Adblock Plus

as I already said: it's better to post your comments here:
https://issues.adblockplus.org/ticket/418

read also
releases/adblock-plus-26-for-firefox-released

Reply from Wladimir Palant:

Yes, we do plan to speed up Adblock Plus startup. However, we don’t plan to block Firefox startup again.

Well, the objective really isn't to block or delay Firefox startup. The objective is to have ABP correctly execute all of the rules it is configured with. By definition, this requires some mechanism to prevent things from getting past ABP before ABP is completely ready. A mechanism which could be configurable of course.

I'm not so sure that temporarily blocking Firefox from completing its startup and beginning to process requests is the wrong approach. However, I do wonder if there are other approaches that could work. Is there any way for ABP to inform Firefox that it isn't ready yet, and have Firefox behave in a helpful way? Is there any way for ABP, on its own, to delay requests that happen before it is ready? Such as though the generation of temporary redirects, or by using Service Unavailable - Retry-After, or some other means?

mapx wrote:as I already said: it's better to post your comments here:
https://issues.adblockplus.org/ticket/418

There is no option to post a comment there (I couldn't find it).
Also, the issue was closed as "Invalid". Why would I assume that anyone will read any new comments there, even if I figure out how to post them?

did you register there your user ?
the users (devs) in CC for that ticket (for example trev) will receive a notification when you comment there

logan-19 wrote:Pure FF 28 and 29 versions, any additions isn't present, except Adblock Plus 2.6, I click FF icon panels of quick start of Windows 7.
Opens FF without Adblock Plus 2.6 (it wasn't launched yet to be launched in 4 seconds).
In 4 seconds Adblock Plus 2.6 is launched.
These 4 seconds, FF as though hangs, it can't be used, the menu doesn't respond, the address line doesn't respond.
It is very sad that so occurs, in version 2.5 such wasn't.
Subscriptions are disconnected.

Same Problem here, i`m back to V. 2.5.1.3777 !

It happens in SeaMonkey v2.26 web browsers too.

I registered an account just to say this is COMPLETE xxx if not fixed - I usually leave 20+ tabs open in FireFox and startup time was never an issue. I regret donating money to your cause.

Yeah it's annoying but i won't be going back to 2.5+ that version delays my startup for some reason while on 2.6.1 it's pretty much instant.

Weeks later...Comments on 3 different places... And yet trev, vlad is not responding on any questions regarding ads not being blocked at start...NICE

Apparently ads and trackers are regularly not blocked by ABP for Chrome and IE for technical reasons related to the limited "power" that add-ons have in these browsers. I can't check first hand how much of a fact this is since I only use Firefox.

But that does NOT make failing to block network requests for which rules exist acceptable on Firefox! Really, please don't lower your quality requirements for Adblock Plus on Firefox just because such quality cannot be reached on other browsers. That would be such a messed up reasoning.

Not to mention Firefox is the reason for Adblock Plus' success. We want a reliable ad and tracker blocker that honors lists perfectly by blocking them before a network request occurs.

I read Wladimir say that in rare cases, ABP on Firefox prior to 2.6 already failed to block stuff. Well, first of all I would like to hear of such situations, like when do they trigger and at what frequency. But more importantly let us NOT add more of those situations, especially a leak as serious as we have on 2.6 !

If that's the direction we are heading, where ABP starts to compromise with the very purpose of its existence, its future is pretty gloom. I won't be able to trust it any more. I mean, where did you get the idea that it would be acceptable to ship 2.6 as it is, with the many cases where this would lead to tons of network requests passing through when they should be blocked ?



Please note that I am not the type of guy to freak out and panic and imagine stupid things. I'm saying this in a very down to earth way, I know how you intend to minimize the problem by speeding up ABP's startup, but:

1/ If at all possible, it will take time to reach a speed high enough to make the amount of unblocked requests negligible on startup. In the mean time we are left with no response to our various arguments and we have no time frame.

2/ This sets a worrisome precedent that basically says Adblock Plus will merely attempt to honor lists given to it. It's even worse because your success on IE and Chrome may let you think that it is acceptable to have a product that only partially fulfils its promise to the end user.
We are on Firefox, you can fulfil the promise for real, so you have to do it. Adblock Plus has become a profitable business with several millions of users and several millions of dollars to act with, so you kind of have a duty now. :/

3/ We are ill informed about when requests pass through and the likeliness of such an event. I had to dig out the seriousness of 2.6 issue, and on top of that your communication really minimized it. So in the future, how can I trust that no other serious losses in reliability will occur without me noticing ? I cannot. For reasons given above, I'm forced to think that it will occur again, that you will try to minimize it but won't succeed enough, and that the amount of unblocked network requests is unlikely to stay negligible as Adblock Plus evolves further.


I think a mix of communication and real changes in the development plan are necessary :/

I understand the pressure you may have from Firefox developers who have to deal with serious competition from Chrome regarding speed, but your product's promise goes first. You can eventually let the ultimate choice to the end user, speed vs full protection, but it's not for you to decide unilaterally is it ?

Supertramp wrote:Apparently ads and trackers are regularly not blocked by ABP for Chrome

only (like in ABP for firefox 2.6) for the startup pages

Ok, that's good to know for IE and Chrome users. But that DOES mean Chrome and IE technical limitations did set the quality level and not the other way around.

no, I'm talking only about abp for chrome.
ABP for IE is a completely different stuff (because IE did not provide a friendly API like firefox or chrome).

forum/viewtopic.php?p=98991#p98991

IE is a proprietary browser, it isn't open like Firefox & to some extent Chrome, the ABP devs can only do what Microsoft allows third-party extensions access to, which is small compared to open web browsers. They are really doing their best with what they have to work with, in time ABP for IE may improve!

Interesting. That's more along the lines of what I expected. I'm glad things are better for Chrome at least though (even though Chrome's market share is big enough that I wish it wouldn't get any more users, for market health reasons).

But let's not make this parenthesis hide the points though, because ABP suffers from none of this on Firefox. It can block all it wants. It should set the goal for other browsers not the other way around