Why is ublock bad again? There's no ublock origin for Safari and every other browser is botnet or just plain shit ( firefox)
Is there a massive difference in efficiency and whatnot between adblock plus, ublock and ublock origin?
>>52175863
I've heard good things about Purify.
>>52175928
>>52175863
sorry. meant to say I'm on OS X 10.11
>inb4 le toilet meme xD
>>52175863
>Why is ublock bad again?
Because it's not, and never was, in active development. It's abandonware.
uBlock is still exactly where it was when gorhill abandoned it in order to continue working on it under the name of uBlock Origin.
Unfortunately Safari support was dropped because gorhill is now working solo and he doesn't have any Mac to test with.
You should consider switching to something like Firefox that not only has access to uBlock Origin but other powerful extensions like uMatrix and advanced options in about:config.
>>52175863
> Calls Firefox shit
> Uses Safari
Fsck off pleb.
>>52176580
Safari is great, especially on laptops. You save literally hours of battery.
The problem is it's not customizable at all and the extensions are really lacking.
>>52175863
There is no possible comparison point where fucking Safari beats Firefox or Chrome
Safari is no less or more "botnet" than Chrome
ublock on safari 9 works fine
>>52177180
typeface and font smoothing, startpage, battery life, botnetty-ness ( admittedly everything is better than chrome), keychain access integration....
>>52175863
>using safari
>....
>fucking safari
kill yourself
>>52178581
Isn't the OS responsible for the typesettings and fonts? I can't imagine browsers differing much in how they consume battery life, so can you provide a source the proves there is a difference and shows that the difference is significant?
Also, any closed sourced program is equally a possible botnet. How can you tell Safari is less "botnetty" than Chrome? With Firefox or Chromium, you can argue you can read the code and that those connections to mozilla/google servers aren't sending personal data. But with safari and chrome, there just isn't a difference.
>>52178581
Typeface and font smoothing is miles ahead of Chrome. Pic related
Don't really care that much about the battery life ( it is a huge improvement on macbooks though) since I'm hackintosh master race but Chrome eats ram like it's bulking.
Beside the fact that safari got rid of fucking favicons ( LOL) and doesn't have extensions like zenmate or ublock origin I trust apple more with my data than a company whose whole business model revolves around selling your personal data to others. Apple's recent trouble with the government regarding privacy policies seems to reinforce that notion.
>>52178957
meant for
>>52178667
>>52178667
>>52178957
Heh, any company based in the US has to comply with US law. If the feds have a search warrant then they won't refuse to show the data.
It's better to use a browser from a place you know isn't keeping your data in the first place. Mozilla comes to mind. And no, I'm not telling you to trust Mozilla, it's just that the browser is open source and you can check the source code.
But since you're happy with Safari tier functionality, maybe you should try out Midori.
>>52179333
>Midori
sounds good but isn't available for OS X. And I'm not to keen on compiling anything either.
I might be dead wrong but last I checked Firefox was way behind the rest in regards to ram usage/speed/sandboxing. Has that changed?
>>52179434
I've seen a lot of complaints about firefox, but being behind was never one.
Do you mean it's less efficient? Because I believe Firefox is less resource consuming than Chrome on Linux and OSX
>>52176918
>Safari is great, especially on laptops. You save literally hours of battery.
I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.
I have never used an adblocker (I use a hosts file instead) with Safari since they all suck. No one has even made a decent content blocker for desktop Safari.
>>52181209
It used to be the case, especially on laptops with dedicated graphics. Chrome has caught up some though.
>>52180882
how bout the lack of sandboxing and the fact that if one tab freezes the whole browser shuts down?
>>52179333
>is open source so no matter how bad it becomes it still is superior
You are a fag! If a browser turns into shit, not even Open Source is going to save it's smelling asshole.
>>52179333
Bad FOSS is exactly the same way as bad as closed source software. There is no different shade of bad available. Bad stays bad and what's bad should not be used. Period.
>>52181998
>>52182016
>Strawman
He was obviously saying open source software can't secretly include malicious code that is hidden from the user (botnet)
