Google Chrome Now Has Resource-Blocking Adblock

MackieChan writes "It seems to have slipped under the radar, but Google Chrome now has resource-blocking abilities, and may have had the ability for some time. Using the 'beforeload' event on the document, an extension can now intercept resources from loading. Adblock for Chrome has already added it, and I expect the other 'ad-blocking' extensions have as well. Before you start praising Google, however, it's the WebKit team that deserves your credit; one Chromium developer responded to praise by stating '... thank Apple — they added it to WebKit, we just inherited it.' Firefox vs. Chrome just got a bit more exciting."

Comments

It does say something about Google

[Bo'Bob'O]

Well, you have to admire that the biggest online advertising corporation on the internet didn't pull out the ad blocking feature on it's own brand of webkit browser. Yes, Google is a corporation like any other, but at least they have a little respect for not pissing it's costumers off. I think a lot of companies in the same position would have made it so their browser ADDED ads.

Re:It does say something about Google

[calmofthestorm]

I suspect it's because Google knows that virtually no one uses AdBlock, and that those who do aren't the sort that tend to click on ads anyway. Same reason they let you opt out of their DoubleClick tracking cookie -- you won't bother.

Re:It does say something about Google

[Kitkoan]

With a little more then 1.1 million users for the Chrome version alone, I'm doubting that virtually no one uses AdBlock.

Re:It does say something about Google

[horati0]

Google is a corporation like any other, but at least they have a little respect for not pissing it's costumers off.

The clown-suit lobby has much more influence on Google than we previously thought.

Re:It does say something about Google

[KiloByte]

I've recently glimpsed the screen of someone who does NOT use AdBlock, and I was shocked.

A huge animated ad taking 2/3 of the screen, and the rest of the screen was split between a bit of actual content in the lower left corner and another ad in the right half of the space under the big one. And after scrolling down, you had more and more ads. And that's a large, popular site.

At least around here, anyone who has a friend/coworker with a modicum of technical skills will have AdBlock installed... browsing the web otherwise is just next to impossible.

Re:It does say something about Google

[gbjbaanb]

no, I think its more down to the type of Ads that are blocked. Block Google adwords? Pointless.

Block a non-Google flash-based flashing lights and scrolling text and attention-catching beeps, you betcha.

In other words, adblocking is actually beneficial to Google as it gives Google ads more marketshare (ie by reducing the competition).

Re:It does say something about Google

[foniksonik]

Not true. Google serves up a lot of image and rich media ads. Google reps will tell you that click through rates on image based ads outside of google.com are significantly higher than text ads.

Re:It does say something about Google

[Ant P.]

I think a lot of companies in the same position would have made it so their browser ADDED ads.

You think?

Re:It does say something about Google

[Machtyn]

but at least they have a little respect for not pissing it's costumers off.

Actually, they may be pissing off their customers. However, they are keeping their users happy. (Because without the user, they won't have the customer.)

Re:It does say something about Google

[bonch]

Isn't Chrome itself an ad for Google services? It even defaults to their search engine.

Re:It does say something about Google

[defaria]

I've never understood the illogic of trying to force ads on people who are obviously not interested in ads (as evidenced by them installing and using such things as AdBlock. Hello??? McFly? Are you in there!?!). Do advertisers actually really believe that somebody who detests ads so much as to go through installing AdBlock, when shown your wonderful ads will be unable to help himself and click and buy your product?!? Here's a clue - HELL NO!!!

Re:It does say something about Google

[cmarkn]

Are those the same Google reps that are trying to sell you flashy ads at rates proportional to their higher click-through rates?

Works in Safari too?

[rritterson]

The same people (person?) that make Adblock for Chrome also make Adblock for Safari (5.0+) Since the feature was ported from Webkit into Chrome, I wonder if Safari has the same ability.

Re:Works in Safari too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Second link in the story, right near the top: " AdBlock does block resources flawlessly in Safari -- get it at safariadblock.com."

Re:Works in Safari too?

[bonch]

Safari 5 supported it from day one. AdBlock's developer mentioned it on stage while demoing it during Safari's WWDC session, which drew applause from the crowd.

Hmm, this is weird.

[dlsso]

A Slashdot story with impeccable grammar? Something doesn't feel right.

Re:Hmm, this is weird.

[Kitkoan]

A Slashdot story with impeccable grammar? Something doesn't feel right.

Maybe the grammer nazi"s intercepted the message...?

Re:Hmm, this is weird.

[stuckinphp]

It sure wouldn't feel right; however, that isn't how you do however.

Re:Hmm, this is weird.

[Macka]

Almost, but not quite. There shouldn't be a comma before "and" in the first sentence. The remainder of the sentence, "may have had the ability for some time", isn't an independent clause.

The comma before "but" was correct as, "chrome now has resource blocking abilities", is an independent clause.

Do I get my grammar nazi badge now?

Re:Hmm, this is weird.

[MoeDumb]

I'll ask Kelsey and get back to you. But seriously... -- Grammar nazi: in pre-Web days they were called editors.

Re:Hmm, this is weird.

[Kitkoan]

Grammar nazi: in pre-Web days they were called editors.

And I always thought that they were called Mods on those old BBS boards...

Re:Hmm, this is weird.

[Pikoro]

Or SysOps.

Re:Hmm, this is weird.

[BJ_Covert_Action]

It still seems like a bit of an enigma....

Re:Hmm, this is weird.

[sonciwind]

Well it still comes with snide comments so every thing seems alright to me.

Re:Uh, not really

[DavidRawling]

Yes! Now I can consider swapping ... before, AdBlock didn't protect my woeful Australian 3G quota.

Re:Uh, not really

[Manos_Of_Fate]

I still use Firefox because it's familiar to me and I haven't come across any features in Chrome that make me want to learn the idiosyncrasies of a new piece of software. Chrome is pretty slick, though.

Re:Uh, not really

[ewhac]

Every reason people used to give in favor of Firefox now applies to Chrome, times ten.

Incorrect. Chrome can't run NoScript.

And before you say, "Chrome lets you control JavaScript execution, blah blah blah," yes it does at a very coarse level. NoScript is much more fine-grained, and provides substitute scripts for sites that "need" to run crap from google-analytics et al.

It looks like this functionality may bring NoScript that much closer to Chrome.

Schwab

Re:Uh, not really

[Kitkoan]

I still use Firefox. While Chrome is nice and fast on my laptop (which isn't being used lately), my desktop has lots of power so I don't notice it and it has addons that I couldn't find on Chrome last time I checked (like a month ago). Addons like YouTube video downloads (amoungst the rare other). So while certain addons are missing on Chrome, I'll keep using Firefox.

Still not as good as what Firefox has

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't catch every single resource -- ad blocking plugins for Chrome admit that it won't catch everything and still has to just hide some ads. And it's not nearly powerful enough for NoScript to work.

So there is still no Firefox vs. Chrome/Chromium. Firefox still leads, big time, because of this issue.

I'm rooting for Chrome/Chromium/Webkit to get proper blocking abilities, because it's great otherwise. But until they can do what's necessary to get true blocking, I won't use it.

Re:Still not as good as what Firefox has

[Zarel]

It doesn't catch every single resource -- ad blocking plugins for Chrome admit that it won't catch everything and still has to just hide some ads.

It looks like the resource blocking not working in some cases is an accepted bug, and thus will be fixed soon.

And it's not nearly powerful enough for NoScript to work.

Chrome has that built-in. Go to "Preferences" -> "Under the Hood" -> "Content Settings" -> "JavaScript" -> "Block all". You can also manage per-site blocking from that screen. On websites that use JavaScript, a "JavaScript blocked" icon will appear in the toolbar, and you can click on it and click "Allow JavaScript on this site".

Re:Still not as good as what Firefox has

[Mashiki]

I think you could call your option for Noscript vs Chrome convoluted. What makes ns better is that an idiot can use it.

Re:Still not as good as what Firefox has

[Joe Tie.]

It's just clicking a checkbox. It's a bit deep in the menu structure, but it's not like noscript just magically appears on someone's firefox install either. You have to send them a link to it, or they have to google it.

Re:Still not as good as what Firefox has

[elrous0]

NoScript + Adblock Plus make Firefox the undisputed king. Much as I like the speed of Opera and Chrome, without those they aren't even playing in the same league as Firefox. There are many add-ons that I could do without, but those two are deal-breakers.

Re:Still not as good as what Firefox has

[doti]

Not in Chromium.

Not entirely random

[PhrostyMcByte]

Apple is closely involved with Webkit (it's the backend Safari uses), and this feature that made better ad-blocking possible was contributed by Apple. So it's not entirely random.

Re:Not entirely random

[vlueboy]

Apple is closely involved with Webkit (it's the backend Safari uses), and this feature that made better ad-blocking possible was contributed by Apple. So it's not entirely random.

Others have asked why google didn't "fix" apple's anti-advertising system by customizing webkit to meet their corporate advertisement-friendly goals. What I ask is why Apple hasn't appeared to capitalize on their adblocking engine (right, right! "not enabled without an extension, but neither is Chrome's yet")

I hear its resource-blocking isn't perfect, but being an Apple-run project, the devs and PR could have appeased the public a week ago for the new Safari 5 release. They remained hushed, and we know they much need good news in light of the iPhone antenna blemish. Something doesn't smell right, with either Apple or Google. I downloaded Chromium just a couple days ago. I still have got the old Safari 4 on this machine... don't feel like ever adopting FF 4.0 or completing my 3.7 beta testing. The next big move in the browser games will choose my winner for another couple years.

Re:Not entirely random

[DJRumpy]

Apple is not just closely involved with Webkit. They wrote it. Apple created a fork of KHTML and KJS and Webkit was born from that. In 2005 Apple open sourced Webkit and released it to the wild. Contrary to common belief, Apple actually gives quite a bit back to the Open Source community.

Re:Not entirely random

[unix1]

In 2005 Apple open sourced Webkit and released it to the wild. Contrary to common belief, Apple actually gives quite a bit back to the Open Source community.

It's because they legally had to - they forked KHTML which was under LGPL. Now webkit is also under LGPL. In addition, if you go back to the time period you are referring to and read how they released the source back - they made it so that KHTML developers couldn't easily merge the changes back into their project, and offered little to no collaboration with KHTML project. It was Apple's way or highway - yes they are clear legally, but not really a high mark there.

So, Apple may "give quite a bit back" but this is not really a good example.

Re:Not entirely random

[bonch]

What are you talking about? It's been known that Safari 5 supported resource blocking since AdBlock's developer said it did on stage back at WWDC. I'm not really getting what resource-blocking in WebKit has to do with the iPhone.

Re:Not entirely random

[bonch]

Don't forget Clang and LLVM which are replacing the GCC toolchain. Clang now builds FreeBSD and is eventually going to be the default compiler. Most people don't seem to realize these are Apple-led projects.

Re:Not entirely random

[vlueboy]

Per your comment, I researched the official Safari site and found they downplay the power of their Reader feature.

On the AdBlock dev announcement: WWDC was on June 7, which is very recent in terms of a software design/coding/test/release cycle. Till someone can point us an even earlier comment from WebKit devs, an indirect dev announcement followed by very modest official claims does support my theory that Apple does not want to directly associate itself with the potential groundbreaking that is built-in ad-blocking.

Apple was not bold enough to block by default without your clicking on the reader icon, and it sounds like that's a per-site feature, which will get annoying if they forgot to provide a whitelist or always-on switch. Someone particular with the Safari 5 can tell us whether the blocking is a one-time activation for all sites thing.

On the iPhone thing: They have an undiluted brand that benefits or suffers every time one of their product lines comes up on the news; their stock's healthy pricing is also constantly on the line when scrutiny is heavy. Apple created and actively supports WebKit. WebKit is the core of their Safari engine. Just like Apple actively benefits from publicity stunts like having a Windows version of Safari, iTunes and Quicktime, they benefit from having good news about other Apple products. [see how aggressive they are at bundling everything when first-time users are curious to try them]. Safari is at the core of the iPhone / AT&T network experience, so when they were being attacked for dropped calls, their relevant browser upgrade would have helped bring ease the media harassment.

A better effort on the publicity of the Safari 5 browser release would provide to users and investors a feeling of progress to the above iPhone experience (fewer ads mean less data and faster pageloads,) even if the antenna has continued to suck.

Re:Not entirely random

[jo_ham]

The early days of releasing the webkit code were messy, but they got much better. I think it was 6 of one and half a dozen of the other regarding head clashes between KHTML and Webkit. They had been working on the code in house, in secret for a year before they released Safari, so they had a ton of code to release under the GPL and they didn't necessarily do it very smoothly. They did do it however, and it is now much more closely in line with their many other open source projects in terms of code availability and legibility etc.

Re:Not entirely random

[Simetrical]

It's because they legally had to - they forked KHTML which was under LGPL. Now webkit is also under LGPL.

They could easily have 1) only given source dumps instead of public SVN checkout, 2) not accepted patches or bug reports from the public, and 3) structured all their big additions/rewrites as a separate library so as not to be infected by the LGPL, dropping LGPL code as it gets rewritten, and thereby eventually getting rid of LGPL code entirely.

Instead, they have public SVN checkout, they have a public Bugzilla that they actually use, you can submit patches, you can get commit access, all their additions are LGPL. They did not legally have to do any of this. But they did, and it's awesome of them and we should give them credit for it. (Despite the fact that they may be completely evil in other respects.)

Re:Not entirely random

[unix1]

They didn't have any of those things in 2005 - the time period I was referring to in my post.

Just as you said here - (1) they gave source code dumps, (2) they didn't accept any patches, (3) their source code was filled with platform-specific code, (4) they didn't offer any bug repository even to core KHTML devs, (5) they asked KHTML devs to sign NDAs to see source code they added, etc.

Again, that's not a good example on how to collaborate on an open-source project.

Re:Not entirely random

[Simetrical]

They didn't have any of those things in 2005 - the time period I was referring to in my post.

Just as you said here - (1) they gave source code dumps, (2) they didn't accept any patches, (3) their source code was filled with platform-specific code, (4) they didn't offer any bug repository even to core KHTML devs, (5) they asked KHTML devs to sign NDAs to see source code they added, etc.

Apple forked WebKit in 2002, and at that point it was as you describe. June 7, 2005 is the date when they created a webkit.opendarwin.org website for WebKit; opened the entire CVS repository with the full history of the project to public checkout; invited publicly-submitted patches (and they committed some of those on the very same day); opened a public bug tracker; and created public mailing lists and IRC channels. See Dave Hyatt's blog post. The first person to get commit access to WebKit who wasn't an Apple employee was Anders Carlsson, in August 2005.

So basically, no. WebKit became a full-fledged open-source project in 2005.

Re:Not entirely random

[unix1]

Sorry then - my timeline is messed up. I was referring to the clashes they had between them prior to straightening [most] things out.

Re:Meta: this story is under Apple? Why?

[Kitkoan]

Its meta-commented Apple because of the last part of the summery:

one Chromium developer responded to praise by stating '... thank Apple — they added it to WebKit, we just inherited it.' Firefox vs Chrome just got a bit more exciting.

Re:Uh, not really

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

Plus who's to say that the next iteration of Firefox won't have the same blocking capabilities of Chrome? When browsers get into an arms race, the consumer wins.

Re:Uh, not really

[Dremth]

Honestly, in this day an age, if using a little more memory to make your browser run faster is an issue to you, then I can see you running into quite a few more problems down the road... Memory is cheap. Time and aggravation are not. There are plenty of applications that use a TON of memory and DON'T run as fast as they should. Consider yourself fortunate that at least a few people still know how to program in a reasonably efficient manner.

Re:Uh, not really

[Dremth]

Sorry, I misread your comment. I thought you said that Chrome was using all your memory. Chrome actually often does use more memory than Firefox (at least when Firefox isn't doing its memory leak thing it likes to do).

Re:Uh, not really

[B1oodAnge1]

Firefox has *always* had that ability... it was the lack of it in Chrome that was keeping a lot of people, such as myself, from seriously considering it as an alternative browser.

Re:Uh, not really

[AHuxley]

Exactly, even in Australia you can find a ram deal like at msy.com.au and get some cheap ram.
If your app is acting up, log it, report it. But low memory is really a thing of the past.
I like firefox for the addons. Safari/FF is my main browser, with chrome and icab as needed.

Re:Uh, not really

[Redlazer]

I hear you, but Chrome is a shamelessly simple browser to use.

I migrated from Opera. I sorta miss the complexity, but Chrome starts simple, and lets you make it complex.

Re:Uh, not really

[cgenman]

There are some options for Youtube downloading on Chrome.
https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/bdokagampppgbnjfdlkfpphniapiiifn

Re:Uh, not really

[Manos_Of_Fate]

Really it isn't the complexity, but the small differences in what happens when I open new tabs, type things into the address bar, etc. Even in places where I like Chrome's UI better, I just can't get motivated to adjust to a new browser. I admit it's mostly just laziness on my part, like most people I am a creature of habit, and am loathe to change them without a pretty compelling reason.

Any system that has an IP stack has a HOSTS file

[Anonymous Coward]

The same people (person?) that make Adblock for Chrome also make Adblock for Safari (5.0+) [safariadblock.com] Since the feature was ported from Webkit into Chrome, I wonder if Safari has the same ability. - by rritterson (588983) writes: on Tuesday July 20, @01:45AM (#32960614)

See subject-line above, because a custom HOSTS file will work on any browser that there is for blocking out content you do not want to see inclusive not only of ad banners but also of known bad sites or servers that serve up malicious content and across all of your web bound applications (like email for example, not just webbrowsers or worse yet as in the case of adblock alone, browser add ons which function for 1 or 2 webbrowsers only) and you can also speed up your requests for hosts/domains resolutions by hardcoding them into a HOSTS file rather than spending time + resources calling out to DNS servers (which could be downed or compromised per Dan Kaminsky's findings no less), speeding yourself up more and in a way that adblock cannot. Plus, by doing this hardcode of hostsnames/domainnames to IP address, you also avoid being on DNS requests logs from your isp/bsp (dual bonus). Fact is, any system out there that uses an IP stack based off the BSD reference design (I don't know of any currently that are not in fact that are of modern design at least) can use a HOSTS file this/these way(s).

Most of Google's revenue is advertising.

[lhaeh]

Looking here we can see that, for 2009, Google made 23,651 million in revenue. Considering that 22,889 of those millions were from advertising, you have to wonder how long google will tolerate ad blocking in their products. Sure, it is fine now as not many people use chrome, and even fewer of those people install an ad blocking plug-in, but what about if it becomes more popular? Will they still tolerate it then? One wonders what would happen to google if Microsoft decided to make ad blocking default in Internet Explorer.

Re:Most of Google's revenue is advertising.

[joost]

I've asked myself this question too. The funny thing is, I would be very OK with google adwords on the page, just not the slow, obnoxious flash-based ads. So if Google explains that adwords will make a reappearance I would be fine with it. I am not anti-ads, I am anti-eyesore and anti-slow-flash-crap.

Re:Most of Google's revenue is advertising.

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you suggest they stop it then since chromium is open source?

Re:Most of Google's revenue is advertising.

[icebraining]

If they try to disable that Webkit feature after people are used to Chrome ad-blocker, those people will just switch to other browsers, including custom versions of Chromium. Chrome users are tech-savvy, or helped by tech-savvy people, who won't eat it and shut up if they like Adblock. /Firefox user, not adblock user

Re:Most of Google's revenue is advertising.

[Hitto]

But the google text ads don't slow down my computer, don't hog my ram, and are usually relevant.

Re:Most of Google's revenue is advertising.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

I am not anti-ads, I am anti-eyesore and anti-slow-flash-crap.

Well said. I wish there is a way I can state my own ad preferences so that the web sites know what kind of ads I will accept. Like browser sends a string that says, "Will accept text ads, static image ads. No animation, no flash ads, so sound, no pop-ups or pop-unders. Currently in the market for: Digital camera, scuba vacation, college visits"

I want only the obnoxious advertisers to go out of business. I want to provide a carrot for the sites that are willing to play nice.

Re:Most of Google's revenue is advertising.

[helix2301]

I agree a company that makes a huge profit on ads is not adding ad blocker there just has to be a loop hole for Goggles ads to make it threw.

Re:Most of Google's revenue is advertising.

[drinkypoo]

Even if Google could stop it (which they really can't) they wouldn't want to, because you need the nerd vote. I know that I was thinking about dropping Chrome until real ad blocking appeared (still fails on TPB though, and some other sites) and if it went away I'd go back to firefox in a hot second even though it takes twice as long to start and twice as long to load typical pages I actually load.

Re:Most of Google's revenue is advertising.

[quickOnTheUptake]

Absolutely. I'm not sure how OP is modded to +5 insightful. If google blocked ad block there would be a public outcry (remember the hypothesis was that adblock became popular) and a large number of people would switch to another browser.
Google isn't new to this game, they know that crippling a popular extension to their browser--when there is lots of competition in the browser market--would be a fast track to (browser) irrelevance, and that it would accomplish next to nothing (insofar as all those users would still have adblock, just on a non-google browser).

Re:Most of Google's revenue is advertising.

[defaria]

Well I, for one, AM anti ad! Look if I need something I know how to go out and look for it. In fact I'd use.... (wait for it...) Google to find it. But until then I'm not interested in whatever your selling at all, period, end of story.

Re:Most of Google's revenue is advertising.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

You are well within your rights to say that. You should be able to state your ad acceptance policy as, "no ads accepted. under any circumstances".

Just recognize the right of a web site to respond with a page that says, "We try to serve ads that are in compliance with the ad acceptance policy of the visitors. But we are not a charity, we need to draw a line somewher. So we do not serve pages to visitors that do not any ads. "

Re:Uh, not really

[stonedcat]

You seem to be assuming that the user wants to run each and every script on the pages they encounter... this is not the case.
One of the main reasons to use Noscript is to avoid scripts that are not designed with your best interest in mind.

Re:Uh, not really

[xororand]

A few reasons for Firefox:

- NoScript: mostly to block potentially malicious active elements like Flash and Java. Better safe than sorry, especially with Adobe products.
- CookieSafe: Fine grained control over cookies.
- RefControl: Blocks referrers for selected sites. I don't need to stuff tracking information down everyone's throat, especially not YouTube (embedded videos).
- Xmarks: Lets you synchronize your bookmarks using your own HTTPS protected WebDAV share.
- FoxyProxy Standard: Use different proxies for different sites
- Redirector: Rewrite http:/// links into https:/// links for selected sites that don't default to https.
- Web Developer: Dissect web pages.

Is all this available in Chrome* browsers already?

Re:Uh, not really

[Anonymous Coward]

You are trolling, right? I'm WHOOSHING right now, right? I have to be, surely.

There's no way anyone could be so fucking stupid as to believe that people use NoScript due to javascript execution time. No-one...surely...

I suspect it isn't true

[aepervius]

Whereas people using internet explorer as a rule won't probably care that much , I suspect firefox user in percentage (if not majorly) will care about noscript, adblock. I don't know many people without noscript and/or adblock. No granted , that could be a selection bias here, as I work in IT.

Re:I suspect it isn't true

[pandronic]

Why would you want to use No Script? I also work in IT and don't know anyone who uses it. In fact a lot of sites would be crippled by it. Really there's no benefit here besides feeding one's paranoia.

Re:I suspect it isn't true

[Joce640k]

NoScript isn't on/off, has very fine-grained control.

It takes two clicks to permanently (or temporarily) enable scripting on any websites you visit. All the rest of the scripts out there are mostly junk for advertising/tracking. You might not care personally about the privacy aspect of download scripts from doubleclick.net but some people do. There's also the fact that many sites these days will load scripts from a dozen different sites along with every page. That's a dozen unnecessary internet connections every time, it all adds up to more bandwidth/RAM usage. Why upgrade a PC when you can just install a script blocker?

Re:I suspect it isn't true

[rvw]

NoScript isn't on/off, has very fine-grained control.

It takes two clicks to permanently (or temporarily) enable scripting on any websites you visit.

That works for most sites, but not all. Some keep having problems after allowing scripts for that site, even after repeated allow-clicks because of javascript includes.

Re:I suspect it isn't true

[rvw]

Whereas people using internet explorer as a rule won't probably care that much , I suspect firefox user in percentage (if not majorly) will care about noscript, adblock. I don't know many people without noscript and/or adblock. No granted , that could be a selection bias here, as I work in IT.

The people I know that use FF, are mostly friends in IT, or family members for which I install noscript and adblock. But even then, Google won't mind.

Re:I suspect it isn't true

[hawkinspeter]

Best extension ever!

There's so many different attack vectors for javascript that I'm much happier using NoScript's whitelist way of letting the user decide which websites to run javascript on. It catches all those mis-typed URLs - there's no benefit in running javascript on www.ggogle.com. Not to mention all the cross-site scripting attacks that it prevents.

I'm not aware of sites being crippled by it. Any ones in particular you're thinking of?

Re:I suspect it isn't true

[MBGMorden]

NoScript allows a whitelisted group of sites. IE, Slashdot, Gmail, and whatever else you trust can all be setup to allow scripts just fine. Noscript would never get in the way. When you click on a random link though that turns out to be Goatse, then by default the Javascript won't run. Paranoia? Maybe, but given how many exploits propagate through browser based attacks, it's not that unreasonable of a step to take. Half the people I know who played World of Warcraft had their account hacked at one time or another via keyloggers picked up from websites. I always browsed through Firefox with Noscript on however (and eventually went to an Authenticator once those came out), and I managed to avoid it.

That said, I'm also in IT, and despite me telling many of my coworkers about it, no one else I know ever actually seemed to bother with it. I even stopped using it myself after I switched from Firefox to Chrome.

Re:I suspect it isn't true

[pandronic]

Well, many of the newer sites that use advanced JS to enhance functionality might not work properly. When you are on a tight budget you might not have the time/resources to design fall-backs for the 1% people who disable JS. I know I don't and my clients know of this and are happy with the situation.

It might be my experience, but with a decent machine (=300$ desktop computer) you rarely have websites that slow down your browser because of scripting (Slashdot is unfortunately one example).

As for security, since I've ditched IE many years ago I didn't have any drive-by attacks and I've been to plenty porn, warez and cracks sites. Again, it might be my experience.

Re:I suspect it isn't true

[fast turtle]

Lets see:

• Whitelist approach instead of blacklisting
• blocks most of the current attack vectors from hijacked advertisers
• reduces bandwidth consumption
• reduces need to upgrade computers

All of these are just the benefits of No-Script alone. In fact, I no longer even bother with Adblock since most of the advertisers are now entered into my hosts file. On the company front, I simply add them to our proxy server blocking list and it works quite well to reduce the exposure of our network to attack.

Re:I suspect it isn't true

[yotto]

I've been running noscript for years and have never seen this problem more than a couple times. You allow the site, and a couple of the sites it runs scripts from, and you're good. Maybe try to mix-and-match so that it works for you while keeping the rest blocked, and then after that you never have to think about it again.

This is more important for me than for most, as I do a fair bit of browsing while tethered to my cell phone, so the connection is slower than most. I also used to use dialup a lot and noscript is a massive benefit there.

Re:I suspect it isn't true

[calmofthestorm]

I've never seen a site that didn't work perfectly withj "Temporarily allow all this page", except, eg a site where I was in the middle of something [order form] and the refresh interrupted the flow. In other words, if I did it first thing on landing it would work fine.

The thing here is I'm fine with Google's text ads getting through; they amuse me, are sometimes useful, are fast, and aren't obnoxious

Re:I suspect it isn't true

[calmofthestorm]

Yeah but I've usually found that sites like yours [judging purely on the JS addiction, not judging content or anything] aren't worth visiting enough of the time for me to bother. Half the time I hit a JS only page I just close the window, the other half I might allow.

It's ok though; there aren't enough of me you need to care about me and there aren't enough of you I need to care about you so it all works out;)

Re:I suspect it isn't true

[pandronic]

Why would you not want animations that make the site more intuitive or better looking without consuming too much resources, or handy auto-completes or suggestions, or interactive galleries, or controls that you can't find in plain HTML, or pages that update without refreshing (and thus saving you bandwidth and CPU power)?

I mean, really, why would you torture yourself?

Re:I suspect it isn't true

[lpq]

Anyone using Firefox that I know, in 'IT' or not, uses Adblock -- and maybe 1 of those didn't use noscript because of the hassle -- at least until they asked me to clear off their last virus. Funny thing -- since installing noscript and Firefox, they don't seem to have problems with viruses anymore....

Weird.

Re:I suspect it isn't true

[cmarkn]

Why would you not want animations that make the site more intuitive or better looking without consuming too much resources, or handy auto-completes or suggestions, or interactive galleries, or controls that you can't find in plain HTML, or pages that update without refreshing (and thus saving you bandwidth and CPU power)?

I mean, really, why would you torture yourself?

Yeah, if I ever come across one of those I'll let you know. Don’t hold your breath.

Re:I suspect it isn't true

[Verteiron]

That's what the "temporarily allow all this site" option is for. Besides, the only times I've seen that happen is on "Hur lookit da funny video" sites, where they are embedding content that's wrapped in a flash object that's hosted on another site while streaming the video source for still a 3rd site into it while simultaneously displaying ads for all 3 AND using a comment script linked to a 4th site.

And even then, 9/10 times I can watch the video just by right-clicking it and choosing "Temporarily allow".

Noscript makes the web usable again.

Re:I suspect it isn't true

[vuffi_raa]

It takes two clicks to permanently (or temporarily) enable scripting on any websites you visit.

not true - especially on facebook, there is such a mishmash of links and plugins that it can get really confusing to find out what is or isn't being blocked, but if you just allow the who;e page you open yourself up to all kinds of crap- don't get me wrong I still use it but it is not as user friendly as you are saying

Re:Uh, not really

[Sancho]

My notebook is capped at 1GB of RAM, so no, memory is not cheap for me. To upgrade my RAM, I have to upgrade my computer.

That said, I use Chrome because it's still quite a bit faster (except for Flash.)

Chrome does NOT have NoScript

[warrax_666]

First, NoScript does much more than just block JavaScript.

Second, NoScript makes it possible to restrict JavaScript based on the originating domain; that means I can enable JavaScript for e.g. forums.bioware.com and deny for e.g. ea.com. When I visit forums.bioware.com it will not load scripts from ea.com and I can still have a snappy experience on forums.bioware.com. (Ea.com is, for some reason, a slow piece of shit.)

Re:Chrome does NOT have NoScript

[Anonymous Coward]

NoScript makes it possible to restrict JavaScript based on the originating domain

I love that feature. Even if only because it's fun to see sites that load Javascript from a dozen other sites. It's quite impressive how many ad, social app, tracking, etc. scripts some sites cram into their pages.

Re:Chrome does NOT have NoScript

[Anonymous Coward]

Used for this, RequestPolicy is vastly superior than NoScript. I used to use it with Firefox. When I moved to Chrome, I could no longer use it of course -- and that's when I realized how much of a control freak I was. It's liberating moving away from all the fine-grained WWW manipulation schemes... it is too easy to become unnecessarily immersed in. Now? Let JavaScript and CSS do its thing. Flash, PDF, Silverlight? They can all go to hell.

Re:Chrome does NOT have NoScript

[icebraining]

Used for this, RequestPolicy is vastly superior than NoScript.

http://noscript.net/abe/

Re:Chrome does NOT have NoScript

[Anonymous Coward]

noscript kicks all sorts of ass.

firefox+noscript+linux/mac = one bad mofo

Re:Chrome does NOT have NoScript

[Ant P.]

First, NoScript does much more than just block JavaScript.

Which is a shame. I'm still waiting half a decade later for an extension that does. If I wanted what NoScript does I'd install fucking Norton.

Re:Chrome does NOT have NoScript

[tlhIngan]

Used for this, RequestPolicy is vastly superior than NoScript. I used to use it with Firefox. When I moved to Chrome, I could no longer use it of course -- and that's when I realized how much of a control freak I was. It's liberating moving away from all the fine-grained WWW manipulation schemes... it is too easy to become unnecessarily immersed in. Now? Let JavaScript and CSS do its thing. Flash, PDF, Silverlight? They can all go to hell.

Well, it's quite useful to have fine-grained control. For example, I could view a page on Gizmodo and have just Giz's comments load (allow gizmodo.com) but block ad tracking networks (deny doubleclick.com, quantserve.com, etc). Nevermind the dozens of other sites for social media (fbcdn.com, facebook.com, twitter.com, digg.com, etc.). And the rest (google-analytics.com, chartbeat.com, sitemeter.com...).

And there's probably 3 dozen more sites all pulled in by that one tech blog. All of which it takes one lousy javascript coder to bring your browser to a crawl. I just wish Firefox/Chrome/etc had a task-manager so I could see which tabs are consuming all the CPU time.

Re:Uh, not really

[Dumnezeu]

No, but you haven't done your homework at all. Google Chrome comes with an integrated version similar (yes, it's got a long way to go, but it's still pretty good) to Web Developer. And then there's Switchy! instead of FoxyProxy. And I wrote my own version of Redirector for Chrome. Oh, Xmarks? What's that? Google Chrome has that integrated into it, logging you in to your Google account, storing yout bookmarks on Google, etc.
Thank you for trolling Slashdot, have a nice day!

Re:Uh, not really

[valeo.de]

And how much of that is memory is shared between each "chrome" process? I'll give you a hint: quite a lot.

Re:Uh, not really

[valeo.de]

That's actually the only thing I miss about Firefox; the NoScript add-on. Chrome has extensions of course, and now also resource blocking. But being able to control which foreign scripts your browser executes is very nifty and, of course, helps with security (NoScript really should bbe mandatory for Windows Firefox users ;-)).

I'd be surprised if, in a year or so, there isn't such an extension for Chrome, though.

Re:Uh, not really

[seifried]

Chrome also lacks a proper firebug.

Re:Uh, not really

[maxwell demon]

logging you in to your Google account

That's one reason not to use Chrome. I don't have a Google account, and I don't want a Google account.

Re:Uh, not really

[macshit]

Yeah, and there are certainly places where FF is better than chrome -- e.g., both have similar "awesome bar" things, but FF's is hugely faster and better at coming up with appropriate matches than chrome's. This is not a small issue for me -- I've come to rely on the AB instead of using bookmarks (chrome's "blank page menu" thing is more user-friendly, but vastly more limiting).

I use both browsers -- FF at home, where my machine has lots of memory, and chrome at work, where memory restrictions make the ability to reclaim memory by closing tabs hugely convenient (though, despite that convenience, chrome seem to actually use a fair bit more memory than FF for equivalent tasks) -- so I think I have a generally balanced view of the two.

I'd say that although chrome is a slick browser with some really nice features (process-per-tab being the obvious one), it's kind of over-hyped in general, and it's hardly unambiguously better than FF (as many comments in this thread seem to be suggesting). Both are great browsers, and both will get better in the future; google's made it clear that they've no problem with FF stealing chrome's best features, and indeed hopes they do.

Xmarks

[warrax_666]

Xmarks lets you store bookmarks wherever you want instead of where Google wants. Plus, it's cross-browser.

Oh, and not everyone you disagree with is a troll.

Re:Uh, not really

[Low Ranked Craig]

what can Chrome do that Firefox can't?

Not crash.

Still waiting for...

[Lord Bitman]

Is everyone ever going to make an adblock-alike which, rather than "blocking" ads, just prioritizes them differently so I don't need to wait for fifty ads to load before I can view actual page content? I really don't mind ads. I'm okay with them. I don't want to block them, and I think people who do block them are assholes. But I don't want to wait for them.

Re:Still waiting for...

[Red_Chaos1]

I wholeheartedly agree with this, strictly in the "load after" sense. I cannot stand it when the content I am interested won't load because some overworked ad server is stalled.

That said, I'm also an "asshole" who blocks ads. Why? Because I don't care for the way they're shoved in my face constantly. I'm sorry, but I don't care how much you polish it, a turd is a turd, and I want nothing to do with it. Same goes for most ads. I really don't care about the product or service, and shoving it in my face with interstitial ads or flash pop-overs or whatever only makes me hate your brand even more.

I'm tired of being demonized when it's the advert companies who don't have a clue. Get it together, stop bludgeoning me with your dreck, and I might stop blocking it.

Re:Still waiting for...

[Lord Bitman]

Getting up during an ad, or flipping the channel, is equivalent to leaving a website whenever you see an ad. I have no problem with this.

Re:Still waiting for...

[Lord Bitman]

If you don't want to see the ad, don't go to the site.

Re:Still waiting for...

[Lord Bitman]

can't we come to a compromise?
  Assholes who fill websites with so many ads that the actual content is unreadable are Assholes.
  Assholes who install software to remove the ad-part while still viewing the content-part are Assholes.

If only one of those two assholes existed, evolution would probably take care of them a lot quicker.

Re:Still waiting for...

[MackieChan]

alright then if you wanna be a nitpicky nigra...are you an asshole if you use a DVR and fast-forward through commercials =P

You mean you don't have the ability to fast forward through web-ads? Man you need to get that extension!

Re:Still waiting for...

[Kijori]

Absolutely. What I want isn't an ad-blocker, just an "ad-controller"; I don't mind the adverts, I even understand that they're necessary - but I don't want them to completely stop me from doing what I came to do. If they could just load after (or concurrently with) the content instead of before, and not do anything that intercepts my mouse movements or slows my browser to a crawl I would be happy.

Some website owners don't seem to understand this. I recently emailed armorgames.com to explain that, while I understand their need for advertising and thoroughly support it as a business model, I was being forced to block the ads because they had become so aggressive that I couldn't play the games - they were so "busy" that they sometimes slowed the games down to a crawl, and if for a second your mouse strayed out of the game itself that was their cue to pop up massive, full-page videos with no way to close them until they'd fully loaded.

Their response: no reply, and they deleted my account. Really mature.

Re:Still waiting for...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to block them, and I think people who do block them are assholes. But I don't want to wait for them.

At almost $2 per megabyte of transfer, you best be paying ME to look at your ads.

Just because I block ads on my cellular modem does not make me an asshole. It does say something about your expectations however

Re:Still waiting for...

[1s44c]

Is everyone ever going to make an adblock-alike which, rather than "blocking" ads, just prioritizes them differently so I don't need to wait for fifty ads to load before I can view actual page content? I really don't mind ads. I'm okay with them. I don't want to block them, and I think people who do block them are assholes. But I don't want to wait for them.

How can you be OK with ads? It's humanly impossible to read text from a screen while 6 flashing ads are begging for attention.

Before ABP I used to stick post-it's to my screen just to cover them up. Ad blocking software is a big step forward.

Re:Still waiting for...

[pizzach]

I think people are generally thinking the wrong way. They need to make in unprofitable for specific kinds of adverts to be shown. Not block all adverts. This would mean turning off all gif animations and also using Flash block. When the only way that advertisers will be able to show you something is when they don't molest your eyes, things will change.

I can now scroll web pages semi-smoothly on my Atom notebook. Flash movies will usually actually play without the extra cpu load. I also don't have to worry about viruses from rogue Flash objects.

I will still see non-animating advertisements as well as adverts shown inside of flash movies. Seems like a good compromise to me. Avoiding specific websites tells the advertisers *nothing*.

Re:Still waiting for...

[1s44c]

everyone seems to have forgotten that matching customers with products is what advertising is all about.

Telling you over and over that you have to spend money on something you have no need of is what advertising is all about. Advertising is obnoxious in all its forms but I grant you that google's ads are the least obnoxious.

Re:Still waiting for...

[markdavis]

I wouldn't mind ads if they

1) Didn't slow down the network (AKA, loaded last or at least at the same time)
2) Didn't take up more than half the screen

But *MOST IMPORTANTLY*

3) DON'T CONTAIN *ANY* TYPE OF ANIMATION

I can't STAND movement on the screen when I am trying to read. It is extremely annoying. That is the #1 reason I block ads.

Re:Still waiting for...

[boxwood]

wow hyperbole much?

no one is saying that ad blocking should be illegal, just that its immoral. Or maybe I should fight hyperbole with hyperbole and say that you're suggesting that websites with ads should be illegal.

Also subscription based content has been tried and it failed. See salon.com for example. The problem with web content is that you don't know the quality of the content until after you've consumed it. but once you've consumed the content, you have no incentive to buy it. Ads are really the only effective way to pay for producing content on the web in all but a few cases.

If you ad-block you're leeching content and hurting the businesses that produce the content you enjoy.

Re:Still waiting for...

[Threni]

> If you ad-block you're leeching content and hurting the businesses that produce the content you enjoy.

What's the difference* between me not visiting a website, and visiting the site but with adblocking enabled? The page gets more hits if I go there (with blocking enabled) so the site owner can tell advertisers he has n visitors per month. I've been surfing since 1997 and I can tell you now that I have never, ever clicked on a single ad link, nor will I ever do so. I skip through ads on tv, or turn the sound off/make a drink etc when I'm watching live tv. I'm not one of those `what if everyone did that` people because it's a purely hypothetical question - about as much use as an analogy; certainly as much use as most of the analogies on Slashdot, anyway. Ads might have come a long way from large, full screen pop ups, dodgy animations which crash the browser etc, but they still animate and annoy me when I'm trying to read stuff.

For Google to be making loads of money from advertising then there must be a point in advertisers using websites, even if loads of people block them.

* to anyone

Re:Still waiting for...

[Red_Chaos1]

How in the fsck was that moderated as insightful? It's retarded.

People go to websites for the content, *not* the ads. So instead of saying "If you don't want to see the ad, don't go to the site." which is horribly broken logic, it should be thought "If you want your ads to be seen, don't clusterfuck the content." Content is #1. Advertising is #2. Any kind of arguing that puts the adverts first is suspect, IMO.

Re:Still waiting for...

[Idbar]

It's not about going or not to the site. It's about people thinking that you'll be appealed by a flashing smiley face that slows down the whole content. I think there should be a way of voting for ads in a page, people will get the ads they like and content providers could still put ads that are appealing to people.

Why would you want people to judge your great content by the crappy ad a third party decided to place on your page?

Re:Still waiting for...

[Idbar]

I think you have it wrong. If you go to check the content, why do you have to bear with annoying third party ads?

I know some revenue comes from ads, but viewers should have a way to discriminate ads, improve the site appearance and provide feedback to mediocre marketeers. What if your public TV decided to, instead of having 5 minute commercial breaks, add dancing bananas or jumping smiles in the middle of the screen when you're watching a show? That is disrupting and annoying and even if someone paid for those ads, sooner or later the TV station will realize that they need to take care of their customers and better select the ads they present.

Re:Still waiting for...

[Yer Mom]

Facebook has that (or, at least, they used to before I started accessing it through the iPhone app instead, which doesn't have ads).

If your status is "single" (hey, this is Slashdot...) you get dating ad after dating ad. Clicking the "thumbs down" button on all of them does nothing to change this.

The trouble with a voting system is that ad companies will consider even a poorly-rated ad to be preferable to no ad at all. Site visitors, of course, tend to take the opposite view.

Re:Still waiting for...

[mujadaddy]

Actually, when we (Fortune 200 web site) get requests to host ad scripts (doubleclick, google-analytics, etc.), the accompanying documentation requests that we place the scripts right after the body tag opens.

I, of course, tell them to fuck off and put them right before the body tag closes, but I'm sure lots and lots of other devs just play along.

Re:Still waiting for...

[Lord Bitman]

Who's putting the adverts first? I'm putting "don't go to broken sites and those sites will go away" first.

Re:Still waiting for...

[BillX]

I have ADHD, you insensitive clod :-)
But seriously. It's sad but true that some people, myself included, are much more easily defocused than the general population by things that blink, dance, flicker, float around and play music/speech while trying to read text. I for one can't wait until disallowing animated/flash/noisemaking ad-blocking is an ADA violation (or insert country-specific accessibility law here).

That said, I would have no issue with 'render off-screen' as opposed to outright blocking, so the site would still be paid for the impression without giving someone an epileptic fit.

Re:Uh, not really

[Jaknet]

logging you in to your Google account

That's one reason not to use Chrome. I don't have a Google account, and I don't want a Google account.

Not only that but the choice of Chrome... made by a money making company that wants to know everything about your web surfing habits to "serve you better adverts", or Firefox... made by an open source company which is not interested in serving adverts etc. makes it simple to stay with Firefox

Re:Uh, not really

[SwedishPenguin]

The developer tools for chrome has really caught up with firebug in the past year or so, it may even be the equivalent of firebug right now and it's built in.

a sad day

[spongman]

i hate to sound like Kyle Reese, but this is how it happens:

July 2010, Apple adds ad-blocking to WebKit.

it makes its way slowly into most popular web browsers cutting off the revenue stream for content publishers on the internet.

those publishers make a move onto one of several closed platforms originally designed for mobile platforms.

after an initial intense fight, a single closed platform dominates. the others fade away.

internet use drops significantly. only free content is available on it, and the mainstream views it increasingly as a refuge for subversives. most households disconnect.

April 3rd, 2017: the internet backbone is shut down.

premium content and visiting traffic moves predominantly to the closed platform.

Re: a sad day

[Linker3000]

SO you're saying this could be a rebirth call for Compuserve?

Re: a sad day

[elronxenu]

When does the system become sentient? Looking forward to the day.

Re: a sad day

[Fumus]

I know this is just an attention-seeking post, but I feel compelled to explain one thing. Namely, if you are connected to the Internet, you can host your own content. That's how the Internet works. I pay my ISP for both download and upload speed. Sure, the latter is always a magnitude slower so that the ISP can earn more on "corporate" connections, but I still can host my own website and am not upload amount capped.

Even if companies stop hosting content because they won't make any money on it, there still will be people who just host their own website as a hobby and do not care about profits from it nor that the download speed from it is capped at 32 KB/s. Websites should be about text and be light. A few small images and that's it. No front-page 10MB flash loading crap menu. As for big file hosting, that's what torrents are for.

Re: a sad day

[Shados]

Read the terms of services of your ISP carefully. Most (not all, so maybe you're lucky) have a clause with home service that state you cannot use it to host a a full fledged server (with legalese to separate a server in the technical sense from a server the way we talk about it).

In my case, my ISP goes a step further and blocks port 80 in upload. Obviously can just put the site on another port, but....

Re: a sad day

[Fumus]

I read through it every time they change it and nope, nothing about hosting. The only port they block is 21 (IIRC) to pretend they're fighting spambots.

What a sad world we live in where ISPs block port 80 to stop home users from hosting websites and home users not boycotting that.

Re: a sad day

[geminidomino]

The only port they block is 21 (IIRC) to pretend they're fighting spambots.

Either the spambots have started using FTP (slippery fuckers!) or you meant 25. ;)

Re: a sad day

[Shados]

Why, when I can get a pretty beefy (relatively speaking) VPS running Windows Server (cheaper if Linux!) for less than my monthly internet bill, with much higher bandwidth allowance and speed, and they manage security patches and whatsnot for me?

Who cares if my ISP blocks port 80 :)

Re: a sad day

[Fumus]

My bad for not checking that. You're right, of course.

Re: a sad day

[geminidomino]

Simple mistake. I just liked the idea of spambots ravaging FTP servers ("liked" in a rickety-roller coaster, scary-movie kind of way)

Re: a sad day

[Vektuz]

I'd be one of those subversives sitting on the ad-free internet, and enjoying every minute. Just like it was back before corporations took it over.

Re: a sad day

[spongman]

no, more like AOL. but without the internet.

Re: a sad day

[spongman]

i'm sorry but the internet is just like the airlines. 1st-class pays for coach.

check your ISPs level-1 peers. see any media companies represented there? the easiest way to kill bittorrent et al. ? kill the internet.

Re: a sad day

[evilviper]

it makes its way slowly into most popular web browsers cutting off the revenue stream for content publishers on the internet.

Firefox is more popular than all WebKit browsers, combined, yet we're still here.

internet use drops significantly. only free content is available on it, and the mainstream views it increasingly as a refuge for subversives. most households disconnect.

Let's take a look through the top 100 popular web sites:

7. Wikipedia
16. amazon.com
22. eBay.com
23. Microsoft
32. Craigslist
43. bbc.co.uk
45. Mozilla.com
46. adobe.com
49. apple.com
63. PayPal
92. New York Times
93. Pirate Bay
96. Alibaba.com

Waddaya know... More than 10% of the top websites, are in fact NOT ad-supported. And if we count all the (mostly Google and spin-offs) sites that have text-only ads, that list would balloon.

And even that is only in a world where ad-blocking is PERFECT and absolute. Instead, expect ads to change. Maybe YouTube/Hulu becomes the future business model, with ads embedded in Flash videos... Or maybe ads just have to get complex. No more "banner" or "ads" in the path to the banner ad of pre-defined dimensions, on a separate server from the rest of the content.

Frankly, ads have gone horribly overboard. A static, or even slowly-animated banner is fine. 5 banners, plus on-hover pop-ups, plus "Premium" links, is not. Advertisers not paying enough? Skip the one-size fits all, canned affiliate programs. Advertisers still want to pay 0.000001 USD per click? Convince them they NEED you, and those who are smart enough get a privileged position and cut through the obscurity of ad noise. Too much work for you? Too damn bad.

    I think it's time for an ad revolt, where companies have to establish a relationship with their customers, and try to entice them to disable ad-blocking on that particular site, instead of trying harder to force them down everyone's throats.

Re: a sad day

[spongman]

yeah, i hate ads too, but like them or not they pay for the web.

if you wanted to gain a large slice of online revenue, you could:

1) create your own, closed platform
2) entice content creators to your platform by banning non-compliant software
2) effectively ban other ad publishers from using that platform, forcing advertisers to go through you
3) make it hard for web publishers to make money by adding ad- to the platform's web browser.

Re: a sad day

[cheesybagel]

I think it is more likely that you will see site specific advertising, like in the early days of the web, instead of doubleclick.com and similar crapola.

If the ad files come from the same domain name of the content, and seem like content to the browser, filters stop working properly.

Re:Uh, not really

[daveime]

There is a difference between an application that uses memory as cache (when needed) and releases it afterwards, and something ike Firefox that just allocates and allocates even when you have closed 19 of your 20 tabs, and it's still holding on to half a gig or more, causing excessive swapping when you need to alt-tab to something else.

Re:Uh, not really

[SmilingBoy]

Chrome Smooth Gestures Extension: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/lfkgmnnajiljnolcgolmmgnecgldgeld

Re:Uh, not really

[hairyfeet]

Do you still have to use some behind the curve hacked version to keep all your data from being sent to Google? Because Google's data mining and installing "updaters" that refuse to uninstall with the app made it a non starter for me. Does it have an easy way to allow some scripts but not others? A FEBE style backup? Imagezoom? Something like iMacros that makes automating the things I do trivial? A downloadhelper that will put videos in folder a and executables in folder b?

While Chrome has the buzz right now, too many things like data mining made me uncomfortable with it. And FF is simple enough with its extension framework that even my 67 year old clueless dad has his FF customized. I know everyone talks about its JavaScript engine, but seeing how many "malware o' the day" uses JavaScript I'd prefer NOT to load a bunch of unapproved JavaScript really fast, thanks anyway. And side by side I really can tell a difference anyway, as both load a page as fast as I can click. So while I wish anything that isn't IE the best of luck, for me and my customers it'll be FF for the foreseeable future.

Re:Uh, not really

[digitig]

Every reason people used to give in favor of Firefox now applies to Chrome, times ten.

What? Zotero is now available on Chrome? Ah, no, apparently not.

What's AdBlock?

[L4t3r4lu5]

I installed Privoxy. Doesn't matter which browser I use now.

Re:What's AdBlock?

[Abcd1234]

It's a tool that let's you easily, selectively block ads right in the browser, rather than having to install and configure a separate piece of software. Given the choice between an in-browser and separate, proxy-based solution, the answer is really very obvious, particularly if you (like me) want to be able to easily enable ads on sites you want to support.

Re:What's AdBlock?

[somenickname]

Privoxy does a good job but, even with the web-based "gui" for configuration, it's probably too complicated/inconvenient for most people. Without a point and click "Block this" and a blacklist that auto-updates, it takes a lot more effort than using a good browser integrated ad blocker.

However, one benefit that was true last time I benchmarked it was that privoxy was significantly faster at filtering a page than, for example, AdBlock Plus. It's also useful if you have it running as an intercepting proxy on a household/company router with very moderate settings. You can prevent a lot of badness from entering your company/home with no interaction on the users part. All they will notice is that the internet is much faster.

Re:Any system that has an IP stack has a HOSTS fil

[KiloByte]

And for the rest, you can do this at the DNS level. In fact, analyzing the logs of a small local ISP I consluted for, 25 freaking percent of all http connections go to domains that absolutely don't deserve being resolved. Hijacking these not only makes you save bandwidth, but also is good for your customers' mental well-being.

Censoring "subversive sites", porn, etc is not only evil but also makes customers upset. Yet censoring doubleclick.com is something no free speech advocate is going to object to.

Re:Uh, not really

[digitig]

Chrome is much less stable than Firefox here. Even with loads of Firefox addins, no Chrome ones.

Re:Uh, not really

[digitig]

Read further down in the comments on this article: "With noscript enabled I reckon about 70% of the sites load without trouble and they load FAST."

Re:Uh, not really

[lga]

Xmarks has a Chrome version. I use it to stay synchronized between FireFox and Chrome.

Re:Uh, not really

[ijakings]

Its not really a troll... He is putting forward reasons why he thinks Firefox is a better browser. Then you have put forward reasons why you think that isnt the case. Although wheras the OP has done it in a mature and reasonable way, youve resorted to sarcasm and direct attacks.

This isnt trolling, this is a discussion on the relative merits for two platforms. If you think thats what trolling is and respond in a similar way all the time your colleagues must have a fun time.

I personally use Firefox as my primary, but ill freely admit its got its problems, which is why I keep Chrome, Safari and Opera installed. Along with needing to ensure consistency across those platforms.

Exactly!

[dreamchaser]

Thank you. If I hadn't just gotten rid of my mod points I'd mod you up. People are all about wanting 'free' web content, but they aren't willing to let the ads that pay for said content to load? That is indeed an assholish thing to do, or at the very least quite selfish.

Re:Exactly!

[icebraining]

I don't use adblock, but playing Devil's advocate, most ads only "pay for content" if you actually click them. If you won't, then you're not helping pay for the content, you're just wasting the advertisers and your own bandwidth.

Re:Exactly!

[drinkypoo]

I want free content without ads. I'm more than willing to let sites die if they can't provide me with this. Life is too short to subject yourself to unnecessary advertising. I create free web content without ads, so I put my effort where my mouth is. Hmm, that doesn't sound right...

Re:Exactly!

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue is not that black-and-white. Back when I first got onto the Internet, ads were limited to a banner at the top and maybe another one on the side rail. They were barely animated, and they didn't make noise. They were just there, not bothering anyone but the most anti-consumer pricks. That peaceful time on the ad front was short-lived, as advertisers weren't happy with just letting their ads stay in the normal rotation. No, they needed to start engaging in a loudness war. First it was pop-ups... slightly annoying but easy to deal with. Then the banner ads started getting more animated, and some advertisers discovered that they could add sound. Well, that created another loudness war, with flash-driven ads trying to yell over each other. Of course, once pop-up blockers got popular, they moved to using positioned divs to circumvent them.

I currently have an ad blocker on my web browser. I put it there because of this escalation of annoyance. You can't just say "don't go to those sites" because nearly every site has them. Sure, the web-masters have a little control over pulling the more abusive ones out of the rotation, but that takes time and when you have an abusive ad on your site driving away readers, time is not on your side. The only alternative is ad-blocking. Now, that alternative isn't as big a false dilemma as you would think. I have a system that I use for blocking that I think is fair for everyone who acts in good faith. I start with the recommended filter that AdBlock Plus gives you. Then, I periodically disable it for my regular sites. I note which ad services are behaving and I add them to the whitelist. Of course, if they start to get annoying, I just remove them from the whitelist and use whatever means of reporting abusive ads that the webmaster provides. The webmaster still gets ad revenue from me and I only have to suffer an occasional annoying ad. Maybe if more people did that it would provide a disincentive to produce loud, obnoxious ads.

Re:Exactly!

[RedHat Rocky]

Selling MY EYEBALLS to others marks an asshole in my book.

I'll see what I wish, thanks.

Re:Exactly!

[bonch]

This is a site with a readership that takes a strict pro-piracy stance, so of course they're selfishly going to be in favor of free web content. Everything is "me, me, me."

Re:Uh, not really

[popo]

Chrome has Xmarks, btw. I use it to sync my bookmarks between FF and Chrome.

And Web Developer is cool, but Chrome has pretty awesome Firebug style debugging built in.

its an arms race

[circletimessquare]

there already exist pages that will not load the genuine content until the page actually responds with verification that the ad content has loaded in the browser

the ad content will say send a code via ajax back to the server: "i'm now alive in the browser, showing dancing mortgage seekers... ok send the article"

if enough people block ads, this will be the norm

i'm annoyed by intrusive ads and interstitials and articles broken out over 15 pages like everyone else, but the publisher needs to make cash to keep publishing the content you want, and they will feel the pressure to escalate the arms race. hopefully they will understand their ads shouldn't be too intrusive, but its been my experience that sites where the ads are too intrusive are sites without any content worth my time anyways

you don't really have to block ads, you just have to find quality sites

Re:its an arms race

[DCstewieG]

articles broken out over 15 pages like everyone else

You should give Safari 5's Reader feature a chance. I read a 12 page article with no interruption, effortlessly. It's beautiful.

Re:its an arms race

[Fnkmaster]

Publishers don't have to make ads that are so annoying. The more annoying you make the ads, the greater percentage of people will go through the effort to block them. If you keep ads relatively unobtrusive and low-key, 85% of people won't bother blocking them. This arms race was *not* started by evil consumers intent on destroying revenue streams. It was started by the *massive* escalation in annoying, blinking, animated awful advertising, popups, popunders, and all that destructive shit that took over the web and nearly destroyed it a decade ago.

It's funny how people have nearly forgotten about just how abusive it was. I mean, it was really, really disgusting. The web had become a complete crapware fest before popup blocking and adblocking became standard.

So many website operators demonstrated their complete willingness to shit all over the public that they forced our hands into using tools that default to block everything ad-like.

If these website operators can prove that they can be responsible about the kind of ads they run and the way they run them, then we'll change our tune. For example, I've enabled ads on Slashdot (I have the option, as do most long-time users) and disabled AdBlock on slashdot.org so that I can get ads and help pay the bills around here. I still leave Flashblock on because I hate Flash ads that screw with my browsing experience, but don't mind static ads at all. In fact, Slashdot is one of the few places I've ever seen ads that actually interest me.

Perhaps the future is some sort of contractual browsing experience - you go to a new site, and they want to advertise to you. They use a script to detect that you have ad-blocking enabled. Now, what they *should* do is display a page explaining that their ads pay the bills and requesting that you whitelist them to show you ads - in exchange, they promise not to spread malware or run obtrusive animated ads.

What's missing here is a mechanism for enforcement and trust. Right now I allow ads from Slashdot because it's a known, community-focused site that I visit a lot, and I trust that the editors won't spread crapware or barrage me with terrible ads, lest they lose their community entirely. The fact that the editors have chosen to allow me to opt out of ads entirely if I wish just goes to show they are good trustworthy folks. But with a random site I'm visiting once or twice, I have no reason to trust them to run ads, display Flash or Javascript or anything else that they could potentially abuse.

Re:its an arms race

[david_thornley]

Then, if I go to the site, I see nothing useful, and go away permanently. That solves the problem, both for the content and the ads.

I don't use ad blocking. I do use NoScript. That means that if somebody puts a reasonable ad on a web page, I'll see it. If it's pay-per-view, or it's pay-per-click and by some odd coincidence it appeals to me (they usually don't), the site gets ad revenue. If they insist on Javascript, or they're too annoying in other ways, they don't.

Re:its an arms race

[evilviper]

the ad content will say send a code via ajax back to the server: "i'm now alive in the browser, showing dancing mortgage seekers... ok send the article"

Adblock already has a mode that will download the ad content, it just won't display it to the user. Privoxy and the like have long had modes to "replace" banners with 1-pixel blank images. etc.

The ad-blocking side is far more advanced than those fighting it, and with the user in control of the computer, the deck is heavily stacked in our favor.

Re:It's had gestures for quite a while

[MackieChan]

FWI, it's had gestures for quite a while. A quick extensions search pulls up 10 results that are all related to mouse gestures. I remember using gestures unofficially almost right when it came out, and officially soon after.

Re: NO

[MackieChan]

Almost, but not quite. There shouldn't be a comma before "and" in the first sentence. The remainder of the sentence, "may have had the ability for some time", isn't an independent clause.

I wait 2 years before my first slashdot post, proofread it multiple times, have my girlfriend proofread it, and then get an "impeccable grammar" praise.

Then you have to come along and take it all away.

Damn you I say, damn you Mr. 4 digit! ...I'm going back to my corner now...

Re:Any system that has an IP stack has a HOSTS fil

[icebraining]

What you're describing is exactly how this new adblocker (as Firefox's adblocker always has) works: it blocks the ads *before* the browser tries to fetch them. So no fetch, no DNS request.

And the HOSTS file is more insecure as a solution because it either:

1) Has no update mechanism
or
2) Has update mechanism that depends on a daemon that requires access to the internet *and* access to important files like HOSTS.

While this adblocker only requires access to browser profile files.

I'd like to know if....

[Joce640k]

I'd like to know if "Resource-blocking" applies to scripts as well.

eg. If Chrome can block both scripts and images from doubleclick.net then this feature could be 99% of what most people want from a junk-blocker.

(No, I can't be bothered to go and investigate for myself)

NoScript usage

[Per Abrahamsen]

> Why would you want to use No Script?

To make web sites readable. I can't read text when there is stuff moving around the screen screaming for my attention.
AdBlock would do 95% of the same, but the ads pay for the content, so I don't like to block them.

> In fact a lot of sites would be crippled by it.

Permanently deblocking a trusted site is a one mouse click-and-drag operation. You can also temporarily deblock a site, or a single object.

> Really there's no benefit here besides feeding one's paranoia.

That's not my main reason, but I admit that it makes me feel safer clicking links on sites like reddit (/. has a better, if slower, screening process).

Re:Uh, not really

[Joce640k]

Every script loaded is a new IP connection.

On many sites that's ten or twenty new connections for each page...bound to slow you down.

(But yeah, 'speed' isn't why I disable scripts...)

Re:Uh, not really

[xtracto]

I still use Firefox for work; mainly for one reason:
TreeStyle Tabs.

Re:Somehow I fail to see the "more exciting part"

[icebraining]

Vimperator, VideoDownloadHelper, AutoPager, Greasemonkey, NoScript, Stylish, Mobile Barcoder, Scrapbook, Aardvark and Cookie Exporter: my main reason to stick with Firefox.

The Mozilla Manifesto: my second reason.

Re:Uh, not really

[icebraining]

Yeah, and that all "one tab doesn't affect the others" is bull: VLC plugin running on one tab, crashes, locks up not only all the tabs, as all the Chrome windows if you have more than one open.

Re:Uh, not really

[jaymz666]

It doesn't even do that, I regularly see a 3-400MB chrome process. and that's just one tab

Re:Uh, not really

[gmack]

I can't switch until Chrome duplicates the Firefox cookie controls. Say what you want about the speed but Chrome still has the worst cookie controls of any of the major browsers.

That may be why they are doing it

[Sycraft-fu]

So, if Google makes a good ad blocking system that is included by default, many people will just use that. That means they can control what it does, and what defaults it has. Thus maybe by default it only blocks annoying ads. It stops interstitials, animated crap, popups/unders and so on. However it permits text ads and simple banner ads, which is what Google does. So people say "Ahh this is nice, the Internet isn't annoying," and don't go looking for anything else, or even adjusting the settings.

You have to remember many people don't hate ads, what they hate is ANNOYING ads. I personally don't mind ads, sometimes they are even interesting. I don't run ad block because I appreciate sites need to make money. However I do run Flashblock because I hate annoying ads and that's what they usually are. I hate ads that interrupt my browsing, or that put a heavy load on my system. So an adblock software that just blocks the annoying shit would be ok in my book.

If they include nothing, people have to look elsewhere. Maybe what they get is an app written by a "No ads at all ever," kind of zealot that just straight blocks everything, including Google. that hurts them, of course.

As such by being pragmatic about it, they can have a measure of control over it. If they just try to pretend it doesn't exist, they may get something they don't want.

Re:That may be why they are doing it

[LordLimecat]

You know, there are some good points in your post, but its really irritating that the general vibe seems to still be "google has some hidden agenda".
I mean, at every step of the way of Chrome's evolution, people have been absolutely digging for reasons not to like it, and for Google to be up to some nefarious plot with it--

• First, they complained that the EULA said "Google pwns ur stuff". Googles legal team set the record straight, that died down
• Then the claim was that everything in google passes through googles servers (which may be true in default installs, but is also true for IE's default search for MS, and Firefox's for Yahoo or Google). This myth remains, DESPITE the easy 3 click "turn on privacy plz" checkboxes.
• Then the claim was that adblock will NEVER be done properly, because Google relies on ad revenue. Adblock is now done properly (save a few bugs), and yet people find even in that something to criticize.

This might come across as shilling, or fanboyism, or whatever. Yes, I like google products, cause they tend to be well done, but I dont delude myself that theyre not out for profit. What I DONT get, is why, when EVERYONE knows their business model, which is basically "make the web really powerful, and monetize the hell out of ads", they still act like theres hidden evil stuff going on. Is there anything Google can do that WONT garner cries of "hum, another big evil corporation trying to stomp on consumers"? Is it possible that their business model really is just to be really good at what they do?

Re:Uh, not really

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. The script debugger is so-so (I still prefer Firebug's, but Chrome's is ok), the resource tracker is nice, but Chrome's DOM inspector is terrible. The interface for modifying DOM properties is klunky, and on Firebug I can assign a shortcut to toggle the click-to-inspect feature, which I really miss on Chrome - it makes me click the button to toggle click-to-inspect, alt-tab to the webpage window, and the select the element to inspect. It's convoluted.

Re:Uh, not really

[IBBoard]

Behind the curve? I'm on Linux, which was always the poor cousin in the early days, and Chromium is ahead of the curve because it is the development version (I'm running 6.0.457.0 and saw a site that said I didn't have a "latest version" of Chrome or Firefox the other day because it said they didn't official support development builds).

that cuts both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't want me to see your site for free, don't put it on the internet.

Re:Uh, not really

[realityimpaired]

I find Chrome is faster in a multi-core environment. While that's most computers these days, I still have some systems where Firefox does tend to run faster... specifically, on my netbook which is capped at 2 cores, and on the PC I have to struggle with at work, where they're so cheap that they're still using CRT monitors. (one of these days I'm going to go to my eye doctor and get a note pointing out that the CRT is bad for my eyesight and that I have a medical requirement for something that was built within the last 10 years)

I use Chrome on my laptop, which is a quad-core hyperthreading Core i7 processor, because it's *significantly* faster than FF in that situation, especially when I have multiple tabs open.

Re:Uh, not really

[tenco]

A lot of netbooks (like mine) come with 1GB of RAM. I tried to use Chrome on that machine but it would always start swapping after a few hours of continous usage. Number of open tabs didn't matter - Chrome would happily eat 400MB and more of RAM with only ~5 tabs open. So I went back to FF and never had an issue since then. I would really like to use Chrome, but I can't.

Re:Uh, not really

[tenco]

Sorry, but that's exactly the behaviour I've never seen with FF but with Chrome. Maybe it's depended on architecture, I'm on 32-bit.

Re:Uh, not really

[Anpheus]

What settings are missing?

Re:Uh, not really

[internettoughguy]

Chromium is also open source, so there is plenty of oversight into what is going on under the hood, just as with FF (funded mostly by Google anyway). Honestly I don't care for the silly debate, it makes no difference what browser you use, so long as its up to date, and not Internet Explorer.

Re:Uh, not really

[drinkypoo]

Say what you want about the speed but Chrome still has the worst cookie controls of any of the major browsers.

This is certainly the biggest failure of Chrome for the power user today. I thought I had a Chrome problem last night but it was silverlight. (Netflix) But the lack of proper cookie control is mind-boggling. They don't even want to tell me what site failed to set a cookie so I can go edit my list in some sane way.

The Internet without advertisers

[ThrowAwaySociety]

It may shock some people, but there was an Internet (and a web) before there were commercially supported websites.

It was smaller, but it worked just fine. In fact, it worked beautifully. Many of us want it back.

Re:The Internet without advertisers

[spongman]

you may want to get it back. but you're not going to get the DoD grants back to pay for it.

trust me, it'll become the digital version of the survivalist militia. a place where copyright and anti-terrorism laws are regularly broken. the media companies and law enforcement (they will have merged into a single entity by then) will lobby to have it shut down.

You wouldn't rob a bank.

[electrosoccertux]

You wouldn't steal a movie.
So why would you steal webpages?
Blocking ad content is stealing.

Re:Uh, not really

[gmack]

With firefox I can set a default of "keep until: I close minefield" and then whitelist the cookies I want to keep. This is a lot different from just refusing cookies because all of the sites I use will still function correctly.

FireBug!

[Khomar]

If you like Web Developer, you really should check out FireBug. It is truly an amazing tool available only for Firefox that allows you to debug JavaScript code, inspect elements, make changes on the fly -- basically Web Developer on steroids. The only limitation at this point is that it does not appear to work with the new Firefox yet. Hopefully it will be compatible before the new version comes out of beta.

This tool if for no other reason will ensure that Firefox is always on my machine even if I use Chrome for day-to-day browsing.

Re:FireBug!

[xororand]

Thank you and all the others who replied. I wasn't particularly anti-Chrome* before this thread but now I'm actually curious, with Xmarks & WebDev-like functionality being available. I shall try Chrome or Chromium later today! :)

Snore! Firefox vs. Chrome is not exciting.

[Kaz Kylheku]

Excitement about browsers is 1990's.

Re:Snore! Firefox vs. Chrome is not exciting.

[DCstewieG]

I feel I've been trolled, but Microsoft beating Netscape into submission was not nearly as exciting as the 5 way competition we have now.

Re:Uh, not really

[AvitarX]

I've had flash crashes make it so that any time I changed pages I got Aw Snap until restarting the entire browser.

But I'm using Chromium 5 on Linux 64-bit, so it's not exactly a high priority platform. And flash crashes always crash firefox, in Chromium it is only about 1/3 the time.

Re:Uh, not really

[xororand]

Thanks for the note! Having Xmarks available is a nice perspective. It looks like I will try Chrome or Chromium sooner than I expected.

Re:10 points in favor of HOSTS files vs adblock on

[silanea]

And that's adblock's MAIN problem: It's limited to single browsers only, and doesn't cover other programs that are also potentially threatened by bad sites or scripts even such as email programs that use HTML, like Outlook etc.

Using daemons?? Not needed in HOSTS files. Where do you get your misinformation from???

Also, to update adblock???? You also need internet access also!

Oh my, is apk still around? Aren't you getting bored of spreading your hosts file nonsense?

1. Adblock Plus is available for Firefox, Thunderbird, SeaMonkey, Mozilla Mobile and even SongBird, so your mail client and media player are ad-free, too. It offers an extension to the Mozilla Sync service, allowing you to share filters across devices.
2. Requiring internet access to update Adblock is so much worse than obtaining and updating your hosts file from online sources as per your advice under 6. exactly how?

(Disclaimer: Yes, I know who that guy is and that discussion is futile. I am bored. Let me poke the troll. Brightens up the day every time.)

Re:Uh, not really

[shellbeach]

Do you still have to use some behind the curve hacked version to keep all your data from being sent to Google? Because Google's data mining and installing "updaters" that refuse to uninstall with the app made it a non starter for me.

Erm, it's called Chromium, and it's kinda more ahead of the curve than behind it, since it's what Chrome is based upon. (Google just adds its data-mining crap to the OSS Chromium code base in order to release Chrome.) So if you use Chromium, you get all of the good stuff and none of the Google rubbish. It's also worth remembering that Chromium's sandboxing of tabs provides some level of security against web malware exploits, even if it can't replace all that noscript offers.

But I've got no dispute with your other comments. And until Chromium makes --enable-vertical-tabs work under linux, it'll never replace Firefox for me in a million years. It's a viable browser alternative for the less computer-literate, though, and I often wish Firefox had the lithe memory footprint of Chromium, rather than one of a giant elephantine beast ...

Re:Uh, not really

[Bert64]

Use chromium instead of chrome, anything unwanted like data mining you can hack out of the source...

I don't have the google updater because i installed chromium on linux using the package manager and the updater would be totally redundant in this situation.

Mind control is NOT okay.

[Fantastic Lad]

Anybody who subjects themselves willingly to advertising has completed the program; they are now "Consumers" and not people.

Unsolicited advertising is evil. Period. It destroys cultures. It destroys societies.

Did you know that women who shave their armpit hair do so because one razor blade company realized that they could double their sales if they could get women the use their product along with men? So they began an ad campaign which explained that body hair was "dirty", people believed it, and now women in the West shave their armpits. We now, as a culture, because a razor blade company wanted money, have an entirely altered body image. The base programming of our minds is different because of advertising. This is just one of many, many cases. Advertising is a giant mind-fuck; it studies human herd behavior and taps into the worst automatic elements inside us all and punches those buttons mercilessly with one goal; to subvert human culture for profit.

Unsolicited advertising is anti-human, anti-life and it is NOT an acceptable or necessary evil.

If I want to know about your product, then I will seek out a forum where your items are listed. I have no problem with that. There are plenty of healthy ways to get the message out, of sharing NEWS of your efforts in the business world without having to attack the mind.

And the argument regarding revenue for web content is nonsense anyway; People who are willing to look at ads due to a sense of moral duty, (and that side of their behavior is wonderful, and I applaud it), are perfectly capable and generally quite willing to hit a "Donate" button every now and again, or of buying a product from their favorite content providers to help support their efforts. That's perfectly acceptable behavior. They give something back.

But unsolicited adverts are NOT cool. They are designed to take without asking, and they do messed up shit to the human brain as a result.

-FL

Re:Uh, not really

[Miseph]

It doesn't Firefox's live bookmark RSS interface, which I prefer to every other way of doing RSS I've encountered.

Oh, and Firefox doesn't spy on you or interfere with anonymity (at least not that anyone knows about).

I guess if somebody put that feature into SRWare Iron I would switch (back, again) in an instant.

Custom browsers, anyone?

[Corson]

In the mobile market, apps may become custom web browsers. A fully featured web browser is a burden to the mobile device. Otherwise, Google Chrome is somewhat interesting because of its multitreaded feature but to me the hidden GoogleUpdater is annoying so I uninstalled Chrome.

"Firefox vs Chrome just got a bit more exciting."

[Snaller]

But not a lot, its still a pathetically primitive browse, way behind Firefox. Still can't increase font sizes but zooms the entire page like it was a picture, thereby discriminating against millions of people who don't have the eyes of a 20 year old.

Re:Uh, not really

[mldi]

Apart from not using all my memory, what can Chrome do that Firefox can't?

Load pages really, really, really fast.

Re:Uh, not really

[at_slashdot]

http://www.3outube.com/ works fine too, no extension needed. Granted, I download Youtube videos only very seldom.

nice tip

[circletimessquare]

i'll check it out

Re:Uh, not really

[icebraining]

My problems were on Windows 7 32bit.

Re:Uh, not really

[IamTheRealMike]

The (open source) Chrome updater doesn't "refuse to install". Wait an hour or two after the last Google program using it has been uninstalled, it'll wake up to do an update check, discover it has nothing to do and remove itself.

Re:Uh, not really

[hairyfeet]

You know, I really don't get the "FF is a memory piggy" meme. If we were talking about the 2.xx branch I'd agree with you, as it did have a memory leak, but I run FF for days on end on this little 1.8GHz Sempron I use as a netbox, and it only has 1.5Gb of RAM and FF isn't a piggy at all. I've got nearly a dozen extensions, plus half a dozen tabs open, and I'm using a whole 84Mb. Big whoop.

So I just don't get it. Are you using one of those really niche extensions like Firebug? Because last I heard that one still leaks, but you can't really blame FF because a third party extension leaks, anymore than you would blame Apple if someone wrote a bad app for OSX. You think as many developers that use Firebug they'd have fixed the thing by now, oh well. But here is the list of what I'm running on 84Mb of RAM-ABP,Dloadstatusbar,Dloadhelper,FEBE,Forecastfox,iMacros,Imagezoom,nightlytestertools,NoScript,Distrust . I'm running all that and only using 84Mb of RAM with a half dozen tabs. That is pretty dang good memory management in my book.

Re:Uh, not really

[xeoron]

I just wish the widgets were as customizable in placement as Firefox is. I have only been able to place widgets in Chrome in the same region that address/search bar is, which I don't want to do, nor can have I found a way to move them their order around.

Re:Uh, not really

[Joe Snipe]

Book mark sync? Try deleting one.

Re:Uh, not really

[pdusen]

I don't suppose you have benchmarks to back up your claim that Opera "thrashes" Chrome? Because that hasn't been my experience. Also, I'm not familiar with the term "thrashes", what percent of improvement does that denote?

Re:Uh, not really

[Dremth]

I have 1GB of RAM in my netbook as well and I regularly use Chrome with 10+ tabs open without any problem at all.

Re:Uh, not really

[Kinwolf]

Apart from not using all my memory, what can Chrome do that Firefox can't?

Load /. and let you click on another tab while it loads.

Re:Uh, not really

[Tubal-Cain]

Built-in Javascript control on par with NoScript. And my computer doesn't freeze up for a few seconds when I'm manipulating several dozen bookmarks.

Re:Any system that has an IP stack has a HOSTS fil

[LordLimecat]

HOSTS files are messy, require admin to update, and can be a PITA to troubleshoot why X feature on Y website doesnt work, not to mention that they can severely impact network lookups. Theyre a really really kludgy hack.

Re:Uh, not really

[denis-The-menace]

I would love to use Xmarks but it talks back to the mothership about where you've been. (Maybe a firewall rule could fix that...)

Also, what happens when you have 2 or more browsers open on different computer and 2 or browsers add a bookmark. Do they merge or does the last one to update "win"?

Re:Somehow I fail to see the "more exciting part"

[cheesybagel]

When Google Chrome cannot do the simplest things like smooth scrolling, or remembering the page position 100% of the time as I navigate backwards and forwards in the browsing history (even IE does this properly), I stick with Firefox.

Re:Uh, not really

[halltk1983]

Run a Kill-a-Watt on one of the big monitors and an LCD. Show how the power savings would pay for the new monitors in X months. Show how after that, it's completely increased profits.

They don't care about your eyes. Forcing them to change something for you makes them resent you. However, if you can save them money, now you're an asset.

Re:Uh, not really

[halltk1983]

I wouldn't say it thrashes it...

http://lifehacker.com/5352195/browser-speed-tests-chrome-40-and-opera-10-take-on-all-challengers

Re:Still waiting for... Real life ?

[Lord Bitman]

Let's actually put this into real life:
Don't like huge flashing signs? Stay out of Times Square. This logic works for millions of people every day,

And who the fuck mentioned rights?
You have the right, as in an actual inalienable right which no one has any authority to ever take away from you, to mangle whatever content you recieve on the internet and re-format it however you wish.

I have a right to call you an asshole for doing so, because I'd prefer you just stayed off the site if you don't want to look at it.

Re:Uh, not really

[shellbeach]

Half-a-dozen tabs is where you go wrong. Try with a hundred and then talk to me about piggies.

That said, FF is using 140Mb right now with only nine tabs open (I have about the same number of extensions as you do running, maybe a few more on one box, a few less on another; adblock, treestyletabs, neodiggler, livehttpheaders, personalmenu and noscript are the main ones). FF also has some very suspiciously memory-leak-esque issues in my hands -- open a hundred tabs, close them all, and the memory footprint is much larger than a fresh instance; keep the browser running for days and watch the memory grow. This could be due to extensions, but I'm a little concerned about this as FF spent more energy in its early days denying the existence of memory leaks (which turned out to be there nonetheless) than actually trying to find and fix them.

FWIW, my experience with Chromium -- which has been limited, admittedly -- is that Chromium has a smaller memory footprint than FF. That, and FF's extraordinarily buggy and laggy "awesome" bar, are the only reasons why I'd ever consider switching to Chromium.

I'm a big FF fan ... but I still remember the early, heady days of Phoenix 0.1, when the aim was to make the browser as sleek and as small as possible. Maybe they forgot to turn left at Albuquerque ...?

Resource...

[BillX]

Alas, by 'resources' the article is referring to page elements. Still waiting for the extension that can throttle on a per-plugin basis (*cough*FLASH*cough*) to say, 10% CPU across all its running instances.

Re:Resource...

[BillX]

(Not to mention block in-browser access to specific resources such as my soundcard...)

Re:Uh, not really

[SanityInAnarchy]

It still adds up to more than Firefox, last I tested it. That's more or less what I'd expect, and I still think it's well worth it.

It also does (or at least did, for awhile) a trick where it often opens related tabs in the same process, especially anything from middleclick+new tab is likely to. I would much rather actually have one process per tab, but I don't know how to do that.

Re:Uh, not really

[SanityInAnarchy]

I'm using Chrome 5 (stable) on Linux 64-bit. Occasionally a tab crashes or otherwise misbehaves, and I can kill it. Haven't seen "aw snap" in months, haven't seen the browser itself die since alpha.

Yes, I'm using Flash.

I hardly use other browsers long enough to really know, but back when I made the switch, Flash was crashing everything quite often. Konqueror was one process per window, so a crash would bring down that window and all the tabs in it. Firefox, well, one plugin acts up and the whole browser is down.

I also don't have the VLC plugin enabled, so maybe that's it. (I figure, why bother, it has a builtin player (html5), if that's not enough, I'll download the video and use mplayer.)

If you still have that switch pages = aw snap issue, I wonder if killing the Flash plugin helps? I know I do that occasionally -- though less often over time, maybe Adobe is trying to clean up their act.

Re:Uh, not really

[hairyfeet]

Well I tried with 83 tabs, sorry but I wasn't gonna keep opening tabs. I went from 105Mb to...123Mb from a high of 429Mb with 86 (I already had three including this) open. Did you look at your cache settings? Because by default FF will cache closed tabs for awhile in case you want to undo. If you normally run 100+ for days, which admittedly isn't something the Moz developers test for since Joe and Sally maybe have a dozen tops, you might want to go into about.config and tweak a little.

So while I have no doubt your are having that problem, and I sympathize as I on occasion tend to push some of my software a little hard (I don't know how many times I've crashed Audacity with funky effects) you have to admit that 100+ tabs for days isn't something most folks will normally do, so the defaults probably don't take that behavior into account. So you might want to go in and tweak FF a little, so that behaves a little better with your style. Personally that is one of the things that have kept me on FF, is that between extensions and about.config you can pretty much do anything with it. Anyway here is a guide to get you started, and I personally use the trim on minimize tweak myself. But between that link and this one you should have plenty of settings to try. Have you posted talkback so the devs know? Can't fix what you don't know about, although I agree they should have come clean on FF 2.x. And you can turn off the awesome bar if it slows you down.

Re:Uh, not really

[laddiebuck]

And where's tabkit (vertical and tree tabs), sessionmanager, readability, skipscreens, imacros, greasemonkey (alright, Opera's got that too), firebug, and those are just the general-purpose useful extensions I happen to use. The Firefox addon world is simply tremendous; Chrome is a little kid's browser to a power user. Chrome is "ready" for all the folks who got by on IE and needed nothing more, but for anyone who needs to get more out of their browser (even if only occasionally) it's still way, way behind.

Re:silanea: Having trouble disproving the 10 point

[silanea]

You his brother? You sure write exactly like him, sans the retarded misuse of special chars and punctuation. Does not matter anyway, one AC is as good as another.

Besides, you have yet to respond to my two points. I challenged two of your claims. So what is your reply to what I said previously? Especially the second point?

Re:10 points in favor of HOSTS files vs adblock on

[silanea]

[...] It is fairly obvious that those here who put down hosts files are only alternate registered accounts used by silanea [...]

Interesting. The same old "they're out to get me" BS. On the other hand it is only ACs who rush to defend that crap. Show me one single post in all the recent apk resurrections where a non-AC backed up apk's position.

Re:Ad Blockers

[Tuan121]

Ah I see how it is on Slashdot: instant flaimbait to post a non popular opinion.

Corporations are nothing but greedy on slashdot. However the people on slashdot that do everything they can to avoid ads and yet still want everything for free are not greedy. Makes perfect sense.

Do you like using all of google's free services? I sure do. And where would we be without their advertising income?

Fucking hypocrites.

Re:Uh, not really

[Omestes]

On Win7 64bit, Firefox (latest release AND the beta candidate) does that every single time, but Chrome/ium (stable and dev) remains stable under the same scenario. That is the problem with anecdotal evidence.

I agree that the "one tab doesn't effect the others" thing is a load of crap, for the most part. Chrome can get VERY sluggish, and eventually not respond at all based on the misbehavior of a single process. I've had tabs, and extensions, kill all of Chrome.