[OLD Official Thread] Adblock Latitude

[New Tobin Paradigm]

I will provide updates for 3.0.x when it becomes necessary.

Why don't I start over in a different direction? It is quite clear that any deviation from Adblock Plus will upset a significant portion of the target audience. An add-on of the Adblock Family is a deal breaker for many users of Pale Moon and if ABL goes in an unacceptable direction then it is not only possible but assured that users will leave Pale Moon its self over it despite the browser not having anything to do with the add-on.

Have the events of October 2014 and the aftermath of living in a post-v25 world escaped your memory when it comes to add-ons?

The biggest goal of 3.5 was to remove bootstrap and all the insanity and hoops you have to jump through to program for it. This would have allowed easier development. It produced results that were not up to the expectations of target users. Thus it was shelved. Status quo will be maintained because I will NOT be directly resposible for hurting Pale Moon.

ABL is, and I mention this again, a community project. If you want to purpose solutions for making it better it is up to you to do so. Patches are welcome (but subject to approval). I will keep it working with the browser but anything that changes from here on in will be driven by the community and not my self.

[Lunix]

If 3.5 wasn't working out, why not just start over in a different direction? I don't understand why it can only be that specific line of research or else no upgrades at all, ever.

What do you expect to be developed? It is an adblocker, what counts are the filterlists, there is more or less nothing to be done, it works out of the box, case closed Different thing would be if pages would start to ignore the blocking attempts by ABL - In that case for sure some kind of update would upcoming sooner or later

I was asking the developer.

[LimboSlam]

So does that me no official support for Element Hiding Helper and Adblock Plus Pop-up Addon, ummm...... no integration as well or will it be in later update of v3.0.x

[Lunix]

Why don't I start over in a different direction? It is quite clear that any deviation from Adblock Plus will upset a significant portion of the target audience. An add-on of the Adblock Family is a deal breaker for many users of Pale Moon and if ABL goes in an unacceptable direction then it is not only possible but assured that users will leave Pale Moon its self over it despite the browser not having anything to do with the add-on.

Well, this wasn't a concern when you deviated the entire browser from Firefox with version 25. Negative user reactions have been ignored, and more than one thread has been posted which states that we should just leave quietly and switch to another browser if we're not happy with Pale Moon's new direction. That's fair enough. But it makes it hard to understand why you would be so attuned to user preferences for an extension, when you're not responsive to user preferences about the browser itself. We are totally reliant on you to take care of us when it comes to extension compatibility. What else can we do?

[New Tobin Paradigm]

So does that me no official support for Element Hiding Helper and Adblock Plus Pop-up Addon, ummm...... no integration as well or will it be in later update of v3.0.x

Last I checked EHH works. Moonchild was actively using it a while ago. It should remain functional as it uses internal API calls to ABL via ABP interfaces.. But I will double check my self..

As for the Pop-up add-on.. I still maintain it isn't necessary. I did contact the developer and got no word back.. But I will check it out again and fork it.

As for integration. No that is not feasibly possible due to the bootstrapped nature of the current generation ABL. Besides, it would increase the memory usage and likely startup time never the less.

Well, this wasn't a concern when you deviated the entire browser from Firefox with version 25. Negative user reactions have been ignored, and more than one thread has been posted which states that we should just leave quietly and switch to another browser if we're not happy with Pale Moon's new direction. That's fair enough. But it makes it hard to understand why you would be so attuned to user preferences for an extension, when you're not responsive to user preferences about the browser itself. We are totally reliant on you to take care of us when it comes to extension compatibility. What else can we do?

This is off topic and not conducive to this thread.

[LimboSlam]

Alright that's good! Thanks for the reply back and all your hard work, good job bro!

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Element Hiding Helper is fully operational as far as I can tell, LimboSlam. If at any event it becomes not.. Then rest assured it will be forked. But until such time I see no specific reason to duplicate an otherwise working extension despite the difficulties with ABP's developers.

I will be looking once again into that blasted Popup blocker later on.

[megaman]

I will be looking once again into that blasted Popup blocker later on.

I use Element Hiding and Pop-up Blocker all the time. If they didn't work I would report it.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

I will be looking once again into that blasted Popup blocker later on.

I use Element Hiding and Pop-up Blocker all the time. If they didn't work I would report it.

Ahh good.. That saves me some effort.

[squarefractal]

Tobin, I must say that you're rather overreacting to some people commenting in this thread who have no idea what they're talking about.

However, I think it would be better to inspect the 3.5 branch for any changes that have affected the memory consumption, since that is indeed an issue. I don't know why it should be an issue though, since you say that only the bootstrap code was removed (I haven't inspected the commits).

[squarefractal]

BTW, speaking for myself and myself only, I would like to see EHH integrated into ABL. Though with the flurry of recent events regarding the beta, I'm not sure whether it'll be done at all

[New Tobin Paradigm]

As a matter of historical record.. EHH was apart of Adblock originally. It was split out because of complaints of memory usage and startup time as well as users triggering removal of elements by random and careless action and not being able to deal with the responsibility of learning how to use what they have employed leaving unintentionally blocked elements blocked. So your assessment while may be broadly correct but may not take all related factors into account. (Which is hardly worth debating since the conclusion is basically the same)

Development of Bootstrap based add-ons is tricky. Not only does it have MOST of the challenges that any extension would have it adds a boat load of other things to it. Remember that Bootstrap is the middle ground between traditional XUL Overlay add-ons and the SDK.

I would have preferred to continue ABL from a purely XUL Overlay codebase. But that is not likely to happen for a good long while. In the meantime we will have to continue down the path I was forced to when the demand for a non-trademark-infringing replacement was needed then and there.

Re-evaluation and change will have to wait until more of the community has rang in on what they want. I have little intention of forcing anything on anyone.

[Tharn]

At the risk of having an opinion that's not particularly enjoyed..

I've used ABL a few months ago and it worked fine, but it used a good deal more memory than uBlock, even with the latter running a pretty big merged filter list. Since ABL 3.5 is for the time shelved, can we suggest going for an entirely different extension as the base for the next iteration of ABL? I know you're not a uBlock fan, but I use it for the same reason that I use PM: Both are responsive and lightweight. Is this a possibility, or do you just want input on the details of the ABP port?

That aside, it might be good to put up a poll with the major options on which you want community input. Easier than sifting through a thread.

[Sajadi]

A good deal... i would not even call 100-200 MB more for ABL Beta a good deal more. come on guys, we are not living in times anymore where you had only 4 MB of memory and additionally you had to pay tons of money to get more 4 MB Ram in your machine and times like that.

You really expect that an Australis only extension is goona be forked, completly rewritten and made compatible with Pale Moon? Even i who have not really a clue about add-on Development can clearly understand that that is NO simple task like changing the Browser GUID in Add-ons

Anyway, Ublock seems to work for now, only the add-on button is missing, so why not using that one

Anyway, my point is that, Even if you have "only" 4-8 GB Ram you should not run into any trouble with ABL. The browser including the add-on is completly responsible on any of my machines and i never have so far experienced any slowdowns. Just my few own cents towards that topic

[New Tobin Paradigm]

At the risk of having an opinion that's not particularly enjoyed..
Since ABL 3.5 is for the time shelved, can we suggest going for an entirely different extension as the base for the next iteration of ABL?

Then it wouldn't be a member of the Adblock Family anymore would it? So, the answer is No.

[JodyThornton]

I know you're not a uBlock fan, but I use it for the same reason that I use PM: Both are responsive and lightweight.

I'm glad I read this. I have lack of UI responsiveness on load time whether I used AdBlock Plus or Latitude. I know the slow downs are exacerbated by using the FoxE9 plugin alongside, but they're still there without it. So I tried uBlock instead, with just EasyList. It works great on Pale Moon.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Okay... This is getting very off topic. ublock as I have ALREADY stated over time in multiple posts in the CORRECT thread has several issues on Pale Moon. If you want to read them then please check that thread.

Please keep posts in THIS thread on topic and related solely to Adblock Latitude.

To that end.. Here is AGAIN what the current state of ABL:

• Adblock Latitude will in the short term continue down the 3.0.x line due to resistance. It will be minimally maintained and kept in working order.
• ABL Next Gen aka 3.5's release has been cancelled and development down THAT line has been put on hold until further notice
• Support in the form of bugs, functional issues, enhancements, or patches MUST and WILL only be accepted through the ABL repo's issue tracking and pull request system located here: https://github.com/Pale-Moon-Addons-Team/adblock-latitude/issues

The current topic of discussion in this thread is ABL's present and future.

[Moonchild]

Voicing my own opinion here: I've used ABL 3.5 betas for a number of months, and all in all the browser was slightly more responsive through my heavy use with it enabled. I did not check memory usage because I didn't encounter any memory pressure issues (and a heavy site will use up to 100MB or so to load, anyway, so...)

I've gone back to 3.0.2 by Tobin's request when he discontinued his current work on ABL because of the bitching™ - and I have noticed the difference going the other way as well, especially when doing a lot of intense research and opening/closing pages.

The different approach, as far as I understood, has a different memory footprint:
3.0.2 (bootstrapped): will initially consume less memory, but will consume more for each tab opened, quickly surpassing the total memory footprint of 3.5
3.5 (non-bootstrapped): will initially consume more memory, but will remain at that level regardless of how much the browser is used

I know which one I'd prefer, in the end

As for startup speed: I'd rather have the browser take a few seconds more to start and never leak anything to ad servers by instantly blocking from the very first load onwards, than booting as quick as possible but having my blocking be incomplete. If you need a lighter solution because of old hardware, then you may want to use a different alternative blocker, but please don't hinder the development of ABL's complete and extensive solution. Right tool for the right circumstances and all that.

[Freezing Moon]

I will be looking once again into that blasted Popup blocker later on.

I use Element Hiding and Pop-up Blocker all the time. If they didn't work I would report it.

Pop-up blocker doesn't work - missing ABL menu item. Yes,I know I can right-click on the site and find Pop-up blocker there,but I don't want to.
Missing Pop-up blocker item in ABL menu is equivalent to missing toolbar button for incompatible add-ons.
That is the reason why I am still using ABP 2.6.4-pm and I'll continue to use it until there is ABP Pop-up add-on item in ABL menu.

http://oi59.tinypic.com/2rgde6o.jpg

[New Tobin Paradigm]

And you should know that ABP Pseudo-Static is NOT fully operational. And hasn't been since Pale Moon 25.2. Also.. That popup blocker still isn't really needed because Pale Moon has its own popup blocking capabilities as well as you can write a custom filter that will cause ABL to block popups for a matching pattern.

Okay.. I see what this is doing..

This add-on is a strange hybrid between its own solution and patching in to Adblock. The code is frankly a mess.. Also know that this popup blocking add-on was not created by the ABP team but by someone else completely.

I dunno why you claim it doesn't work when it clearly works exactly the same under Firefox/ABP as it does on Pale Moon/ABL.

Now it doesn't work with the aborted beta.. But I do know how to fix that but it will require a fork to do so.. But since that isn't happening for a while.. There is nothing to be done..

SO IN REGARDS TO THE UNRELATED POPUP BLOCKING EXTENSION BEING BROKEN.

RESOLVED WORKSFORME