Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Chrome Now Has Resource-Blocking Adblock

timothy posted about 4 years ago | from the advertising-wants-to-be-shunned dept.

Advertising 335

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."

cancel ×

335 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Uh, not really (-1, Flamebait)

jlarocco (851450) | about 4 years ago | (#32960598)

Firefox vs Chrome just got a bit more exciting.

Does anybody actually use Firefox any more? Every reason people used to give in favor of Firefox now applies to Chrome, times ten.

Re:Uh, not really (0, Troll)

spyder-implee (864295) | about 4 years ago | (#32960612)

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

Re:Uh, not really (1)

Dremth (1440207) | about 4 years ago | (#32960666)

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 (1)

Dremth (1440207) | about 4 years ago | (#32960692)

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 (1)

valeo.de (1853046) | about 4 years ago | (#32960990)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32961550)

Chrome's squandering of my memory is why I don't use it except lightly to keep up with it. Don't know what you all see in that Playskool browser, but choice is good.

Re:Uh, not really (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 4 years ago | (#32960712)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32960820)

Memory is not cheap when you're out -- my phone doesn't let me add RAM. But Webkit is of course nice on phones which is why it's ubiquitous now, whereas gecko is a nonstarter.

Re:Uh, not really (1)

Sancho (17056) | about 4 years ago | (#32960906)

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.)

Re:Uh, not really (1)

daveime (1253762) | about 4 years ago | (#32961252)

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 (1)

Zoidbot (1194453) | about 4 years ago | (#32960932)

I think that's the wrong question, as Chrome really is a poor alternative to Opera these days. Opera does everything Chrome does, better, faster and more complete.

So what does Opera do that Firefox can't? A hell of a lot... You might want to check it out. It already comes with a full content blocker, noscript, greasemonkey and sycing capabilites all built right in.

It thrashes chrome is performance, it totally obliterates Firefox.

Re:Uh, not really (1)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | about 4 years ago | (#32961064)

what can Chrome do that Firefox can't?

Not crash.

Re:Uh, not really (1)

digitig (1056110) | about 4 years ago | (#32961494)

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

Re:Uh, not really (3, Informative)

DavidRawling (864446) | about 4 years ago | (#32960618)

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

Re:Uh, not really (2, Interesting)

Manos_Of_Fate (1092793) | about 4 years ago | (#32960620)

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 (3, Interesting)

Redlazer (786403) | about 4 years ago | (#32960758)

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 (3, Insightful)

Manos_Of_Fate (1092793) | about 4 years ago | (#32960798)

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.

Re:Uh, not really (2, Insightful)

macshit (157376) | about 4 years ago | (#32961026)

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.

Re:Uh, not really (5, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 4 years ago | (#32961410)

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 (4, Insightful)

ewhac (5844) | about 4 years ago | (#32960628)

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

Incorrect. Chrome can't run NoScript [noscript.net] .

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 (-1, Troll)

coryking (104614) | about 4 years ago | (#32960776)

Why would a bit of software that is essentially a lightning fast javascript compiler with a web browser attached really go out of there way to help Luddites running noscript? Seriously, turn on JavaScript. It isn't slow on a modern browser like chrome.

Re:Uh, not really (0)

hldn (1085833) | about 4 years ago | (#32960784)

if you think everyone uses noscript for speed reasons, you're the moron.

Re:Uh, not really (5, Insightful)

stonedcat (80201) | about 4 years ago | (#32960838)

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 (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32960848)

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...

Re:Uh, not really (1)

digitig (1056110) | about 4 years ago | (#32961522)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32960950)

NoScript is much more fine-grained, and provides substitute scripts for sites that "need" to run crap from google-analytics et al.

There are sites that require Google Analytics? I've blocked it in my hosts file and never ran into issues.

Anyway, one add-on does not a Firefox competitor make. As you said NoScript is the number two reason I wouldn't even take a look at Chrome. Then there's Flashblock, Download Helper, various Bookmark management add-ons, proprietary plug-ins that are only developed for Firefox/IE due to market share, etc.

The thing is, Chrome can mimic Firefox's functionality all it wants. Even if it offers EVERYTHING I get with Firefox, it still has to add significant, useful features for me to invest time looking into it. A bit less memory or faster Javascript menus hardly make me get all excited.

Re:Uh, not really (1)

valeo.de (1853046) | about 4 years ago | (#32961008)

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 (1)

seifried (12921) | about 4 years ago | (#32961014)

Chrome also lacks a proper firebug.

Re:Uh, not really (2, Informative)

SwedishPenguin (1035756) | about 4 years ago | (#32961212)

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.

Re:Uh, not really (1)

Kitkoan (1719118) | about 4 years ago | (#32960632)

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.

Re:Uh, not really (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | about 4 years ago | (#32960662)

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 (1)

B1oodAnge1 (1485419) | about 4 years ago | (#32960708)

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 (5, Informative)

xororand (860319) | about 4 years ago | (#32960844)

A few reasons for Firefox:

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

Is all this available in Chrome* browsers already?

Re:Uh, not really (2, Informative)

Dumnezeu (1673634) | about 4 years ago | (#32960946)

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 (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 4 years ago | (#32961024)

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 (1)

Jaknet (944488) | about 4 years ago | (#32961146)

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

Xmarks (2, Informative)

warrax_666 (144623) | about 4 years ago | (#32961052)

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 (1)

ijakings (982830) | about 4 years ago | (#32961546)

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.

Re:Uh, not really (2, Informative)

lga (172042) | about 4 years ago | (#32961534)

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

Re:Uh, not really (1)

popo (107611) | about 4 years ago | (#32961612)

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.

Re:Uh, not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32961632)

Also, firebug.

Re:Uh, not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32961034)

Last time I looked at Chrome, there wasn't even a way to get mouse gestures. And that was months after it debuted. What that told me was that I couldn't expect anywhere near the level of customizability and plugin options for a minimum of two years. Which just makes sense, really. I'd be surprised if Chrome was ever as customizable as Firefox. That's not Google's thing, and that's fine.

Gestures may not matter to you, but that's exactly my point. I don't give a rip about 99.9% of the Firefox plugins out there. No one does. But everyone sure does.

Re:Uh, not really (1)

digitig (1056110) | about 4 years ago | (#32961476)

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.

It does say something about Google (2, Interesting)

Bo'Bob'O (95398) | about 4 years ago | (#32960608)

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 (4, Insightful)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | about 4 years ago | (#32960636)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32960704)

Whatever their reason is, I cannot imagine the Stevils doing the same in their place.

I suspect it isn't true (1)

aepervius (535155) | about 4 years ago | (#32960860)

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 (1)

pandronic (1275276) | about 4 years ago | (#32960952)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32961078)

You must be joking.

With noscript enabled I reckon about 70% of the sites load without trouble and they load FAST. No loading 10-20 Javascript files from god knows how many separate hosts including the obligatory overloaded ad-server which slows the whole page down. (Case in point, visit http://www.escapistmagazine.com and see just how many JS files are loaded up, it is insane and not out of the ordinary for large sites)

It also does a pretty good job of getting rid of the more obnoxious adverts. (I don't use adblock as it seems to make my FF unstable)

Plus there are those of us who just like our privacy and see NoScript as another tool in the box.

Re:I suspect it isn't true (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 4 years ago | (#32961166)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32961276)

No-Script is an excellent way of not having to put up with poor web page design. If I want screaming flash movies I'll press the play button. No-Script puts that power in my hands, as well as increases security.

Re:It does say something about Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32961260)

According to Firefox's usage data, Adblock Plus peaks at over 10 million unique, daily users. Now, I'm not a mathematician, but I'm pretty certain that 10,000,000>0.

Re:It does say something about Google (2, Informative)

KiloByte (825081) | about 4 years ago | (#32961458)

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 (0, Flamebait)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | about 4 years ago | (#32960646)

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.

You say it does say something about Google, but we don't agree on what it says.

I can almost hear Steve Jobs discussing this with his colleagues at Apple "let's add adblocking hooks to Safari. If Chrome exclude them, attack them so they lose customer goodwill, if they don't exclude them, it'll help erode their advertising business."

Safari has exactly $0 to lose from adblocking plugins, while Google has everything to lose. But Google would lose everything if they don't have the goodwill of their users to sell their data mining products with no significant uproar.

Good one from the WebKit team.

Re:It does say something about Google (1)

horati0 (249977) | about 4 years ago | (#32961140)

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.

Works in Safari too? (3, Informative)

rritterson (588983) | about 4 years ago | (#32960614)

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.

Any system that has an IP stack has a HOSTS file (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32960808)

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).

Re:Any system that has an IP stack has a HOSTS fil (1)

KiloByte (825081) | about 4 years ago | (#32961484)

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:Works in Safari too? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32961304)

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

Hmm, this is weird. (5, Funny)

dlsso (1808390) | about 4 years ago | (#32960616)

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

Re:Hmm, this is weird. (4, Funny)

Kitkoan (1719118) | about 4 years ago | (#32960648)

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

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

Re:Hmm, this is weird. (2, Insightful)

MoeDumb (1108389) | about 4 years ago | (#32961042)

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. (1)

Kitkoan (1719118) | about 4 years ago | (#32961066)

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. (2, Informative)

stuckinphp (1598797) | about 4 years ago | (#32960678)

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

Re:Hmm, this is weird. (1)

Macka (9388) | about 4 years ago | (#32960998)

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?

Still not as good as what Firefox has (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32960634)

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 (4, Informative)

Zarel (900479) | about 4 years ago | (#32960736)

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 (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 4 years ago | (#32960914)

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

Chrome does NOT have NoScript (5, Informative)

warrax_666 (144623) | about 4 years ago | (#32960918)

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 (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32960988)

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 (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32961350)

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.

Meta: this story is under Apple? Why? (0, Offtopic)

blind biker (1066130) | about 4 years ago | (#32960642)

This is a meta-comment: if Slashdot is going to have stories placed so randomly, then the whole category system is pointless and you could just as well junk it altogether.

Not entirely random (4, Informative)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | about 4 years ago | (#32960650)

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 (3, Interesting)

vlueboy (1799360) | about 4 years ago | (#32960826)

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:Meta: this story is under Apple? Why? (4, Informative)

Kitkoan (1719118) | about 4 years ago | (#32960658)

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.

TOTAL ctrl (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32960744)

well, if google could pull off an abduction of million of users not just by its general grasping hold on the internet, but by the main software tool used for navigating the web, then perhaps they could eventually just take hold of your behaviour, existence and essence?

All playing catchup to Opera of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32960748)

Who have ALWAYS had a resource blocker rather than just an ad-blocker...

Re:All playing catchup to Opera of course (0, Flamebait)

AHuxley (892839) | about 4 years ago | (#32960868)

..., the gentle genius behind Opera, loved and cared about almost all the users of the net. And, in turn, was beloved by the net, except in 2000 when they where criticized for the controversial browser, "Superbanners Are Our Financial Saviours".

Re:All playing catchup to Opera of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32961322)

I know.

I've been using Opera for years and this story genuinely confused me until I realised that Firefox et. al. *don't* block adverts in the same smart way as Opera.

Most of Google's revenue is advertising. (5, Insightful)

lhaeh (463179) | about 4 years ago | (#32960832)

Looking here [google.com] 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. (2, Insightful)

joost (87285) | about 4 years ago | (#32961510)

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.

Apple is trying to kill the web (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32960872)

As others have pointed out before, Apple is doing this because they are trying to kill the Web. Apple introduced iAds. They only work on iPad/iPhone and soon Mac and they work outside the web so if they can manage to get lots of people to block ads on the web then advertisers will start to see iAds as the new must use service.

Re:Apple is trying to kill the web (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32961022)

I believe there is point for that, but the main reason actually is that every citizen has the rights to deny mailbox to be filled with ads just by taping to the mailbox "No advertisings, thank you". Every citizen has as well rights to deny phone sells by calling to national number and deny the number use. Every citizen has rights to deny all ads, even when ordered them first somewhere, in any point.

Okay, that at least in Finland.

AdBlock just does what is right by the moral for every Internet user, just to block all the ads.

Internet idea is to be source of real information, not place for marketing flyers. Ads are okay as long as they are everytime customized just for that specific site. That means really that there would not be one big ad company what would then sell all kind ads. And site owners could not control what ads there will be shown, just to select "IT, Women, Cars" or other classes and then site visitor gets all kind ads from those.

Site owner best choise is actually make own Ad server where she/he then gets ads directly from the other parties. Only works actually when having big company or wants to advertise smaller companies (1-2 people) or own products.

The problems can be seen easily in open source sites. You get ads from Microsoft saying how Windows Server is best, on the FOSS site what is offering own server software. Would Microsoft offer ads of competitors on their own site, I did not think so!

Still waiting for... (4, Interesting)

Lord Bitman (95493) | about 4 years ago | (#32961138)

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... (1)

timmarhy (659436) | about 4 years ago | (#32961292)

the assholes are people who put take up 60% of the page with ads and flash popups that play sound at me.

i run adblockers, but guess what? google adwords isn't blocked because it's unobtrusive and sometimes even useful.

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

Re:Still waiting for... (3, Insightful)

Lord Bitman (95493) | about 4 years ago | (#32961630)

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... (5, Insightful)

Red_Chaos1 (95148) | about 4 years ago | (#32961316)

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... (1, Insightful)

Lord Bitman (95493) | about 4 years ago | (#32961532)

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

Exactly! (1, Interesting)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 4 years ago | (#32961560)

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:Still waiting for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32961460)

LOL nigga u srs? are you an asshole if you get up to grab some snacks when an ad-break comes on the TV?

Re:Still waiting for... (1)

Lord Bitman (95493) | about 4 years ago | (#32961518)

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32961572)

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

Re:Still waiting for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32961528)

100% agreed, i would love for an extension like this.

It doesn't even need to be that much in all honesty, it just needs to unblock the ads from adblocked pages after the DOM is ready.
So if someone is up to it, fork adblock. Call it something like AdSlow or similar.
I think i might suggest it to Wladimir as an extension of adblock itself. (new tab called "AdSlow")

The only annoying things about ads and external sources to me is when it halts the page loads.
Nothing worse than a page that crawls to a stop when one image fails on you, or a whole domain.
Hell, you'd expect BROWSERS would have done something about this a long time ago. But for crappy compatibility reasons now, no.

I, for one, love some advertisers. I have found so many useful things over the years through ads, whether it was game releases, programs, free stuff (actual free stuff, not stupid pyramid schemes), etc
Only advertisers i block are Flash advertisers and anyone who abuses GIFs. (average time taken to read your average banner size would (SHOULD!) be 3-ish seconds, so 1 frame per 3 seconds)
Boy i'm glad there wasn't any Java Advertisers... or are there?

Somehow I fail to see the "more exciting part" (1)

romania (537909) | about 4 years ago | (#32961160)

I mean what kind of sick fun is to watch a normal person run against a disabled and still win? Firefox has the base of the oldest web browser still alive. It had it all and the best results were in competition with something like Internet Explorer 4.0 or something. After a few change of names it is still the same dated design with some extra bloat and hacks for the Acid test. The firefox fork started promising with the lightest pack... but by version 1.0 it was already about screwing people and getting the google money. At this point it was more than obvious that at a certain point in the future Google will cut the middle man and do things right. Google Chrome has a not so long history and it is already waaay ahead of Firefox. And while Firefox is cheating the usage numbers by fetching pages ahead and other features like this: Chrome delivers. Some time ago there was no comparison between the two. Now Chrome has something more (the news is quite old) yet Firefox can't push the JS compiler yet. By the time Firefox will deliver their fixes Chrome would be further away with the usability. So... there is no competition/.

a sad day (2, Interesting)

spongman (182339) | about 4 years ago | (#32961238)

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 (1)

Linker3000 (626634) | about 4 years ago | (#32961524)

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

What's AdBlock? (2, Informative)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 4 years ago | (#32961480)

I installed Privoxy. Doesn't matter which browser I use now.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>