Google Chrome Now Has Resource-Blocking Adblock 335
Posted
by
timothy
from the advertising-wants-to-be-shunned dept.
from the advertising-wants-to-be-shunned dept.
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."
Works in Safari too? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Uh, not really (Score:4, Informative)
Not entirely random (Score:5, Informative)
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:Meta: this story is under Apple? Why? (Score:5, Informative)
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:Hmm, this is weird. (Score:1, Informative)
It sure wouldn't feel right; however, that isn't how you do however.
Re:Still not as good as what Firefox has (Score:5, Informative)
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:Uh, not really (Score:4, Informative)
There are some options for Youtube downloading on Chrome.
https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/bdokagampppgbnjfdlkfpphniapiiifn [google.com]
Any system that has an IP stack has a HOSTS file (Score:1, Informative)
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:Uh, not really (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Chrome does NOT have NoScript (Score:5, Informative)
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:Uh, not really (Score:2, Informative)
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!
Xmarks (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
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:Works in Safari too? (Score:1, Informative)
Second link in the story, right near the top: " AdBlock does block resources flawlessly in Safari -- get it at safariadblock.com."
Re:It does say something about Google (Score:3, Informative)
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.
What's AdBlock? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Uh, not really (Score:3, Informative)
Xmarks has a Chrome version. I use it to stay synchronized between FireFox and Chrome.
Re: a sad day (Score:3, Informative)
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:Uh, not really (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: a sad day (Score:3, Informative)
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:Uh, not really (Score:2, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
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).
Re:It does say something about Google (Score:3, Informative)
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:10 points in favor of HOSTS files vs adblock on (Score:3, Informative)
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?
(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:Not entirely random (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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 [webkit.org]. 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 [wikipedia.org] 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.