From 674b251babbe0837b0d4690ec6c3955dbf040e6f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: SW1FT Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 01:41:27 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?Updated=20What=20=C2=B5Block=20can=20and=20can?= =?UTF-8?q?=20not=20(currently)=20do=20(markdown)?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit --- ...at-uBlock-can-and-can-not-(currently)-do.md | 28 +++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) rename What-µBlock-can-and-can-not-(currently)-do.md => What-uBlock-can-and-can-not-(currently)-do.md (54%) diff --git a/What-µBlock-can-and-can-not-(currently)-do.md b/What-uBlock-can-and-can-not-(currently)-do.md similarity index 54% rename from What-µBlock-can-and-can-not-(currently)-do.md rename to What-uBlock-can-and-can-not-(currently)-do.md index 34a7c44..95c6b2d 100644 --- a/What-µBlock-can-and-can-not-(currently)-do.md +++ b/What-uBlock-can-and-can-not-(currently)-do.md @@ -1,28 +1,28 @@ -#### "µBlock is just a stripped-down version of HTTP Switchboard". +#### "uBlock is just a stripped-down version of HTTP Switchboard". -No. µBlock started off by extracting the pattern-filtering engines (net and cosmetic filters) from [HTTP Switchboard](https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard#http-switchboard-for-chromium) ("HTTPSB"). These engines needed more work to bring them to maturity. Most of that work won't be ported back to HTTPSB. See ["The road ahead"](https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard/issues/378) for details. +No. uBlock started off by extracting the pattern-filtering engines (net and cosmetic filters) from [HTTP Switchboard](https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard#http-switchboard-for-chromium) ("HTTPSB"). These engines needed more work to bring them to maturity. Most of that work won't be ported back to HTTPSB. See ["The road ahead"](https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard/issues/378) for details. #### "The memory usage isn't actually ABP's fault, _EasyList_ is like 40,000+ lines of rules that all have to be parsed by ABP". -µBlock also parse _EasyList_, _EasyPrivacy_, _Malware domains_ lists, +uBlock also parse _EasyList_, _EasyPrivacy_, _Malware domains_ lists, and _Peter Lowes's Ad server_ list out of the box and yet uses less than half the memory of [Adblock Plus](https://adblockplus.org/) ("ABP"), which is itself much more efficient than [AdBlock](https://getadblock.com/) (at least this is what I have measured on Chromium-based browsers). -#### "µBlock has all the features ABP has!" +#### "uBlock has all the features ABP has!" -µBlock is its own thing, it doesn't try to be Adblock Plus or any other. +uBlock is its own thing, it doesn't try to be Adblock Plus or any other. The `$document` filter option is not supported, see [issue #405](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/405). At time of writing, I see 10 such filters in _EasyList_. -**Read carefully:** Not supporting `$document` filter option has absolutely **nothing** to do with µBlock being more efficient than ABP. It's a principle thing: the purpose of the `$document` filter option is to disable a blocker on a specific site. I do not want µBlock to submit itself to 3rd-party filter lists for when it should completely disable it self. +**Read carefully:** Not supporting `$document` filter option has absolutely **nothing** to do with uBlock being more efficient than ABP. It's a principle thing: the purpose of the `$document` filter option is to disable a blocker on a specific site. I do not want uBlock to submit itself to 3rd-party filter lists for when it should completely disable it self. -#### "ABP has all the features µBlock has!" -No. µBlock currently offers you more: +#### "ABP has all the features uBlock has!" +No. uBlock currently offers you more: - [Extends the filter syntax](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Filter-syntax-extensions). - [Local mirroring](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Experimental-features#privacy-exposure-reduction-local-mirroring), a currently experimental but promising feature. -- [Dynamic filtering](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering), the ability to point-and-click to filter on/off `script` and `iframe` tags, on a 1st- or 3rd-party basis. I consider this to be a [key feature](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering---examples) of µBlock. +- [Dynamic filtering](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering), the ability to point-and-click to filter on/off `script` and `iframe` tags, on a 1st- or 3rd-party basis. I consider this to be a [key feature](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering---examples) of uBlock. - Element picker is more modern. - Let you select most common filter lists out of the box, without the need to import them first. - Supports hosts files (hostnames are translated into the equivalent of `||www.example.com^`). @@ -30,14 +30,14 @@ No. µBlock currently offers you more: - Ability to not load cosmetic filters (saves lot of memory). - A log of the net requests showing allowed/blocked net requests, and which filter, if any, matched each net request. -#### "µBlock has a smaller memory footprint than Ghostery or Disconnect." +#### "uBlock has a smaller memory footprint than Ghostery or Disconnect." -No it doesn't. Last time I checked, µBlock has a larger memory footprint than both +No it doesn't. Last time I checked, uBlock has a larger memory footprint than both [Ghostery](https://www.ghostery.com) and [Disconnect](/disconnectme/disconnect). That's for their own memory footprint. I didn't look into their contributions to the memory footprint added to each web page. -Regarding CPU footprint, I don't know, I didn't measure yet (maybe I will), but my hunch at this point is that the CPU overhead is higher than that of µBlock. I did run [CPU benchmark a very long time ago](https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard/wiki/Doesn't-HTTPSB-add-a-significant-overhead-to-network-traffic%3F), and this was the case -- but after such a long time, I have to assume things have changed and I would need to benchmark again -- a time-consuming task. +Regarding CPU footprint, I don't know, I didn't measure yet (maybe I will), but my hunch at this point is that the CPU overhead is higher than that of uBlock. I did run [CPU benchmark a very long time ago](https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard/wiki/Doesn't-HTTPSB-add-a-significant-overhead-to-network-traffic%3F), and this was the case -- but after such a long time, I have to assume things have changed and I would need to benchmark again -- a time-consuming task. -Keep in mind that µBlock, like ABP, Adguard, and some others allows users to enter their own filters, something not possible with Ghostery or Disconnect. +Keep in mind that uBlock, like ABP, Adguard, and some others allows users to enter their own filters, something not possible with Ghostery or Disconnect. -There are also other differences, or similarities: µBlock, _Disconnect_ +There are also other differences, or similarities: uBlock, _Disconnect_ and ABP are licensed under [GPL](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License). Also, there is [this](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/%C2%B5Block-and-others:-Blocking-ads,-trackers,-malwares). \ No newline at end of file