• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

µBlock

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Working nicely with PCXFirefox 35. Always wondered why Firefox would bloat the hell out.. might be the fifty thousand tabs with ABE :hmm:
 
I was looking at the various filters and was wondering ..

Does this list (Fanboy+Easylist-Merged Ultimate List&#8206😉, include Fanboy's Enhanced Tracking, Annoyance and Social Blocking lists?


Which filters do you guys use?
 
Chiefcrowe said:
I was looking at the various filters and was wondering ..

Does this list (Fanboy+Easylist-Merged Ultimate List&#8206😉, include Fanboy's Enhanced Tracking, Annoyance and Social Blocking lists?


Which filters do you guys use?
Click to expand...

Normally, I'd just use Fanboy's Ultimate list because I believe it covers most nonsense with one filter, but on my home machine I'm using Gorhill's personal selection found here...

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Filter-lists:-gorhill

He claims multiple lists don't bog the system down as they do with ABP, and that appears to be true, but I honestly haven't given it much attention. I've been meaning to check things out more closely, but it slipped my attention. I'll try to look at it when I get home.
 
Thanks. Yes, it does seem that adding some more lists doesn't impact performance too much at least from what i've seen so far.

What do you think about the hosts filters, are they necessary? And are those not covered in any of the other filter lists?
 
Chiefcrowe said:
What do you think about the hosts filters, are they necessary? And are those not covered in any of the other filter lists?
Click to expand...

LwjwZ0h.png


Note the N out of N used at the end of the list. I'm guessing they aren't complete totals due to duplication. The definitions it's using aren't duplicated on other lists.

Again, I haven't put much thought in it, but that makes logical sense. I need to read the documentation a bit closer when I get some time.
 
I see now... that is very nice, it is not duplicating between lists. From using it in only a short while, it seems to manage memory a lot better than ABP. I'll see how it goes for the next week and i'll post if I run into any issues, but so far so good! The performance is noticeably faster too!

Thanks again for letting us know about this!!
 
Last edited:
Chiefcrowe said:
Thanks. Yes, it does seem that adding some more lists doesn't impact performance too much at least from what i've seen so far.

What do you think about the hosts filters, are they necessary? And are those not covered in any of the other filter lists?
Click to expand...

I use all the host file filters (through uMatrix but it has a similar effect) and I don't think I've run into any compatibility issues with it yet. You basically don't have to worry about performance or memory anymore so the only thing it comes down to is whether or not you can accept the occasional breakage that comes with using more filter lists. Note that the host files are exclusively network filters and do not contain cosmetic filters.

lxskllr said:
Note the N out of N used at the end of the list. I'm guessing they aren't complete totals due to duplication. The definitions it's using aren't duplicated on other lists.

Again, I haven't put much thought in it, but that makes logical sense. I need to read the documentation a bit closer when I get some time.
Click to expand...

Yes, it won't add the same filter twice if that's what you're talking about. For example if you use gorhill's settings as you linked to earlier which do not enable fanboy's ultimate list (but do enable all the lists that the ultimate list contains) and then enabled the ultimate list on top of all the others, it would read as 0 out of x used.
 
TheRyuu said:
For example if you use gorhill's settings as you linked to earlier which do not enable fanboy's ultimate list (but do enable all the lists that the ultimate list contains) and then enabled the ultimate list on top of all the others, it would read as 0 out of x used.
Click to expand...

I was *just* playing with it. Interestingly, enabling the Ultimate list gave me 97 new definitions. Strange, eh?

Seems like there's two ways of approaching things.

1) Use a couple huge lists from a couple providers, and reduce download times, and memory loading which could cause (mostly minor)performance reductions.

2) Use a bunch of lists(all of them?) for redundancy, so if one provider starts slacking off, or disappears completely, you're still covered by the others.

I'm kind of leaning towards option 2, but 1 might be better for very weak machines to keep all the performance possible.

Edit:
Switching between the Fanboy lists individually, and the Ultimate list; Ultimate at this time gives the most coverage. Enabling the other lists add three filters max to the Ultimate list, While Ultimate adds 97 to the other lists. I disabled Easylist and the separate Fanboy lists, and am using the Ultimate, with the other lists...

I5rI9bN.png


This should give maximum protection, while minimizing network use... FWIW... It's mostly theoretical I guess; kind of gilding the lily as it were :^D

Edit2:
Was looking over the screenshot, and noticed I still had EasyPrivacy enabled with four filters in use. Not much point in that, so I disabled that one also.
 
Last edited:
ninaholic37 said:
What? I DO like it when things perform better and take up less memory :colbert:
Click to expand...
Yeah, but to be fair, back in Windows 98 days I used to have a solid black wallpaper and all Windows sounds disabled because they had a noticeable impact on performance.

Nowadays they still do impact performance, but it's not the same, and I have 4k wallpapers slideshowing every 30 minutes and the sounds enabled...

It's a matter of balance, and, as such, it doesn't really matter that we like it when things run better and lighter: it still doesn't matter and we still don't need to worry about it.
 
Well, I do not use Windows (Xubuntu user here), but I have been using µBlock with Firefox for around a month or so.

I like it, much better than Adblock Edge.
 
Can Firefox extensions be prioritised such that µBlock runs before Ghostery (or Blur or Disconnect et cetera) to check if the latter blocks anything additional (and if not can be disabled)? Otherwise, it seems Ghostery takes priority regardless of being enabled or activated or arranged on the Toolbar after µBlock.
 
Auric said:
Can Firefox extensions be prioritised such that µBlock runs before Ghostery (or Blur or Disconnect et cetera) to check if the latter blocks anything additional (and if not can be disabled)? Otherwise, it seems Ghostery takes priority regardless of being enabled or activated or arranged on the Toolbar after µBlock.
Click to expand...

I think the only way they could do that is if they're specifically written to by the programmer.

The only other privacy/security blocking addons I currently use are PrivacyBadger, and NoScript. I'm not sure PrivacyBadger does much with my other addons. I'll look into that shortly, and maybe disable it. I have RequestPolicy disabled also. That's like NoScript on steroids as far as nuisance is concerned. It just became too much to deal with, and I turned it off for the time being. When I get some time that I feel like dealing with it, I'll see if I can tame it down, and have it be a useful addon.

For security aside from blocking, I use SelfDestructingCookies, HTTPSEverywhere, and BetterPrivacy. I also block third party cookies, and use *FlashBlock which is a simple toggle to turn Flash on and off, with it being off whenever it isn't needed.

All of this is to say, I recommend paring down your addon load. Ghostery is proprietary software, made by an ad company. That would be a good one to drop. The rest of what you use should be analyzed, and removed if they do nothing unique. More isn't always better. Sometimes it's just more stuff to update and break, and more stuff to needlessly load down the system.

*I recently fully removed Flash from my system, and will probably remove this once I'm completely sure Flash won't be coming back.
 
I've been using it for a few days with Firefox 36.0 and uBlock seems to do a better job of blocking stuff than AdBlockPlus. No noticeable side effects or problems.

I'm I correct to assume the files in the cache are beneficial to the blocking process or should they be purged on a regular basis?
 
PrivacyBadger on its own seems good to recommend to those who want to avoid messing around with configuration for the trade-off of leaving some fraction unblocked. It certainly only intervenes upon subsequent tracking.

In addition to HTTPS-Everywhere... RefControl, Redirect Cleaner, and Random Agent Spoofer can cover some other issues. Self-Destructing Cookies looks very interesting since removing on-the-fly rather than more typically at the end of a session. Until now, despite all the blocking, it seemed prudent to clear everything occassionally.

Very little I care about broke with the combo of Adblock Edge and Ghostery but I would prefer to nix the latter for the reasons you described.

Even with ESR, maintaining Flash is too much of a chore. I tend to download any video over a minute anyway 'cause embedded viewing is so limiting. So Flash is not strictly required where that is possible.

Oh yeah, thanks for bringing µBlock to my attention. 🙂
 
ronbo613 said:
I'm I correct to assume the files in the cache are beneficial to the blocking process or should they be purged on a regular basis?
Click to expand...

I believe that's correct. The cache should be the up to date filters being actively used. When a list updates, the cache should be auto-purged, and the new list loaded. I can't think of any benefit to doing it manually.
 
ninaholic37 said:
What? I DO like it when things perform better and take up less memory :colbert:
Click to expand...

What I meant was in the context of the various adblocking software for browsers that's available. e.g. You can't say the same thing about ABP because you have to limit yourself to using a limited number of filter lists and it can balloon memory usage because of the thousands of injected CSS rules.

ronbo613 said:
I'm I correct to assume the files in the cache are beneficial to the blocking process or should they be purged on a regular basis?
Click to expand...
lxskllr said:
I believe that's correct. The cache should be the up to date filters being actively used. When a list updates, the cache should be auto-purged, and the new list loaded. I can't think of any benefit to doing it manually.
Click to expand...

In the context of uBlock cache in this sense means an updated copy of the filter list. If you have auto-update enabled then this occurs every 4 days (with the exception of when it's first installed where it will trigger an update some minutes later). The reason for this is because uBlock ships with filter lists built-in so there is no delay to when it can start doing its job. The only reason I can think of to purge them manually is if you want to then immediately update manually as well to fetch a fresh copy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top