Which Is Better, Adblock Or Adblock Plus? 436
An anonymous reader writes: Wladimir Palant is the creator of the Adblock Plus browser extension, but he often gets asked how it compares to a similar extension for Chrome called Adblock. In the past, he's told people the two extensions achieve largely the same end, but in slightly different ways. However, recent changes to the Adblock project have him worried. "AdBlock covertly moved from an open development model towards hiding changes from its users. Users were neither informed about that decision nor the reasons behind it." He goes through the changelog and highlights some updates that call into question the integrity of Adblock. For example, from an update on June 6th: "Calling home functionality has been extended. It now sends user's locale in addition to the unique user ID, AdBlock version, operating system and whether Google Search ads are being allowed. Also, AdBlock will tell getadblock.com (or any other website if asked nicely) whether AdBlock has just been installed or has been used for a while — again, in addition to the unique user ID." Of course, Palant has skin in this game, and Adblock Plus has dealt with fallout from their "acceptable ads policy," but at least it's still developed in the open.
None of them. (Score:5, Informative)
Adblock Edge
Re:None of them. (Score:5, Informative)
Adblock Edge is Adblock Plus without the checkbox on the first page of options menu to enable/disable acceptable ads.
It's literally the exactly same thing in all other aspects of it.
Re:None of them. (Score:5, Funny)
edge sounds cooler. someone needs to make an "Adblock Edge: Bismuth Edition" with every blacklist enabled.
Re: (Score:2)
This reminds me of SRWare Iron then, where the author admitted that he had changed some random strings to hide how little difference there really was (just some different defaults), and that he had went to forums to build hype about how Big Brother is watching you through Chrome (which amounted to the address bar suggestions).
Re:None of them. (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll have to explain in great detail why he, who made his white listing process extremely transparent and even allowed users to vote on it, he who kept his add-on fully open source and under permissive license that allows you to fork it. And he who unlike those who forked it, actually continues to work on developing the add-on, while allowing you to completely turn off all of monetization functions with a single check box on first page of options is somehow "can't be trusted now". If you are this paranoid, then how could you trust him in the past? Surely you had no way of knowing back then what his monetization scheme was, and it was far more likely to be something really insidious rather than benign "just uncheck this box once and you're good" that it is today.
So tell me. Why should I not trust him. Be specific, and try no to sink into the old "but turned the monetization options on by default when he implemented them (and I won't tell you that he actually warned you about it upon installation because that goes against the message I'm trying to deliver), that makes him completely untrustworthy" hyperbole. You'll also have to tell me who offers an alternative that is actually developing the add on. Whoever forked Adblock Edge is certainly not that person. It's still stuck in previous version of Adblock Plus apparently, because whoever forked it couldn't even be bothered to update his fork by copy pasting code from new version.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Adblocking Hosts file, doesn't matter which browser, even blocks MMO in-game store.
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/ho... [mvps.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
The nice thing with hosts blocking is that it works across desktops and mobile. You can even do it with custom firmware.
http://superuser.com/questions... [superuser.com]
Re:None of them. (Score:4, Insightful)
Even better is to redirect hosts on the router so it applies to the whole network.
New clients on the network (such as friends and family when they come over) would be covered too.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the hosts file method is that it requires a complete blacklist of all advertising related sites. Sites that are not listed, or adverts hosted on the same domain as the legitimate web site being visited don't get blocked. AdBlock uses pattern matching rules that solve this problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Betelgeuse! Betelgeuse! Betelgeuse!
Re: (Score:2)
Adblock Edge
Fuck Everything. We're doing five blades. [theonion.com]
None of them. (Score:2)
Unfortunately, I cannot use Adblock Edge even though I like to, since I use Chrome. The Adblock Edge developer has shown no interest in making a Chrome version available.
And, yes, please don't tell me I need to be using Firefox - there are plenty of reasons why Chrome is preferable.
Re: (Score:2)
How about the fact that Chrome has an up to date implementation of Flash that continues to get security updates... And don't tell me I don't need flash, you'll be just moving the goalposts with your argument.
That is somewhat ironic, since I find video quality of Google's own YouTube to be the worst with the Google's own Chrome. Either way - HTML5 or Flash - in Chrome sometimes HD videos are shown highly pixelated. Works fine - everyt time - in Fx and IE.
Anyway, FlashBlock (which can also be simulated with the AdBlock), side-steps most of the Flash-related security problems.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is pretty retarded because you could have just unchecked the box instead.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but entitlement!
Re: (Score:2)
How is it entitlement to use a different extension? Does that word have any meaning whatsoever anymore, or does it just mean, "Anyone who criticizes anything, decides not to buy something, or doesn't support the violation of people's rights."? I've seen it used in a number of odd ways.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a concept I can get behind!
"Butt adjacent" is OK too...
'cause slips happen...
Re: (Score:3)
Which is pretty retarded because you could have just unchecked the box instead.
Right. Until it autoupdates in a week and re-checks the box (for your convenience) and moves the option back to about:config or takes it away entirely. When a dev cannot be trusted he cannot be trusted. And Vlad definitely cannot be trusted.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This.
Re: (Score:2)
You are entitled to your point of view. I personally do not agree.
I like to expose myself to advertising. By seeing what is currently being pushed I know which products to avoid, which is a big time-saver. And the notion that some small payment comes to a website as a result of giving me this information is 100% ok with me.
Yet I almost never see ads. Why? Because I refuse to allow random servers all over the net a free hand to run progra
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That will do little other than save people time. You'll instantly know which sites are absolute garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
No need to wait for that
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... [mozilla.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I use both (Score:3)
If my customer has Firefox installed, I use Adblock Plus with it. That is also what I have on my own systems.
If they have Chrome instead, I use Adblock. I don't use Chrome, because I don't like its style, but several customers prefer it.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't Adblock only arise due to delays in getting Adblock Plus ported to Chrome? I don't see Adblock in Mozilla's addon offerings.
I used Adblock with Chrome until ABP became available and then I switched. Perhaps there was enough time lag and/or confusion for Adblock to remain popular on Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
When I first researched it a little while ago, I think that Adblock was the original version of the addon, made for Chrome. Then Adblock Plus was made by a separate group, as a port to Firefox. Since I use Firefox as my main browser, that is what I am used to seeing.
I could be wrong, and don't care to google it right now. But I consider it that I use the one for each browser that was the original one for that browser. If nothing else, it gives both programs encouragement.
Re: (Score:2)
I use Adblock Plus on Chrome AND on Firefox. I leave IE bare in case I want to look at something "bare" for some reason.
Why not use an incognito window in Chrome for your "bare" viewing? The incognito mode automatically disables all of your extensions.
Neither (Score:2, Insightful)
If the ads on a site are so obstructive or malicious that you want to block them then stop using that site. Blocking ads only encourages site operators to use more aggressive ad serving tactics and resorting to that kind of subsidized assault on the user is usually an indicator that the site doesn't have anything useful on it in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
I very rarely run into ads that are aggressive enough to get through AdBlock.
Re: (Score:2)
Not my concern what they do. They don't have a right to run their bullshit javascript on my computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. I don’t really care about what blocking ads encourage site operators to do, but if a website have too many ads or too intrusive ones, I just stop using it.
Same reason I refuse to play games with intrusive drms, instead of pirating it. If a company doesn’t respect me as their customer, I am no longer their customer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The world is not binary. What you want and what everyone else will accept are different. Plenty of people in this world are happy to have ads if it means no money out of their own pocket.
Your entitled to your opinion but that doesn't mean your not an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, idiots tend to argue with fallacies like argument from popularity as you've done here. Like you said, though, the world is not binary. People don't have to accept ads if they dont' want to look at them but still want to view sites because there is software out there that allows this. The internet is not cable tv, thankfully.
Re: (Score:2)
Ads are pollution, and have zero value.
here's what websites / apps, whatever will do: WHATEVER MAKES THEM THE MOST MONEY. they've learned that almost no one will pay then $X a month to access, but almost everyone is happy with having a few ads in the sidebar and accessing for "free".
like it or not, that's what consumers want.
Some website operators are greedy, they want the "free" page views and they want the income at the same time. That's evil. Luckily there are plenty of people like me, who have well paying day jobs, and have no problem whatsoever to give away free software to help ordinary people deal with and filter that shit out.
wanting to get paid for a service you provide is not evil. i assume you provide a service for your day job that you already admitted you get paid for? so you are you evil? no, it's just that you decided the work you do is wo
Re: (Score:2)
If that was true, then ad blocking tools would not be very popular. They are, so this isn't true.
Actually, I only get paid because I signed a contract to provide my services
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, except you forgot the important part that completely breaks down your argument:
The 'random shop' in your case didn't ask you to wash their windows. You provided an unrequested service.
When you visit someone else's website, you are requesting their content. You're not minding your own business on Slashdot while CNET is pushing their newest reviews on you. You generally have to actually go to their site to see them.
I see you tried to mitigate the fallacy with your last bit, but it falls flat: When you vis
Re: (Score:2)
I see this argument a lot and it just doesn't hold water. There is a direct cost to the end user in wasted bandwidth if nothing else. Then there is the social cost of being tracked and worse, drive-by infections.
Besides, I never did see how showing an ad that is never followed through (meaning the product being hawked was sold because of the ad) can be profitable. Which is why I think the advertising based business model is extremely flawed.
Re: (Score:3)
I see you don't understand how the network works
The point is that I am not taking or using anyone's bandwidth but my own, that I expect websites to do the same, and that advertisers are uninvited interlopers in a private relationship. That's what peering is all about. FIgure out how to phrase your objections within that framework and maybe I'll believe some of your arguments.
What world do you live in? It's extremely obvious that YOU don't know how networking (or the real world) works. Networking is a two-way street.
At nearly ANY provider (above a dime-a-dozen personal blog host), a customer absolutely pays for bandwidth usage. Sometimes they give you a little for "free" - but it's still metered, and you're still paying for some sort of account. And of course, any usage beyond that has a cost. And on some hosts, if you have separate web and db servers (which is needed for heavy
Re: Neither (Score:2)
Now, that's not true. They call them squeegee kids back home, they stand in intersections washing windows and guilt tripping people into payment... they make a hundred dollars an hour, easy.
You don't have to be a productive member of society if you're manipulative. Well, unless everyone else is the same as you...
Re: (Score:2)
That's a pretty big logical fail. Firstly he said 'almost everyone' is happy and installation figures for adblock software back that up. Secondly, he is making the point that most people prefer free sites with ads over pay sites, which again is pretty obvious given the lack of pay sites for most content. The fact that a small subset of people are willing to ignore the wishes of the people producing the content
Re: (Score:2)
At some point open source code needs revenue. Otherwise things like Heartbleed happen and then everyone complains that the biggest users of the open source aren't contributing back to the program to support it.
I'd rather have a couple of ads than have to remember to pay an annual fee to /., xda, and a bazillion other sites I visit.
Re: (Score:2)
It's no different when a company finds that the market doesn't support all the things it wants to do. Companies with cashflow problems need to make hard decisions. Open source projects with ca
Re: (Score:2)
They have to pay the bills somehow. That means they need money (which they have to get from ads since they give the stuff for free)
If ads are not too intrusive, and related to the website, by all means go for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, that's fine.
That would be stupid, as it makes it trivial to traverse it. But you are free to do as you please.
That would be wishful thinking. Whereas in your imagination, you see a paywall, in actual fact
Chrome? (Score:5, Insightful)
The real question is: If you value privacy and dislike ads, why would you ever use Chrome?
The entire goal of that browser is counter to user Privacy and choice. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, if you don't care about that stuff then I'd same Chrome is probably the best browser out there. But I do value those things, and in fact they are probably my #1 consideration when choosing a browser so I use Firefox despite its many faults.
Re: (Score:3)
Chrome is my primary browser. Why shouldn't people be using Chrome if they value their privacy? Can you provide some concrete reasons, other than "Google is evil"? Some of us need evidence and not accusations.
Re:Chrome? (Score:4, Informative)
Chrome is by design a tool to report your browsing to Google. Why else should they spend money in it ?
It began with Chrome Sync, which sends home your bookmarks, tabs and... passwords, and became better with the "Reduce data usage" option, which directs all your web browsing traffic to Google servers for analysis.
If Google created it, it IS meant to get data about you and sell it afterward, like any other Google creation.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Chrome is closed-source (Chromium isn't Chrome) and made by a company that makes money off the data they have on you.
For instance, anything you type on the address bar is sent to Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Reject all proprietary software and "choice" too (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Reject all proprietary software and "choice" to (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you aware of Cyanogen? Did you know that you can buy high end phones with Cyanogen as the default OS? Cyanogen is built from AOSP and is fully free. It also supports extensive ad-blocking and app permission control, way beyond what any other mobile OS offers.
In what way exactly is Android not free? You can build and run it perfectly well without the Google apps, as Cyanogen and many others do. The resulting OS is fully featured and compatible, and can be distributed commercial without permission from Go
Re: (Score:3)
The TSA has been around for a while, too. People don't seem to care about privacy, fundamental liberties, or software freedom. Does that make those things bad or unimportant? No. It just means that people are ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Chrome? (Score:4, Interesting)
But I do value those things, and in fact they are probably my #1 consideration when choosing a browser so I use Firefox despite its many faults.
So are you 100% google free? No Android, no Google browser, no Gmail?
The reason I ask is because when I type something into the Firefox search bar in it's default configuration, shortly after it will appear as a suggested search in Chrome's universal address bar.
It's not Chrome leaking user data.
Re: (Score:2)
So are you 100% google free? No Android, no Google browser, no Gmail?
People who care doesn't use the defaults on almost anything, the big exception being Tails.
I don't agree with your point as everything falls between 0% and 100% and those numbers are actually very hard to get. To dismiss people just because they don't do 100% of something they are preaching is a fallacy to avoid the actual argument. Chrome does leak your data and it is not a choice for those who value their privacy even a little bit.
Just by using firefox with adblock plus and duckduckgo, will make you muc
Re: (Score:2)
People who care doesn't use the defaults on almost anything, the big exception being Tails.
I care. In fact I care a lot. The difference is that I weigh up the benefits and the costs to options. I don't just assume that default = bad.
Yes I read the warning when I first turned on my Android phone, the one about location sharing and opting in to Google location services and Google Play. I read them in detail and thought "fantastic!" I get services and benefits such as my phone automatically knowing where I intend to go based on a search I made on my PC right before I stepped in the car, and it helps
Re: (Score:2)
So are you 100% google free? No Android, no Google browser, no Gmail?
Yes.
The reason I ask is because when I type something into the Firefox search bar in it's default configuration, shortly after it will appear as a suggested search in Chrome's universal address bar.
Why not simply disable it?
Re: (Score:2)
Because the benefit and ease of use leaking my data brings far outweighs the consequences to me.
The consequence is some company knows some anonymised information about me. So far I have yet to be wronged by any of them.
The benefit on the other hand is that when I search for a company on google maps for instance and I head out to my car, my phone automatically brings up the time it will take to get there, the main route, and thanks to other people leaking their oh so sensitive data I also get a traffic conge
Re: (Score:2)
Because the benefit and ease of use leaking my data brings far outweighs the consequences to me.
As usual, your priorities are misplaced. The same applies to the majority of gamers, who behave like drug addicts; no matter how badly scumbag corporations abuse them with DRM, outright malware (Sony rootkits), walled gardens, etc., they always come crawling back for another fix, even if they claimed they would boycott the companies. They are profoundly ignorant.
The consequence is some company knows some anonymised information about me.
You are assuming that they truly are anonymizing the data. We already know corporations often work close together with the government, or will hand
Re: (Score:2)
As usual, your priorities are misplaced.
Are they? Some minor personal data such as web searches vs some real tangible improvement in my life? Comparing me to a drug addict makes me think that you're responding more out of emotion rather than giving your response rational thought, especially considering the level of "abuse" people put up with. Take my girlfriend for instance. She paid for Sims 4. She bought it, played it without issue, and enjoyed it despite "the world is ending" kind of comments about the game's DRM on slashdot. Something not fit
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bit like avoiding the Mafia by joining the Triads.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I keep Chrome installed as my secondary browser because I run Firefox by default in "hazmat suit" mode (ABP, NoScript, Ghostery, RequestPolicy, etc.) which does break a lot of sites. For sites that I trust, oftentimes it is easier to just use Chrome than figure out what I need to whitelist in which plugin using FF. In terms of using it as your only/default browser, I agree with you, but even for a moderate para
Re: (Score:2)
Chome is no worse than most other browsers. Firefox sends search requests to Google, IE sends them to Bing by default. They all include feedback mechanisms that can be turned off.
Chrome actually has a pretty good porn mode. It doesn't have any advertising built in and supply supports AdBlock and other privacy enhancing plug-ins. I'm really not sure why you think it's goal is to counter privacy and choice. Can you be more specific?
Re: (Score:2)
So I switched to Chrome. After all, Google knows what I search for anyway
Stop using Google, then?
Privacy? I'll take consistency first.
How very principled of you. The world needs more people like you, since we clearly didn't have enough unthinking, unprincipled morons already.
Re: (Score:2)
So "disagrees with my principles" == "unprincipled" now. Got it.
Well, this is slashdot afterall. We don't want no stinking dissent from anyone, whether we agree with them or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, if what you care about is consistency and not privacy, I'd say you're lacking principles.
Re: (Score:2)
You're essentially demanding that everyone agree with you is lacking in moral judgment.
I'm saying that they lack the ability everything up in the quest for convenience. They do lack principles.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying that they lack the ability to not give everything up in the quest for convenience.*
Chrome? (Score:2)
Still? Amongst the folks I work with, Chrome is dead. Listing uTorrent as malware was the straw that broke the camel's back. So, Adblock Plus FTW!
Re:Chrome? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. As soon as Chrome lists the standard Java updater as malware too, I will believe this point as an argument against my point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly true. I recently switched to qBittorrent and and though it lacks a few of the bells and whistles, I have not looked back.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The only issue I find with it is that sometimes it hangs and can't be closed. Even Process Explorer can't kill it. This is a known problem with Windows where a task hangs waiting for a driver or something in the kernel, and it may be specific to my system, but I've never seen any other app do it.
Re: (Score:2)
I switched from transmission for the ability to preview which files to download for magnet links. My problem is that qBittorrent seems to crash very often, I still haven't figured out why it does that.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with the other poster. uTorrent is malware. In the instance you cited, Google actually was doing the right thing and protecting your ignorant ass.
Re: (Score:2)
I am ignorant about many things. My ass is ignorant to just about everything. However, my response to the other poster needs an answer. You may still be ignorant to that response's contents, but you can remedy that by reading it. Your ass, however, will remain ignorant, as mine does.
Re: (Score:2)
How to turn off Java's junkware install prompts (Score:2)
http://www.oracle.com/technetw... [oracle.com]
(searching for "java oracle download" will get you there)
2. To prevent junkware prompts during the updates, disable Java Sponsors.
A java.com FAQ claims that in 7u65 or later, you can find a "Suppress sponsor offers when updating Java" option in the Java Control Panel's Advanced tab, but I have
Or, use a big hosts file (Score:5, Informative)
I don't use Adblock, but I've been using this [mvps.org] for years. I rarely see an ad unless it's served directly from the site I'm visiting, and it blocks a lot of malware as well. It has something like 16,000 entries, but doesn't seem to slow things down at all.
Re: (Score:2)
That's really cool, and I'm gonna try it now. This has gotta be the first post on the Slashdots I've seen about host files not written from some raving lunatic, and actually very useful. Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds very interesting, except for a few details of my own following-up. Here's the hosts file [mvps.org], from the parent thread that I originally replied to. When I follow and download your stuff, I end up with a .exe executable file, which seems like kind of an untrustworthy hassle to deal with, just to extract a simple hosts file, as I'm (mostly) on Linux (etc). At which point I ran out of time and interest.
I'm sorry, but I am really only interested in seeing hosts file code I can read and install myself. But per
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I looked specifically for that once on the page you cited and couldn't find it, before I downloaded the .exe and inspected that. Really, truly. Why don't you save us all time and post the link here? Citations are kind of a standard, as is sarcasm on the Slashdots, but never you mind.
Re: (Score:2)
That link you cited this time is so much better! Thank you very much; and at first glance your hosts file looks splendid. Thank you for taking the time to clarify yourself AC.
Testing that file is now on my to-do list.
Re: (Score:3)
Mod parent up. A (properly) modifed /etc/hosts file (in case you're using Linux/Unix, don't know the Windows/Mac equivalent) should be more efficient than a browser based solution. I say more efficient because you effectively cut out one step in the web browsing chain, as links to the "blocked" web sites are simply redirected to localhost (127.0.0.) instead of being first handed over to the OS for DNS resolution and then blocked by browser.
However, compared to a browser extension, the hosts files hack can't
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
> However, compared to a browser extension, the hosts files hack can't do wildcard pattern matching,
It also can't easily block the newest trick - DNS aliasing.
For example:
doubleclick.com -- easy to block
doubleclick.espn.com - hard to block
And that's over-simplified to make it obvious, much more likely is that they use a hostname like "a1.espn.com"
It isn't really feasible for smaller sites to use DNS aliasing for their ad-networks. But anybody site that is bigger than a one-man operation can do it.
Should I do an ad blocker? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm behind Ad Limiter [adlimiter.com], which limits Google search ads to one per page, picking the best one based on SiteTruth ratings. You can set it for zero search ads if you like. It also puts SiteTruth ratings on Google search results. It's a demo for SiteTruth search spam filtering.
This Mozilla/Chrome add on has a general ad-blocking mechanism inside. Unlike most ad blockers, it's not based on regular expressions looking for specific HTML. It finds URLs known to lead to ads, works outward through the DOM to find the ad boundary, then deletes the ad. So it's relatively insensitive to changes in ad code, and doesn't require much maintenance. The same code processes search results from Google, Bing, Yahoo, Bleeko, DuckDuckGo, and Infoseek. (Coming soon, Yandex support, and better handling of Google ads within ads, where an ad has multiple links.)
So, if I wanted to do a better ad blocker, I could do so easily. Should I? Is another one really needed? Are the headaches of running one worth it?
Mu (Score:5, Informative)
/etc/hosts [mvps.org]
Install once, update if you care to, but it's not essential. Requires no configuration after installation, works for ALL browsers on your system with no setup, does not require the browser to "support" it in any way (i.e., extensions), never ever gets broken by browser updates, works on ancient computers with grossly out-of-date browsers. Works with ANY tcp/ip-based app on your system, really, so it lowers vectors for IM apps, Acrobat, etc.
The first computer I used it on was an 800 MHz G3 iBook with 640 MB RAM. Some people may say a large hosts file will slow down your computer, but I've never seen that happen myself in over a decade of using it on literally every computer I have.
It may not block EVERY ad like a dedicated extension does, but it comes really really close, and I like the fact that it works with all browsers and never requires updating. When I get a new computer, I put the hosts file on and pretty much never touch it again. A handful of sites (like hulu) will not work with an adblocker and it's a manual process to edit the file, but for unix types, that's not a problem. It blocks google's sponsored links so you may need to take that out too, for people who google "sears" and click the first (sponsored) link instead of the first actual link.
No reason not to do security in layers and use it WITH adblocking extensions, I suppose, but I've never felt the need to.
Re: (Score:2)
Use both. But that one is too much since there are some valid web sites that have problems like YouTube. :(
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard that it doesn't work as well, that sites will look different, or not all ads will be blocked. Or that some sites will refuse to load if the ads fail, etc. I've never tried it personally, so I can't tell if it's true first hand.
Proxomitron Forever... (Score:2)
Proxomitron [proxomitron.info] was WAY ahead of its' time. It is still installed and running wonderfully on a couple of my systems. If you simply *must* have something which is more recently actively developed then Proximodo [sourceforge.net] may be more up your alley. It is fully compatible with all Proximodo filters, etc. but is lacking SSL support...
Hosts file ffs (Score:2)
AdBlock Edge (Score:2)
Due to the questionable new owners of ABP, I've since changed to Edge.
Basically, the moment people tell you that there's such a thing as "acceptable advertisement" and that anyone except you, yourself can decide which it is, you know they've sold out. It's shorthand for "we will allow advertisement that pays us to let it through".
There's only one way to find out... (Score:2)
FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!
Re: (Score:2)
This is also the case with Ghostery.
Re: (Score:2)
Same.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a donation driven project written by a single developer. Why would he do this? What benefits would come from collecting personal information and hiding it from users?
Palant claims [palant.de] that Adblock is covertly scaling up into something similar to what Adblock Plus has done.
Anyway, I'm not sure these browser extensions are sufficiently complex and hard to maintain that they can't like Adblock Edge be run by volunteers. If anything it's the filter list maintainers who should get our donations. The big adblockers only have scope to "turn evil" to the extent that people don't switch.