Opera Introduces Native Adblocking, 45% Faster Than Chrome With Adblock Plus (thestack.com) 100
An anonymous reader writes: A new version of the Opera desktop web browser introduces fully-featured native adblocking which is able to load adblocked pages significantly faster than rivals running the Adblock Plus browser. The new feature includes whitelisting of domains and a benchmarker to test the difference between page load-times with and without ads. Krystian Kolondra, head of Opera desktop, indicates in his post that the company's hope is to encourage the 'simpler' and less intrusive advertising which has been promised, but does not yet seem to be evident.
Re: (Score:3)
3...2...1....
Re: (Score:3)
You can lead a hos to water but you can't make it drink.
Re: (Score:2)
You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah because setting up and maintaining a host file is just as easy for the Average Joe as downloading Opera or an add-on.
Re: (Score:1)
Host files also cause issues when the domain is pointing to 127.0.0.1 A request is made, but there probably isn't an http daemon waiting on the localhost, which in turn causes wait delays and IP stack issues. For those of us that have a local http, we have to deal with all these pointless requests, which will return 404s.
Anyone pushing hostfiles to defeat adverts is a twat and doesn't know what they're talking about. Steve Gibson level twattery no less.
Re: (Score:1)
There is one way to get hostfiles to work, and that is to have a http server on the local box, only bound to loopback, which serves up /dev/null to any and all HTTP requests. Something tiny enough to sit in RAM and not impact anything else. This takes care of wait delays and other items, and because the HTTP daemon isn't bothering with error messages, the returns come quickly.
Re:How about (Score:4, Interesting)
Host files also cause issues when the domain is pointing to 127.0.0.1 A request is made, but there probably isn't an http daemon waiting on the localhost, which in turn causes wait delays and IP stack issues. For those of us that have a local http, we have to deal with all these pointless requests, which will return 404s.
Anyone pushing hostfiles to defeat adverts is a twat and doesn't know what they're talking about. Steve Gibson level twattery no less.
You can change the IP to anything you want. It's text, edit it if you use a local HTTP deamon.
But if you do that, you are probably also running local BIND, use that to insert authoritative zones to catch new subdomains, and speed up the process with NXDOMAIN
HOSTS files with tens of thousands of entries (like mine) do not cause any noticeable delay. None. Something is wrong with your operating system if it chokes.
The Twats are the advertisers. The whiner is you.
Re: (Score:2)
I use dnsmasq and rather than 127.0.0.1 it points to a local web server where every request returns a zero byte file.
The hostfile is auto updated from multiple sources, some white listings, and the domains with many subdomains are parsed out and added to dnsmasq.conf to block the whole domain.
All very fast running on a raspberry pi 2.
Re: (Score:1)
My http server has 0 entries in the log that complain about 0.0.0.0.
I also don't get 404 errors from my server, nor do I notice any performance issues.
Based on the above info, it sounds like you're doing it wrong. Perhaps that's why you posted as AC.
Re:How about (Score:5, Interesting)
because it has many flaws, here are just a few I can think of:
-can't list blocked elements
-can't disable ad-blocking for a single web site
-can't disable ad-blocking temporarily without restarting browser (or even PC)
-need admin rights
-doesn't allow complex patterns (regex), which makes the database huge
-can't block ads located on the same server (host name) as the main site
Why not both? (Score:2)
Re: How about (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
As for "can't disable ad-blocking for a single web site", true but irrelevant - why would you do that?
I have disabled ad-blocks on a few sites that a.) I wish to remain alive and b.) I've used regularly for years and never had one complaint about their advertising. If you've never felt altruistic in this regard then I can also mention that sometimes ad-blockers get false positives, preventing me from using some features of sites.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no DNS caching in browsers or OS that could interfere?
Also ad-blocking sometimes break content. A quick workaround is to white list a specific web site.
Re: (Score:2)
Browser based ad blockers can block ads before the request is made while hosts files let the request pass but redirect it to a black hole.
It means that in theory, browser-based adblocking can be faster.
Re: (Score:1)
It is not theory. I tested it. It is about 200% faster.
It also depends on what your blackhole IP is. I found 0.0.0.0 to be faster than 127.0.0.1. Course the last time I bothered to test this XP was a fairly new thing.
With 127.0.0.1 the name 'resolves' then it times out trying to find port 80 on your own box. You are incurring the timeout for everything you blacklisted. I added in a simple redirecting apache install with a 1x1 gif returned for everything and later a simple php script to do the same thi
Re: (Score:2)
Browser based ad blockers can block ads before the request is made while hosts files let the request pass but redirect it to a black hole. It means that in theory, browser-based adblocking can be faster.
The most common type of hosts file blocking is to point the domain to the machines loop-back interface 127.0.0.1
When trying to fetch "http://ad.doubleclick.net/annoying_ad.gif" the machine will try to fetch 127.0.0.1/annoying_ad.gif
Most likely you don't even have a web-server running on port 80 and the connection attempt will be refused. Since there is no extension taking CPU cycles pattern matching ads this way is actually faster, of course since content instead of HTTP elements are being blocked the res
Re: (Score:2)
Most likely you don't even have a web-server running on port 80 and the connection attempt will be refused. Since there is no extension taking CPU cycles pattern matching ads this way is actually faster...
How do you think that the connection attempt gets made and refused, magic non-CPU woo-woo?
It may be true that if the extension is much less efficiently written than the browser and underlying OS services to look up the domain and do the connection attempt, that it will be slower, but all things being equal -- which is the point of this feature -- it should be faster, since you pretty much get to do a single if() rather than going through the entire rigmarole of a connection attempt.
Re: (Score:2)
Most likely you don't even have a web-server running on port 80 and the connection attempt will be refused. Since there is no extension taking CPU cycles pattern matching ads this way is actually faster...
How do you think that the connection attempt gets made and refused, magic non-CPU woo-woo?
It may be true that if the extension is much less efficiently written than the browser and underlying OS services to look up the domain and do the connection attempt, that it will be slower, but all things being equal -- which is the point of this feature -- it should be faster, since you pretty much get to do a single if() rather than going through the entire rigmarole of a connection attempt.
A TCP SYN packet is sent and a TCP RST packet is received. If you want to be splitting hairs yes this does use a few Hertz of cpu time
Re: (Score:2)
Since there is no extension taking CPU cycles pattern matching ads this way is actually faster
The browser isn't using CPU cycles for that, but the OS still is. It still has to scan through the hosts file any time a request is made, so increasing the size of the hosts file will not only introduce a slight delay for anything that is blocked, but it will introduce a longer delay for anything that is not blocked where it still has to scan through the entire file. Even with "frequently-used" sites at the beginning of the hosts file pointing to the correct IP addresses, for any lesser-used site it incur
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How does hosts alleviate that problem? For all URLs that are not blocked (and, for the sake of argument, not in the DNS cache) the OS still has to scan the entire hosts file, then the entire cache. If you're not using hosts then it only scans the cache. Using a hosts file only takes the cache out of play if the domain you're looking up is in the hosts file, for every other domain it only adds additional processing time.
Re: (Score:2)
That javascript can manipulate the CSS and load and add, or malware. So hosts file could be just one layer of the security onion, but by far not the only one.
You still need a deep packet inspection proxy, that manipulates pages (e.g. like privoxy) or you need an inbrowser object dom blocker, like adblock or ublock origin.
And if I have more than one PC at home, it is much better that I properly bock on my
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How about (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Weird... your fervent and zealous supporter, whose style is extremely similar to yours, also posted to the wrong story.
Re: (Score:1)
What about uBlock Origin? (Score:2, Informative)
How about comparing it to a good adblocker instead?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I noticed it a little while ago when I updated. (I use the repo and have the three channels, beta, dev, and stable loaded.)
It's pretty fast, it's seemingly faster than uBlock but it's important to note that (I'm pretty sure) it's only blocking ads. It doesn't block scripts, trackers, and things like that. It just blocks ads.
I can't say that I'm unimpressed. It's good for what it is - I've not actually seen an ad with it running and I have everything else turned off. I've only been browsing with it for
Re: (Score:2)
Native blocking is a good first step, but still, if Opera ends up getting sold to a Chinese company then I'll drop it anyway. But hopefully more browsers follow the lead of Brave and Opera.
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like it is going to go through. I'm going to be cautious and ride it out for the time being. I've got a hardware firewall with logs and I can run Wireshark. I'll have to see where it goes but I hope to keep using it. I do not want to have to change my browser - I've been using Opera for a very, very long time. If I do end up having to change things, it'll probably be to Chromium.
Re: (Score:1)
Vivaldi. It puts the Opera back into Opera. Not like this Chrome-skin thing that Opera has become.
I also was a longtime Opera user and tried to deal with first Firefox, then Chrome after 12.5 started getting stale and it was clear that Opera 15+ had thrown the baby out with the bathwater. And yes, you can at least use Chrome plugins, but nothing so nice as Dragonfly yet:
https://vivaldi.com/?lang=en_U... [vivaldi.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, I have it installed. I've been using it, off and on, since an early beta. I'm not that fond of it. I just can't really like it, try as I might. It also has a show-stopper bug for me on a couple of different computers and I've described both the problem and given them the solution but they've failed to implement it and seem inclined to not acknowledge it.
So, no Vivaldi for me yet but I have hope. It works fine on several systems but fails in some VMs and fails on bare metal with two different (fairly mod
Good to see (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Opera has been a Chrome ripoff for a long time now. Real Opera(tm) is INFINITELY better than anything else... the same set of tabs open in Opera vs. Chrome (and New Opera): 200M vs. 1.2G -- New Opera makes no meaningful improvements.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. While this enhancement is intriguing, I uninstalled Opera when that sale was announced.
Re: (Score:2)
No sale has been announced. An offer to buy was announced a month ago. Opera Software is still headquartered in Norway and run by Norwegians.
Re: (Score:2)
I should have read more carefully because I thought the deal was done and dusted. No matter. I've been using Vivaldi since and quite like it, and I wouldn't have tried it without some prod to try something else.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm waiting on the switch to Vivaldi for the sale to go through, hopefully they can hit a stable release by then. I'm sure it's coming soon.
Are ad networks still involved? (Score:2)
Add the ads at the server.
Then how would the server know where to fetch the ads? I can think of two ways:
Switch? (Score:1)
Adblock Plus? (Score:4, Insightful)
ABP is known to be a pig. A comparison with uBlock Origin would be a lot more meaningful. A comparison with a hostsfile would, of course, not reflect well on any ad blocking extension.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The piggyness of ABP is mostly gone. The issue was it used a CSS file to block everything and that file had to be reloaded for every single page. Recent versions of Firefox now allow CSS files to be shared across pages so now ABP only has to load it once. I haven't seen any comparison benchmarks on newer Firefox versions. Anyone got any?
who cares (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
What is this "print" of which you speak, grandpa?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Solar panel. I've got a 15W one, worked fine during the last blackout to keep my cellphone charged up and the tower either had electricity or a backup generator since I was able to browse the web the whole time (and locally stored PDF's don't even require the tower to be up).
What about Vivaldi? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, another plug for Vivaldi here. It's also been very stable for something still in beta.
I like my tabs on the bottom, my bookmarks/downloads/mail panel with the Opera-style whole-left-edge toggle, CTRL+N to make a new tab, etc. It's really the only browser that's primary mission seems to be going towards MORE customization.
Re: (Score:2)
What grabbed my attention immediately was the vertical tab option. But now with the new tab suspension and session management, it's looking to replace Firefox if things keep going south at Mozilla. Very nice additions to Chrome from a small company. I hope they work on the tab grouping feature (like how tree-style-tabs handles them, the folding/collapsing feature is very convenient), and one day allow greater tweaking of the UI. Impressive work so far though!
Biggest issue is the non-free code... it's a cryi
Proxy Auto Config (Score:2)
I use a Proxy Auto Config file. It is a java script program that decides what proxy to use based on the URL. If it's a known ad site, then it uses a proxy that redirects to 1x1 transparent GIFs for all requests, otherwise it goes to the real web site. One great thing about this is that I can block based on the path name, so I can even block ads served by the same host as the real content, which you can't do with a hosts file redirect.
If I notice a page is loading slowly, as I did with a local newspaper s
Wouldn't a simpler approach to as blocking be (Score:1)
Add on which auto disable all video, overlays and popups on page with a simple set of buttons to white list where needed. Then whitelist is kept and reused on future visits?
Maybe option to then share list with others.
Re: (Score:2)
Opera would be worth it, if it were OpenSource (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with web browsers is primarily bad webpage coding and we can all fix that easily by just not going to website that load slow or use too much ads. That's really the better solution. We the people train the marketand coders to work how we want it instead of just being sheep spending their lives running from once fence to another because they heard it was better over there. Sites likes slashdot and reddit aren't slow. If you can't make a site without too much trash I just don't go there. We shouldn
Re: (Score:2)
it's a nice browser, but it's not really worth using vs Chrome unless you do so for the sake of privacy, at which point you'd be drawn to FireFox.
Opera extensions don't have the same restrictions as Chrome extensions.
Re: (Score:2)
http://sourcecode.opera.com/ [opera.com]
slimjet (based off chrome has this already) (Score:1)
Adblock + NoScript (Score:2)
Adblock + NoScript is my solution and so far it seems to work fine.
Adblock kills the ads and NoScript kills off all the naughty little javascript bits that bog everything down.
This threads aren't the same (Score:2)
And it also has MRU tab switching, unlike Chrome (Score:1)
And to make things worse, request to add MRU is "won't fix" for Chrome, since "addons can do it", except that, they can't.
Adblock+ failures (Score:1)