this post was submitted on
17 points (91% upvoted)
shortlink:

uBlockOrigin

5,255 readers

87 users here now

 

An efficient blocker add-on for various browsers. Fast, potent, and lean.

 

pronounced you-block origin (/ˈjuːˌblɒk/) — you decide what enters your browser.

 

 

Need help with some settings or features?

Read the Wiki!

 

This subreddit is Night Mode compatible

created by [deleted]a community for
message the moderators

MODERATORS

×

16
17

Opinions on Nano Adblocker (self.uBlockOrigin)

submitted by alfredmuffin

https://github.com/NanoAdblocker/NanoCore

Looks like a new fork of uBO. I discovered it because uBlock Protector got updated to Nano Defender.

all 17 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Nano Adblocker is more for developers and filter maintainers, it is slower than uBO (for average users) but has many must-have features for filter maintainers:

https://github.com/NanoAdblocker/NanoCore/issues/29#ref-commit-212048b https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/3331#issuecomment-351177993

In summary, uBO will still focus on users, RAM, and CPU usage, while Nano will focus on developers and advanced users who likes bleeding edge, fancy features, and fast releases.

Nano will (not yet as of time of post) also have more out-of-the-box resistance against anti-adblock scripts.

[–]kel007 0 points1 point  (1 child)

it is slower than uBO (for average users)

How do I test this? I'd like to find how much impact will it exactly have on me..

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It was slower, now it's optimized, i18n used to be evaluated on runtime, now it's pre-processed.

For power users, Nano Filter Viewer is quite a bit faster than uBO's Assets Viewer, but consume quite a bit more RAM as well. You can see that in the profiler.

[–]--NRG-- 1 point2 points  (9 children)

for me now Waterfox +Nano Adblocker+Nano Defender it's the perfect bond

if someone needs the legacy compatible version for waterfox or firefox 0.56/ESR of Nano Defender, you can download it from this list of my legacy add ons (I converted it from chrome's version):

http://www.mediafire.com/folder/2hzlanm6715l9/LEGACY_ADD-ONS_(WF_0.56)

[–]Lech1991 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Could you explain how to do that (namely, such a conversion) and get a signed .xpi file on my own? I tried to simply download Nano Adblocker using the Chrome Store Foxified addon, but still the file I have received is not signed, thus cannot be used in Firefox. Thanks in advance.

[–]--NRG-- 0 points1 point  (5 children)

I used Chrome Store Fokified add-on without any issue ;)

https://postimg.org/image/y04ic434r/

[–]SuperPutte 0 points1 point  (4 children)

The Foxified addon is still buggy together with FF57+ (probably because of WE/Legacy issues).

But, it works with Waterfox (legacy) so as a work-around you can install Waterfox + Chrome Store Foxified, create a signed xpi, save it on your harddrive, and then install this in FF57+ (just drag&drop).

[–]--NRG-- 0 points1 point  (3 children)

yes you can use Foxified add-on as you decribted, althought i'm not sure is a good idea to utilize the created extensions with it through Firefox Quantum...(some extensions could create some incompatibily issue due to the web extensions APIs required by Firefox Quantum)

However remaining in topic with Firefox Quantum and nano adblocker & nano defender you don't need the legacy version compatible created trought Foxified add-on...

Nano defender now is released also for Firefox only as webextension:

https://addons.mozilla.org/it/firefox/addon/real-nano-defender/

Chrome Store Foxified add-on is usefull mainly for waterfox or ESR versions users before v.57, because nano defender (official release) isn't compatible with them because it uses only web extensions apis

[–]SuperPutte 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Personally I can't understand the need of Nano Adblocker....

I have compared ubo vs nano, and there was absolutly no difference in functionality or speed. The nano defender works perfect also in ubo. To me they act identical... or have I missed something?

[–]--NRG-- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nano Adblocker. It's uBlock Origin + a few more tricks to better integrate with Nano Defender. Nano Adblocker also has more up to date lists (anti-mining), faster update cycle, configured for privacy out of the box. I would say if you use Nano Defender (and you really should), definitely use Nano Adblocker. If you don't, stick with uBlock Origin.

[–]Lech1991 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have you noticed that when using Nano Adblocker and adding Nano Defender plugin created in Foxified, the 'Nano Defender Integration' filter list does not turn on itself automatically?

As opposed to another technique I have found over the internet, where you just install plugin Disable Add-on Compatibility Checks and then you are allowed to install original Nano Defender addon without any conversion - in that case, the 'Nano Defender Integration' filter list indeed turns on automatically.

That made me wonder if such plugin conversion doesn't affect the 'adblocking effectiveness' - I mean, if the conversion does influence the behavior of the plugin (lack of automatic turn on), who knows if there is any other significant difference?

[–]alfredmuffin[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Why Waterfox instead of Firefox?

[–]--NRG-- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

for many reasons...

first for my privacy second I can continue to use also the old legacy add-ons...

Waterfox is based on firefox 56 plus security patches released for latest version of firefox

many new web estensions are not so good as the old legacy ones (due to limitations of webextensions APIs)

https://www.reddit.com/r/waterfox/comments/7eu4ob/why_do_you_use_waterfox_unofficial_poll/

[–]DanTheMan74 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Since it's unlikely to be compatible with Firefox, as jspenguin doesn't use that browser and his time investment for it is very much secondary, I'm quite happy to see continued progress of uAssets instead. gorhill's own filter-lists for custom solutions and anti-adblock behavior work well for me here. They probably do miss some functionality of jspenguin's work on Chrome browsers, but I haven't encountered anything yet.

[–]Msmtx 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Well, hopefully jspenguin won't have to change anything. I used uBlock Protector in Opera with an extension that allowed downloading Google Chrome extensions directly, and it worked. Now I gave Firefox another chance with Quantum, and what everyone was complaining about is that they removed the old NPAPI extension support and are now working only with the same API spec from Chrome. I was staggered that nobody had mentioned the possibility of Chrome/Chromium extensions working in Firefox now. Although I guess the implementation is still far from perfect for full support without modifications, maybe as it matures, jspenguin will only have to test some (which was made easy by the new Developer Tools in Quantum) and upload it to Firefox Add-ons. Also: https://addons.mozilla.org/pt-BR/firefox/addon/chrome-store-foxified/

[–]DanTheMan74 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for your reply.

I believe jspenguin is a very smart guy who's doing a greater thing for us than many realize. That he likes what he does and that he appears to take massive enjoyment from outfoxing the commercial entities that have sprung up in the wake of ad-blockers showing a considerable growth over the past five years will be known to anyone who follows his comments on the GitHub issues tracker.

But as passionate as he is about the topic, he also lacks the interest to do the job on two separate browsing environments especially when he doesn't use one at all, thus Firefox has always been left out in the cold. I for one won't fault him for that. I also remember that back before the uBlock/uBlock Origin split happened, gorhill didn't seem that keen on making uBlock compatible to Firefox either and it didn't begin to happen until others started to pick it up seriously. Lets be honest, it's been a lot of work to get that done and the pay-off has been minimal in hindsight.

Nowadays the Firefox extension ecosystem is a bit of a mess, because next to WebExtensions (where a good number of them from the Chrome Web Store don't actually run successfully or perfectly in Firefox without modifications) you also have smaller subsets of people that don't want to upgrade their browser and thus use the ESR or forks with the same legacy system like Waterfox/Cyberfox and finally you have Pale Moon with a whole other set of compatibility issues.

In the face of that it doesn't seem unreasonable that we Firefox users would have to live without any of jspenguin's products. He had some plans for making a Firefox (compatible) version anyway, until AdBlock Protector 2 ended up being canceled almost immediately out of the gates. And since then? The latest comment on the topic that I know of was a reply on the Nano Adblocker Chrome web store page from last week where he said the following ...

Firefox Quantum 59 or 60 might be supported in the future, right now it's missing APIs and I can't port.

... which brings me back to the point that WebExtensions support on Chrome isn't identical to WebExtensions support on Firefox. The overlap is huge and no doubt could the vast majority of extensions in the Chrome web store be ported with only minimal adaptions, but I believe anti-ad-blocking with custom script injections is a lot more of an edge case. With Firefox version 60 still five and a half months away, there won't be much else to do but wait. That's why I tried to focus on uAssets in my previous comment, since it's working well on Firefox right now and the maintainers seem just as active at solving issues.

[–]Zhangsun321 0 points1 point  (0 children)

im using it as ublock protector... ive not changed from ublock origin...

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2018 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 5866 on app-103 at 2018-03-03 15:32:46.080246+00:00 running 11f4453 country code: JP.

this post was submitted on
18 points (95% upvoted)
shortlink:

uBlockOrigin

5,255 readers

87 users here now

 

An efficient blocker add-on for various browsers. Fast, potent, and lean.

 

pronounced you-block origin (/ˈjuːˌblɒk/) — you decide what enters your browser.

 

 

Need help with some settings or features?

Read the Wiki!

 

This subreddit is Night Mode compatible

created by [deleted]a community for
message the moderators

MODERATORS

×

17
18

Opinions on Nano Adblocker (self.uBlockOrigin)

submitted by alfredmuffin

https://github.com/NanoAdblocker/NanoCore

Looks like a new fork of uBO. I discovered it because uBlock Protector got updated to Nano Defender.

all 17 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Nano Adblocker is more for developers and filter maintainers, it is slower than uBO (for average users) but has many must-have features for filter maintainers:

https://github.com/NanoAdblocker/NanoCore/issues/29#ref-commit-212048b https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/3331#issuecomment-351177993

In summary, uBO will still focus on users, RAM, and CPU usage, while Nano will focus on developers and advanced users who likes bleeding edge, fancy features, and fast releases.

Nano will (not yet as of time of post) also have more out-of-the-box resistance against anti-adblock scripts.

[–]kel007 0 points1 point  (1 child)

it is slower than uBO (for average users)

How do I test this? I'd like to find how much impact will it exactly have on me..

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It was slower, now it's optimized, i18n used to be evaluated on runtime, now it's pre-processed.

For power users, Nano Filter Viewer is quite a bit faster than uBO's Assets Viewer, but consume quite a bit more RAM as well. You can see that in the profiler.

[–]--NRG-- 1 point2 points  (9 children)

for me now Waterfox +Nano Adblocker+Nano Defender it's the perfect bond

if someone needs the legacy compatible version for waterfox or firefox 0.56/ESR of Nano Defender, you can download it from this list of my legacy add ons (I converted it from chrome's version):

http://www.mediafire.com/folder/2hzlanm6715l9/LEGACY_ADD-ONS_(WF_0.56)

[–]Lech1991 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Could you explain how to do that (namely, such a conversion) and get a signed .xpi file on my own? I tried to simply download Nano Adblocker using the Chrome Store Foxified addon, but still the file I have received is not signed, thus cannot be used in Firefox. Thanks in advance.

[–]--NRG-- 0 points1 point  (5 children)

I used Chrome Store Fokified add-on without any issue ;)

https://postimg.org/image/y04ic434r/

[–]SuperPutte 0 points1 point  (4 children)

The Foxified addon is still buggy together with FF57+ (probably because of WE/Legacy issues).

But, it works with Waterfox (legacy) so as a work-around you can install Waterfox + Chrome Store Foxified, create a signed xpi, save it on your harddrive, and then install this in FF57+ (just drag&drop).

[–]--NRG-- 0 points1 point  (3 children)

yes you can use Foxified add-on as you decribted, althought i'm not sure is a good idea to utilize the created extensions with it through Firefox Quantum...(some extensions could create some incompatibily issue due to the web extensions APIs required by Firefox Quantum)

However remaining in topic with Firefox Quantum and nano adblocker & nano defender you don't need the legacy version compatible created trought Foxified add-on...

Nano defender now is released also for Firefox only as webextension:

https://addons.mozilla.org/it/firefox/addon/real-nano-defender/

Chrome Store Foxified add-on is usefull mainly for waterfox or ESR versions users before v.57, because nano defender (official release) isn't compatible with them because it uses only web extensions apis

[–]SuperPutte 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Personally I can't understand the need of Nano Adblocker....

I have compared ubo vs nano, and there was absolutly no difference in functionality or speed. The nano defender works perfect also in ubo. To me they act identical... or have I missed something?

[–]--NRG-- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nano Adblocker. It's uBlock Origin + a few more tricks to better integrate with Nano Defender. Nano Adblocker also has more up to date lists (anti-mining), faster update cycle, configured for privacy out of the box. I would say if you use Nano Defender (and you really should), definitely use Nano Adblocker. If you don't, stick with uBlock Origin.

[–]Lech1991 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have you noticed that when using Nano Adblocker and adding Nano Defender plugin created in Foxified, the 'Nano Defender Integration' filter list does not turn on itself automatically?

As opposed to another technique I have found over the internet, where you just install plugin Disable Add-on Compatibility Checks and then you are allowed to install original Nano Defender addon without any conversion - in that case, the 'Nano Defender Integration' filter list indeed turns on automatically.

That made me wonder if such plugin conversion doesn't affect the 'adblocking effectiveness' - I mean, if the conversion does influence the behavior of the plugin (lack of automatic turn on), who knows if there is any other significant difference?

[–]alfredmuffin[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Why Waterfox instead of Firefox?

[–]--NRG-- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

for many reasons...

first for my privacy second I can continue to use also the old legacy add-ons...

Waterfox is based on firefox 56 plus security patches released for latest version of firefox

many new web estensions are not so good as the old legacy ones (due to limitations of webextensions APIs)

https://www.reddit.com/r/waterfox/comments/7eu4ob/why_do_you_use_waterfox_unofficial_poll/

[–]DanTheMan74 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Since it's unlikely to be compatible with Firefox, as jspenguin doesn't use that browser and his time investment for it is very much secondary, I'm quite happy to see continued progress of uAssets instead. gorhill's own filter-lists for custom solutions and anti-adblock behavior work well for me here. They probably do miss some functionality of jspenguin's work on Chrome browsers, but I haven't encountered anything yet.

[–]Msmtx 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Well, hopefully jspenguin won't have to change anything. I used uBlock Protector in Opera with an extension that allowed downloading Google Chrome extensions directly, and it worked. Now I gave Firefox another chance with Quantum, and what everyone was complaining about is that they removed the old NPAPI extension support and are now working only with the same API spec from Chrome. I was staggered that nobody had mentioned the possibility of Chrome/Chromium extensions working in Firefox now. Although I guess the implementation is still far from perfect for full support without modifications, maybe as it matures, jspenguin will only have to test some (which was made easy by the new Developer Tools in Quantum) and upload it to Firefox Add-ons. Also: https://addons.mozilla.org/pt-BR/firefox/addon/chrome-store-foxified/

[–]DanTheMan74 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for your reply.

I believe jspenguin is a very smart guy who's doing a greater thing for us than many realize. That he likes what he does and that he appears to take massive enjoyment from outfoxing the commercial entities that have sprung up in the wake of ad-blockers showing a considerable growth over the past five years will be known to anyone who follows his comments on the GitHub issues tracker.

But as passionate as he is about the topic, he also lacks the interest to do the job on two separate browsing environments especially when he doesn't use one at all, thus Firefox has always been left out in the cold. I for one won't fault him for that. I also remember that back before the uBlock/uBlock Origin split happened, gorhill didn't seem that keen on making uBlock compatible to Firefox either and it didn't begin to happen until others started to pick it up seriously. Lets be honest, it's been a lot of work to get that done and the pay-off has been minimal in hindsight.

Nowadays the Firefox extension ecosystem is a bit of a mess, because next to WebExtensions (where a good number of them from the Chrome Web Store don't actually run successfully or perfectly in Firefox without modifications) you also have smaller subsets of people that don't want to upgrade their browser and thus use the ESR or forks with the same legacy system like Waterfox/Cyberfox and finally you have Pale Moon with a whole other set of compatibility issues.

In the face of that it doesn't seem unreasonable that we Firefox users would have to live without any of jspenguin's products. He had some plans for making a Firefox (compatible) version anyway, until AdBlock Protector 2 ended up being canceled almost immediately out of the gates. And since then? The latest comment on the topic that I know of was a reply on the Nano Adblocker Chrome web store page from last week where he said the following ...

Firefox Quantum 59 or 60 might be supported in the future, right now it's missing APIs and I can't port.

... which brings me back to the point that WebExtensions support on Chrome isn't identical to WebExtensions support on Firefox. The overlap is huge and no doubt could the vast majority of extensions in the Chrome web store be ported with only minimal adaptions, but I believe anti-ad-blocking with custom script injections is a lot more of an edge case. With Firefox version 60 still five and a half months away, there won't be much else to do but wait. That's why I tried to focus on uAssets in my previous comment, since it's working well on Firefox right now and the maintainers seem just as active at solving issues.

[–]Zhangsun321 0 points1 point  (0 children)

im using it as ublock protector... ive not changed from ublock origin...

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2018 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 39171 on app-263 at 2018-03-03 15:32:40.101292+00:00 running 11f4453 country code: JP.