic filters are supported when you enable Optimal mode. Generic cosmetic filters are supported when you enable Complete mode. Cosmetic filters are a subset of extended filtering, which also include scriptlet-based filtering. Custom filters, either network- or cosmetic-based are not supported. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Not sure if this is the right place, but Google has posted an updated timeline for the Manifest V3 transition. I wonder if they will delay it again when deadline approaches. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Whether they implement sooner or later is not worth following for. The best approach is always stay ready and uptodate for the upcoming codebase with every current release. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
#338 (comment)
IMHO it's best to assign a new name and my first suggestion is uPrivacy. Obviously I have no right to define what uBO is, but as an old user since the very first version of HTTPSB, I don't see how uBO without dynamic filtering can be uBO. It's one of the unique characteristics and identity of uBO among many such as superior performance. Well, if I understand correctly neither performance will be a unique characterisitics in MV3 as now filtering is done by browser. gorhill's statement
can be pro-argument to assign a new name. Whatever the intention was, in my country it turned out people's perception is: "Oh, relieved. So I can use uBO in MV3 world, though some function may be restricted." I don't think this is caused by the name, yet still it's confusing. And as gorhill had to clarify, others take "Minus" as a sign of negative feelings. My rationale for the name uPrivacy is:
Other candidates I think of are uFilter, uDefender, uProtector, etc. but I feel uPrivacy best fit for the reason above.
[Update] uBO's manifest:
I don't see how this is possible without dynamic filtering. Now it's not possible to block XSS through iframe, to block watering hole attack with 3p script, and even 100% blocking Facebook anywhere except sites user chose is not trivial even if uBOL supported My filters and custom subscription. TBH uBOL looks to be just "ad (and tracking) blocker" which uBO denies to be.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions