Thus, we’d like to examine top ad blockers for Chrome, as the most popular web browser. What’s more, personal data is at risk too – nobody wants spyware, rootkits, and data collection. Pop-ups, video inserts on YouTube and banners can be especially irritating. Often it’s getting up to the neck on the web. The number of ad types is growing: contextual ads, pop-ups, videos, social networks, teasers, mobile ads, pay-per-click ads, affiliate links, and the list goes on and on.
Ad blocker for firefox 55 plus#
« Adblock Plus 1.8.7 for Chrome and Opera released Adblock Plus 1.8.The Internet is a mammoth advertising channel, that’s indisputable. Maybe Debian changed something I haven’t had the opportunity to build the un-rebranded FF31.3.0 yet and test on that.Ĭommenting is closed for this article. I watched a lot of YouTube videos last night without a solitary advert appearing.Īlthough Mozilla’s page says 2.6.6 is compatible with Firefox 22 and later, it’s not working for me with the Firefox (Iceweasel) 31.3.0 ESR in Debian Wheezy’s repository.Īfter I updated to 2.6.6, all my filters were gone, and new filters weren’t remembered over browser restarts.Īfter some other efforts, I tried installing ABP2.6.6 as the first action on a completely default profile and it still was unable to save or restore filters between restarts or via creating and loading a backup manually.Īfter checking the release history, I downgraded to ABP2.6.5, and it could now read the test filters I’d saved with ABP2.6.6. I checked a moment ago that a different version wasn’t installed by default, if indeed such a thing can occur. Wladimir, version 2.6.6 most definitely does work for me with Firefox 3.0 on Linux Mint 17 KDE. They are using the latest Adblock Plus version that still works with Firefox 3.0, Adblock Plus 2.6.6 definitely doesn’t… Can you tell me if this latest version is worth a shot ? I’d mostly like to use it when watching longer video, documentaries etc on YouTube. I’ve just installed Linux Mint 17 KDE but found that the Adblock Plus that came with it, version 1.1.4, caused Firefox to lag pretty badly, so I removed it. I have had no issues with the new version, with FF 33.0.3.Īs far as “palemoon” goes, if there are problems, maybe a simple solution would be to use an old version of “adblock plus”. I think that the Pale Moon team should do what the developers of Light do: Branch off popular extensions that don’t work unmodified then again, Light still tracks Firefox, so their task is easier. It’s inconceivable that you would fork it without taking this major aspect of the browser into consideration. Don’t build a fork if you can’t stand the loss of functionality of the original product.įirefox is a plug-in browser. Expecting plug-ins of forks to work, however, is silly.
Ad blocker for firefox 55 code#
However, “439 commits” (currently displayed in the Pale Moon source code repository) doesn’t exactly sound like Pale Moon is shortening the distance to current Firefox versions.įorks are great. So far I didn’t have time to look into it myself. Note that these are merely my conclusions based on the information in the ticket. in order to get rid of some Firefox-only JavaScript constructs). As things are now, Adblock Plus will likely be broken in Pale Moon with the very next release already as we plan to stop supporting outdated Firefox versions (e.g. And even then we’d have to keep work-arounds in place that we would rather remove. This means that the testing we do in Firefox is useless – we have to do additional (and rather extensive) testing in Pale Moon as well. I have strong doubts that we can properly support Pale Moon – it is based on an outdated Firefox version with modern JavaScript features and new Firefox functionality only backported selectively.