I had been using Adblock (the one from getadblock dot com) till recently because it worked for me and I didn't see a reason to switch to ABP. Then, both ABP and regular Adblock joined the Acceptable Ads program. Now I'm on uBlock Origin because I heard it's better than regular uBlock, but I don't know why. I mean, I heard one of the devs moved from the regular uBlock to start Origin, but I don't know if that makes it a better product.
Origin is actively developed
ublock origin exists because the original dev of ublock didn't want the attention so gave it to the first person who asked for it, which proceeded to do nothing with the project while asking for donations so the original dev came back with ublock origin (new name because he gave up the original project) - plain old ublock is now defunct as the guy who took it over clearly wanted nothing more than donations (and/or to sell it)
ublock origin is technically the best blocker we have, even adblock edge (a fork of adblock plus without acceptable ads) even discontinued itself in favour of ublock origin, but whether or not the dev of ublock origin will pull any more stupid stunts remains to be seen
>>53506847
Just use your HOSTS file. Ad-blocking extensions eat up resources, and they're doing the exact same thing that your system is already capable of doing without an extension. Plus blocking ads through your HOSTS file can't be detected.
You can find instructions on setting that up here: http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts2.htm
>But what about updating?
I update mine maybe once every six months. You really don't need to update it that often. I've never once seen an ad in the 10 or so years I've been blocking ads this way.
>>53506933
thanks
>>53507003
but with an adblocker I can select and block random things I find annoying, like "please disable your ad blocker" warnings, donation buttons, pictures and text and links I don't like, etc.
>>53507003
>blocking ads through your HOSTS file can't be detected.
How so?
>>53507078
>like "please disable your ad blocker" warnings
You won't see those if you're blocking with your HOSTS file, which I just said.
>>53506847
uBlock Origin or Adguard
>>53507104
>How so?
These sites use JS elements or something to detect if you have an ad-blocking extension installed. With your HOSTS file, there's just nothing to detect. Your OS itself is refusing to allow known advertising IPs to establish a connection to your network.
>>53507003
>Just use your HOSTS file. Ad-blocking extensions eat up resources
because doing the blocking at the operating system level on EVERY request, not just web ones, doesn't use more resources?
dumbass
>Plus blocking ads through your HOSTS file can't be detected.
well, sure, until windows binaries or whatever just blatantly bypass host files
if you're going to block shit on a system level then use iptables or a firewall
>>53507003
>Ad-blocking extensions eat up resources
What Ressource? Ram?
>>53507151
>because doing the blocking at the operating system level on EVERY request, not just web ones, doesn't use more resources?
It doesn't. Compare your system's resources when using this method versus an extension. The extension is going to increase your browser's memory usage by 40% or more and eat up more CPU cycles while it re-renders pages without the ads. In contract to your HOSTS file, which just stops the IPs from connecting in the first place.
>dumbass
Oh, wow. You sure told me.
uBlock Origin. By far
>>53507113
>>53507147
I was pretty sure they just have text on the ad box that can only be seen if the ad isn't loaded over it. Though if you're doing this right now and you can't see 4chan's warnings, I must be wrong.
Anyway, I like the additional function and don't mind the extra resources usage, though I'll have that bookmarked for the day uBlock falls apart as well. I *did* use the HOSTS file before once, I think I was blocking facebook on a work computer.
>>53507210
I think extensions these days do block the requests for ads themselves dude. I think they did just remove them but they got updated.
One benefit of the HOSTS file is that if you've got some app that shows ads and isn't the browser (like stupid free games), those get blocked too.
>>53507219
>I was pretty sure they just have text on the ad box that can only be seen if the ad isn't loaded over it.
In some cases, sites may have "Please disable your adblocker" text imposed under the ad element, which is loaded there regardless of whether or not you allow ads to display. You just wouldn't see it normally due to it being covered by the ad. But that has nothing to do with sites that actually deny you access because you're blocking ads.
>>53507147
There are multiple detection methods, e.g. by monitoring if the ad file is loaded from the server, which also falsely hits users with slow connections sometimes.
Or by measuring the distance between certain HTML elements to find out if the space of the ad banner is collapsed, 4chan had this in the past.
>>53507258
Yeah see, I dislike those as well, so I block their paragraph/div manually with the extension's tool. It's pestering me just like ads would.
>>53507287
>There are multiple detection methods
Those seem pretty farfetched. I've never been denied access to any site because I was blocking ads with my HOSTS file, and I've been doing this for 10 years.
I'm also using NoScript though, so any fancy JS detection methods aren't going to make a difference anyway, as I likely have those elements denied.
Opera dev built-in adblock
>>53507340
Doesn't that block all the Javascript? Isn't that necessary for things like comment threads and web apps to work?
>>53507360
>Doesn't that block all the Javascript?
It blocks whatever JS you don't explicitly whitelist. You don't have to enable all JS on a site-wide basis. You can in fact enable just the elements that correspond to basic site functions, and leave any intrusted elements blocks.
It's not as complicated as it seems. After you tweak it for use with whatever sites you frequent, you don't generally have to mess with its privileges again.
>>53507113
>You won't see those if you're blocking with your HOSTS file, which I just said.
>>53507147
>These sites use JS elements or something to detect if you have an ad-blocking extension installed.
they don't use js elements to detect if you're using adblock, they use js elements to detect whether the ad is displayed, which is why if you use a browser without javascript you'll still sometimes get the "please disable your adblocker" (along with please stop using noscript) because a js element which enables the rest of the page hasn't loaded
>>53507210
>The extension is going to increase your browser's memory usage by 40%
never noticed this happen, and I use the most bloated memory leaking hog of a browser called firefox
>or more and eat up more CPU cycles while it re-renders pages without the ads.
adblockers don't "hide" ads, they block them, there is no rerendering without ads
the only extra rendering done by adblockers is to place placeholders were ads would be so the page layout isn't screwed up
>In contract to your HOSTS file, which just stops the IPs from connecting in the first place.
which happens on *every* networking request including dns, which *does* have a performance loss especially on windows machines with the dns client enabled
from your own bloody link in >>53507003
>http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts2.htm
from elsewhere on the site (/hostswin7.htm)
>Editors Note: in most cases a large HOSTS file (over 135 kb) tends to slow down the machine.
>Oh, wow. You sure told me.
which is why you refuted my point about doing this in iptables or a firewall, you know, something that is designed to block requests
>>53507340
>I've never been denied access to any site because I was blocking ads with my HOSTS file
>I'm also using NoScript
would you like to put 1 and 1 together? I'll give you a minute
>>53507360
>Doesn't that block all the Javascript?
noscript can either blacklist or whitelist sites, if you whitelist sites you'll occasionally come across a website that loads javascript from 500 million different websites and you have to figure out which site has the script you need, but most of the time you just whitelist the base site and it works
if that seems like too much of a hassle, just blacklist sites or temporarily allow all scripts on a page (multiple times, because sites like to hide extra js from external sites from js already from external sites)
>>53506847
I heard one of the devs moved from the regular uBlock to start Origin, but I don't know if that makes it a better product.
There is only one dev. That's why uBlock is no longer developed. Only uBlock Origin is developed, and yes, it's the best adblocker.
>>53508676
Forgot to greentext the first paragraph.
>>53506847
All of my privacy oriented addons
ublock origin
umatrix
Decentraleyes
CanvasBlocker
Google search link fix
HTTPS-Everywhere
>>53507003
Slower and actually eats up more resources. Not to mention that it's not as effective and that the list you just posted is very limited.
>>53507147
>These sites use JS elements or something to detect if you have an ad-blocking extension installed
You can't just do that.
>>53507210
What is faster, redirecting a request to your own computer and waiting for reply or just blocking them? The first is the host files.
>The extension is going to increase your browser's memory usage by 40%
Simply wrong
>>53506847
Adblock Plus / Ghostery / Self-destructing Cookies / Disconnect.me strict protection masterrace checking in. How's that for a web-condom?
>>53510611
You're using an inferior blocker and you have two redundant extensions.
hosts file on my router here
ublock origin on browsers
>>53510611
ghostery is proprietary
>>53510628
redundant how? ghostery blocks all of the popular trackers
>>53510797
ublock origin is superior
redundant because both the ghostery and the disconnect filters exist for ublock
>>53510819
I installed ublock with every list available and still on 4chan it's connected to 4 different domains. Doesn't seem to work very well.
>>53511071
This is what umatrix is for
Or use dynamic filtering
