uBlock Origin released as a pure WebExtension for Firefox

A new WebExtension version of the popular content blocker uBlock Origin was just uploaded to Mozilla's official add-ons repository for Firefox.

The new version is compatible with Firefox's new WebExtensions standard for extensions, and will as such continue to work when Firefox 57 gets released.

This first official release of the WebExtensions version of uBlock Origin works for the most part just like the legacy add-on version.

Users may experience issues however when they upgrade from the legacy version of the add-on to the new version.

Raymond Hill, the developer of uBlock Origin suggests that 32-bit users of Firefox stay on version 1.13.8 of the add-on until these issues are resolved.

Update: further tests revealed that there is no storage limit after all.

One issue that users may run into is a storage limit bug for extra filter lists. Basically, what happens is that not all filter lists will be loaded, and that this behavior can break the updating of filter lists that were loaded.

Also, there appears to be a limit to how much data can be stored in indexedDB, so if you have many more extra filter lists, not all of them will be able to load, and this can also break the future updating of whichever filter lists could load. In short, total mess. Just as I feared, there are issues with indexedDB.

Another issue that some users may experience is that custom settings may not be available anymore.

ublock origin webextension firefox

If that is the case, the following workaround is suggested to resolve the issue:

  • Install uBlock Origin 1.13.8 from Mozilla AMO.
  • Open the uBlock Origin Settings, and select the "back up to file" option on the page. This exports all settings to the local system.
  • Install the latest version of uBlock Origin again.
  • Open the Settings page, and select the "restore from file" option this time to import the settings if they are still not there after the update to the latest version of uBlock Origin.
Read also:  Mozilla plans four new Firefox Test Pilot Experiments

Raymond Hill published a workaround for another issue that users of the extension may experience after updating to version 1.13.10. If uBlock is broken after the update, users are asked to do the following:

Un-install uBO
Quit Firefox (be sure Firefox is really no longer in memory)
Launch Firefox
Verify that uBO is really removed in about:addons, otherwise, go to step 1.
Quit Firefox (be sure Firefox is really no longer in memory)
Launch Firefox
Re-install uBO

If that does not work, a fallback to version 1.13.8 -- the legacy version -- is required to restore functionality. Firefox users have two options then:

  1. Backup all your settings, then install the pure webext version of uBO from the dev channel on AMO, which is not affected by the root issue. Once you have installed the pure webext version, restore your settings from the backup file.
  2. Keep using 1.13.8 until Firefox 56 (in which the root issue is fixed). If you choose this option, you should probably disable the auto-update for uBO. For Android, there is a setting to disable auto-update of extensions, but it applies to all extensions: about:config => extensions.autoupdate.enabled => false.

Additional information are available on uBlock Origin's Mozilla AMO page, and the GitHub project site.

Summary
Article Name
uBlock Origin released as a pure WebExtension for Firefox
Description
A new WebExtension version of the popular content blocker uBlock Origin was just uploaded to Mozilla's official add-ons repository for Firefox.
Author
Publisher
Ghacks Technology News
Logo
Advertisement
Please share this article

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedinmail


Filed under:


Responses to uBlock Origin released as a pure WebExtension for Firefox

  1. Júnior Silva August 31, 2017 at 11:02 pm #

    Waiting for AdGuard Adblocker ...
    Firefox is very good! Very fast and fluid, I had doubts about the change of Firefox, but for me it is going in the right way! Incredible as it has improved, version 57 is very, very good!
    The bad is that it will lose many extensions, I will miss TabMix Plus, who knows in the future will have ...

    • Lugo September 1, 2017 at 12:51 am #

      Adguard Adblocker released Pure WE before uBlock Origin ;)
      It is in beta stage now (Firefox 57 still in Nightly release cycle)
      So Adguard Adblocker (WE) will be ready for stable releases of new Firefox.
      Get beta WE Adguard here: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adguard-adblocker/versions/beta?page=1#version-2.7.1beta

      Regards,

    • Appster September 1, 2017 at 6:46 am #

      What does "improvement" mean to you? Functionally Firefox 57 will be worse off than Firefox 56, as many great add-ons can't be rewritten. Or is it just about speed, speed, SPEED?

      • J September 1, 2017 at 7:21 am #

        @Appster, you're really annoying. I knew you would show up here.

        Yeah, most users don't care about legacy addons, they want speed, security and stability. Are you butthurt about that? What do you think you will accomplish by complaining about the same thing over and over again here on Ghacks? Your crying will change nothing.

      • Appster September 1, 2017 at 7:43 am #

        @J:

        > Appster, you're really annoying.

        And? What's your point, besides ad hominem stuff?

        > I knew you would show up here.

        Good.

        > Yeah, most users don't care about legacy addons, they want speed, security and stability.

        Then why don't you use Chrome? I don't get it.

        > Are you butthurt about that?

        Not even in the slightest. I am just saying that Firefox is not your use case. Firefox always was about customization. For everything else Chrome was and is better.

        > What do you think you will accomplish by complaining about the same thing over and over again here on Ghacks?

        Why does everyone believe that I need to accomplish something? Those are just my thoughts, which you can either like or dislike. It's not like any Mozilla employee is reading here, and even if so, he/she wouldn't care.

        > Your crying will change nothing.

        And? What's your point? Silencing critics?

        It is pretty obvious that you didn't argue on a factual basis about features being cut out. You are just like "I don't need this stuff!"... Great argument. Let's make use of this attitude and cut out 90% of the functions of Microsoft Office, too, because ya know... The simple users ain't in need of that. LMAO.

      • J September 1, 2017 at 8:24 am #

        @Appster

        Look at this situation from a technical point of view. Mozilla was losing marketshare because Firefox is slow and Chrome is faster, basically.

        What is the solution? Improve performance. How to do that? Sadly, drop legacy extensions. To go further, they had to do it. You can see that on 57 Nightly: as soon as they started to implement Quantum components, legacy extensions started to break.

        It sucks, but there's a price for everything... there's no way to bring these performance improvements of 57 and beyond while still supporting legacy extensions.

        And I do care about some level of customization, but Firefox 57 and beyond will still offer MUCH more customization than Chrome via about:config, userChrome.css/userContent.css tweaks and later, through new API's in WebExtensions. As far as I know, they don't intend to limit the API to the same level of Chrome, they intend to embrace and extend it.

        To say "why don't you use Chrome" is quite a stretch. Chrome doesn't even come close to offer the same level of customization of Firefox, and I'm just talking about internal tweaks like the ones I mentioned above, not about extensions.

        Do you think that Mozilla/Firefox would survive if it stayed that way? The performance discrepancy between the two was big, that's why most users switched to Chrome.

      • Appster September 1, 2017 at 9:21 am #

        @J: I know about the strategic decisions Mozilla has made. I know that they are targeting Chrome users with new-found simplicity and performance improvements. I don't think this will work, since Chrome already provides that and it is IMHO too late to react. Nobody will use Firefox because of performance improvements, especially since the brand name has not been associated with great performance for the past 5+ years.

        The few users Mozilla has left are either those who don't care and use Firefox out of tradition, or the power users. The power users are the last ones who chose Firefox as their browser for solid reasons (traditional use is no reason). Angering those users won't do any good, besides further diluting the brand name.

        Also, introducing a new theme every other year is not going to make them come out on top. Have you ever seen Chrome change its main interface in a radical way? A big part of Chrome's success is interface stability. People hate to adapt the entire time, for no apparent reason. Sort of like the ribbon interface in MS Office. Did it make things better? No, it was just annoying.

        Mind you, I am not against change. I am against change for the sake of change.

        Furthermore you should realize that the performance improvements are not strictly linked to the end of legacy add-ons. The whole WebExtensions shenanigans is about the refusal togrant add-ons full access to the browser core, instead making them API-dependent. This way Mozilla hopes to improve the stability. Legacy add-ons could totally have adapted to these changes, were it not for artificial restrictions set by Mozilla. Mozilla doesn't want them to exist for certain reasons, which is not to say it would be impossible. Many people miss this point. The Pale Moon developer claimed that they could have introduced those performance improvements at any point in time, but chose not to because they want to release everything in one huge update. This is misleading some users, who are (like you) prone to think that two strictly separate things (performance improvements and legacy add-on deprecation) are closely linked, when in fact they are not.

        You should also realize that the level of customization in Firefox 57 is pitiful when compared to prior versions. Granted, it is still better than Chrome. I was just saying that if you absolutely don't care about customization Chrome may also do the job. An honorable mention should go to Vivaldi though, which is also Blink-based and has Firefox 57ish capabilities. You can do CSS tweaking there, too etc.

        > Do you think that Mozilla/Firefox would survive if it stayed that way?

        Yes, I think it could have survived in the power user sphere. But then, Mozilla would not be able to receive 300 million dollar donations nor to grant their board of directors huge salaries. It is about the money, really. They need to stay relevant, especially since they intend to collect user data in the future. First as an experiment, but I still have a very bad feeling. Staying relevant will for sure increase the amount of data they are able to collect. This is speculation on my part, but honestly... Why would they attempt such an experiment if they didn't intend to go on with it?

        > The performance discrepancy between the two was big, that's why most users switched to Chrome.

        I know, but what makes you think that they are going to switch back? The Firefox brand is not what it once was, and mostly people are satisfied with Chrome.

      • AnorKnee Merce September 1, 2017 at 10:25 am #

        @ J

        No, Mozilla did not lose marketshare because Firefox is slow and Chrome is faster, basically.

        Ever since Mozilla tried to “clone” Google Chrome with the Australis/Chrome theme in 2013, Firefox’s world market share has dropped from 19% in 2013 to 12% in 2017.(source; netmarketshare)
        https(colon)//www(dot)ghacks(dot)net/2013/04/18/firefoxs-australis-theme-may-have-disastrous-consquences-for-users-who-customize-the-browser/
        ....... Hence, the popular Classic Theme Restorer add-on for Firefox.

        Another reason for the drop was Mozilla’s slowness in adopting DRM/EME technology, eg for streaming Netflix’s DRM-protected videos.
        .
        Again, Mozilla is now trying to “clone” Google Chome’s walled-garden Web Extensions system for Firefox 57 in November 2017 and doing away with their popular, open and very-customizable Add-ons system. This move by Mozilla is supposedly to help developers make one common walled-off and not-very-customizable Web Extension for the main browsers, ie Chrome, Firefox and Edge/IE, instead of making 3 different versions.
        ....... How dumb is that.?, ie Mozilla Firefox kow-towing to Google Chrome = "You can't beat them, join them".

        Seems, Mozilla Firefox is seeking common ground with Google Chrome in its race to the bottom, instead of distinguishing itself from Chrome and the other browsers. Firefox 57 is becoming like a clone of Chrome, basically. = just like Palemoon, Waterfox and Cyberfox are clones of Firefox.
        ....... So, it will be no surprise if Firefox’s market share drops below 10% in 2018 since there is little difference between Chrome and Firefox 57+. IOW, avoiding Chrome = avoiding Firefox 57+, and using Firefox 57+ = using Chrome.

      • Gary D September 1, 2017 at 10:56 am #

        @ Appster
        You seem to take great pleasure in attacking other posters points of view so I've copied our little exchange from the following:

        "Firefox WebExtensions may be used to identify you on the Internet
        By Martin Brinkmann on August 30, 2017 in Firefox - Last Update:August 30, 2017"

        Your response to the blog:

        "Appster August 30, 2017 at 11:33 am

        Firefox, a privacy-protecting browser... At least according to some folks in the gHacks comment section."

        My response to you:

        "Gary D August 30, 2017 at 3:46 pm

        @ Appster
        I am sure that people who read gHacks would appreciate your input as to which browser, in your opinion, is the best for privacy protection.
        Chrome, IE11, Edge ??"

        Your response to me:

        " Appster August 30, 2017 at 4:38 pm
        Pale Moon is better than Firefox when it comes to privacy (default settings). Other than that, Tor. Yet Tor is not practicable for everyone. Firefox has the inferior defaults in comparison to both. If you are willing to heavily tweak, Firefox may also do the job.
        It is not necessary to cynically bring up browsers which are configured even worse than Firefox."

        I was not being cynical. I was being sarcastic. My ad hominem comments can be quite subtle :)
        However, your ad hominem comments are not. They are crude and derogatory.

        I look forward to your ad hominem response with great anticipation.

        PS Check out the user.js settings compiled by Pants the person you renamed Pantsy in your ad hominem comments.

      • Appster September 1, 2017 at 11:04 am #

        @Gary D.:

        > I was not being cynical. I was being sarcastic.

        This is debatable. No need to quarrel about it.

        > My ad hominem comments can be quite subtle :)

        No, I'm afraid not. They are pretty obvious and poorly thought out.

        > However, your ad hominem comments are not. They are crude and derogatory.

        I did not denigrate you (or "J" for that matter) in any way. Yes, I did denigrate 'www.com to some degree, but that was after he chose to go full ballistic and started to spew out harsh insults. I am not to blame for that, nor will I apologize. He begged for a fitting response. In your case, I don't see where I did any "derogatory" stuff, but okay.

        What did you even contribute here, Gray D? What of the things I wrote here was factually wrong? Care to bring something substantial up?

      • Weilan September 1, 2017 at 2:11 pm #

        @J Firefox was famous for being rich with addons that extended its functionality. Now it's going to be famous for being "That Google Chrome clone"

      • Jody Thornton September 1, 2017 at 3:47 pm #

        @Appster:

        You are of the mindset that Mozilla actually SET OUT to create a browser for power users, and that add-ons were a CRUCIAL part of that strategy. They weren't. Mozilla wanted to challenge Microsoft by providing better performance than what was seen on IE6. The add-on framework was just part of the package - a feature if you will. But Mozilla wasn't chasing the "power user" market. It's just that out of the whole interested user base, more of them were power users.

        Now it's been deemed that the add-on framework is not beneficial to the stability of the browser, and we can all recount when add-ons have acted sketchy. So they are working towards a browser that takes advantage of multi-core CPUs, and bodes well performance wise for what MOST people do on the web now: watch video, listen to music, research, read news, and engage in social media. Ghacks, Mi\ozillaZine, Pale Moon and MSFN forum users are NOT a target. In fact, nobody targets them And that's understandable. They are not force driving the future of the web.

        So you suggest that Mozilla stay with the power users, and watch even more slip over to Chrome? You will have no one that will interest investors to help build on Firefox (yeah yeah I know Mozilla isn't publicly traded, but there have to be financial stakeholders).

        I would like you to tell me what specifically you dislike about the current Nightly 57, and I don't mean out of the box; everything needs tweaking. After you've installed it, placed on the uBlock Origin WebExtension, perhaps used userChrome.css to place the tab bar underneath the address bar, remove the spaces around the address box, and removed Activity Stream, so you can have the classic NewTab page. Now soak in how fast and reliable that is.

        OK, Appster, give me some examples of what's missing from that scenario. Yes I know for some of it, my answer will be "learn to live without it", and you just have to. Life is like that in ALL respects, but I'll bet there are are more options than you might think. Just try to be open minded about it. Never mind the "I will not surrender - that word is not in my vocabulary" bit. That's just being stubborn. This isn't a crusade or a war. It's just a browser. You know, I hate how all cars now have that high belt line, and rising windows in the back, HATE IT HATE IT HATE IT! But I know it's never going to change. So I just have to find the car that I least hate.

        You call that "giving up". I call that "adaptation"
        :)

      • Google is CIA September 2, 2017 at 2:12 am #

        About Firefox being "slow". A lot of it is caused by strange default config decisions by Mozilla. Their target platform has hardly changed from a decade ago. They're disregarding the changes in speeds and platforms. Ten years ago HTML5 didn't even exist, now it's everywhere and Firefox performs horribly with it (watch memory usage, it's ridiculous how Fx stores old HTML5 metadata), and script-heavy pages and content-delivery "clouds" didn't exist on the level they do today either. So on a typical page when Firefox has to connect to half a dozens CDN networks to load a script-heavy page it performs horribly because it's default config is set up for a single server connection from Y2K. The people who think Fx is slow don't know how to tweak it for the modern environment or don't want to bother. Chrome is a huge memory hog these days too, btw. Much of the "Chrome is faster" is only in initial loading, over time it becomes just as bloated as Fx.

      • Jody Thornton September 2, 2017 at 2:12 pm #

        [[ @Appster wrote: The whole WebExtensions shenanigans is about the refusal togrant add-ons full access to the browser core, instead making them API-dependent. This way Mozilla hopes to improve the stability. Legacy add-ons could totally have adapted to these changes, were it not for artificial restrictions set by Mozilla. Mozilla doesn't want them to exist for certain reasons, which is not to say it would be impossible. Many people miss this point. The Pale Moon developer claimed that they could have introduced those performance improvements at any point in time, but chose not to because they want to release everything in one huge update. This is misleading some users, who are (like you) prone to think that two strictly separate things (performance improvements and legacy add-on deprecation) are closely linked, when in fact they are not. ]]

        But other than taking Moonchild's word for this, how do you know this to be true. How do you REALLY know than legacy add-ons would NOT compromise stability?

        At the end of the day, it's Mozilla's property. If they simply don't want legacy add-ons to part of Firefox, that's their prerogative. If they want to attract Google Chrome add-on developers so they can produce Firefox-friendly add-ons, this may be a way to do it.

      • Tom Hawack September 2, 2017 at 2:48 pm #

        @Appster wrote "[...] the refusal to grant add-ons full access to the browser core.[...]
        Not only add-ons, any script as well. None of my bookmarklets will perform on the browser core.
        Back to add-ons : uBlock Origin Webextension doesn't catch on AMO what it catches with its legacy add-on.
        I'm always annoyed, especially on AMO, to realize that some of my add-ons I use the most on Web pages don't run there. It's really frustrating, annoying. This is why, here with Waterfox 52.0.2 which handles Webextensions and add-ons, if two extensions preform as well no doubt I'll choose the legacy one.

      • Appster September 2, 2017 at 10:05 pm #

        @Tom Hawack: The entire point of WebExtensions is to force API-dependent development, which (Mozilla hopes) will increase stability. However, it is no silver bullet. The extensions will still have to be written properly and could still under certain circumstances slow the browser down. It's not like WebExtensions are going to fix everything. The thing Mozilla doesn't openly communicate is... If an extension can't do anything, they are of course unlikely to break anything. This is why some very advanced add-ons can't be realized as WebExtensions. The APIs are not there, and will never make it to Firefox, as Mozilla has already WON'T FIXED the related bugs on Bugzilla. So, don't get your hopes up. I don't know where the people claiming that WebExtensions will be noticeably more powerful than Chrome extensions are getting their information from... Certainly not from Bugzilla, where the action takes place.

        Mozilla totally could have come up with a system that allows access to the core, but they didn't. It's a shift of strategy, born out of market considerations rather than necessity. Mozilla does no longer believe in interface customization, and thinks that what WebExtensions deliver will be enough for their users. Needless to say, WebExtensions are also affecting privacy. For reasons unknown (as you have already mentioned) Mozilla denies WebExtensions access to the internal "about:" pages. So if they decide to do something shady there no WebExtension will have the means to stop it. All those WebExtension proponents who like to troll under everything I write are totally in Mozilla's hands. Not my concern, really. Yet of course they are unbelievably clever, so they will probably figure it out immediately when Mozilla starts to collect stuff they shouldn't collect... Sorry for the cynicism, I just feel that some people have zero idea about the concept behind WebExtensions.

        @Jody Thornton: I totally know that IE sucked and that most people have installed Firefox just because it was faster. But then Chrome came around, and took all those users with it, since it as in turn faster than Firefox. Add-ons on the other hand have always remained a primary advantage of Firefox to the current day, and certainly have attracted a whole bunch of users. Adblock add-ons alone have been revolutionary back in the day, and have been a huge selling point of Firefox.

        You seem to forget that it is the power users who spread the word, provide support, discuss the program, provide feedback etc. They are the very core users you shouldn't mess with. It is not okay to give up on the very group of people who in the past have contributed immensely to the overall success of the product. Mozilla turning their collective backs on us won't do them any good, and will only accelerate the bleeding of the user base.

        Name one (only one) significant advantage Firefox 57 gives you over Chrome! You listing some minor userChrome.css stuff only shows how far Firefox has fallen. Tabs on bottom used to be a clearly visible option in the Firefox menu, before it went to about:config, then went to Classic Theme Restorer, and now went to userChrome.css. Enough is enough. Just for your information, as you have asked what I am missing:

        - the entire Tab Mix Plus functionality
        - Private Tabs
        - a side bar like All in One side bar
        - an add-on bar
        - small button mode
        - alternative bookmark menu
        - downloads window (like pre-Firefox 26)
        ...

        All these things can't be realized via userChrome.css... So you see, your customization needs and mine are not really comparable. The things you've done could also be realized in Vivaldi I suppose.

        As for legacy add-ons compromising stability... Absolutely! That is, if they are poorly written. Full access to any part of the browser means that they can do heavy damage when executed poorly. But then, this will show in the reviews of the add-on, and I wouldn't install it to begin with. There are some great legacy add-ons which have never failed me, were constantly updated and competently supported. The browser is not to blame for the faults of a specific add-on.

        Mozilla is now going to be the super nanny for all of us, determining which add-on can be realized and which cannot. And since WebExtensions can't do much they won't break stuff. If there is no functionality worth talking about, breakage is unlikely. That's Mozilla's new recipe for success, mirroring Chrome. And yes, you are right, they can of course mess with Firefox all they like. And I and many other power users they have turned their back to can hope for their eventual demise all they like. Firefox's original merits and ideals it represented are gone.

        Now it's just another Chrome clone, nothing worth writing home about.

  2. 1.14.0 August 31, 2017 at 11:54 pm #

    I have version 1.14.0 of uBlock on my computer. Maybe it has been updated again ?

    • Martin Brinkmann September 1, 2017 at 6:52 am #

      Yes, 1.14.0 is the latest (Pure WebExtension) version. 1.13.10 was a hybrid extension which caused issues.

      • Gary D September 1, 2017 at 4:40 pm #

        @ Martin

        This is off topic. Having read the comments here and on other articles about Firefox, I believe that it is time to start moderating the comments.

        A lot of the comments are not about the subject but all about flaming posters with different opinions. I will leave you to judge which posters I mean.

        This has become more and more prevalent in the last few weeks.

      • Martin Brinkmann September 1, 2017 at 5:55 pm #

        Gary, I will remove any comment that attacks a user from now on, and also comments that are designed to flame or irritate.

      • Appster September 1, 2017 at 6:15 pm #

        @Martin Brinkmann: Hopefully. You may have noticed that I usually have to defend myself against certain trolls here. Why you haven't put e.g. 'www.com in his place is beyond me.

        Also, the same Gary who is complaining about the bad habits in the comment section was trying to pick up a fight with me this morning: "I look forward to your ad hominem response with great anticipation."

        Now he's pretending that others are solely at fault, which I find a bit amusing.

        I promise to try and calm myself down if the same goes for everyone else here. Can't be that people like @Gary D are spewing out accusations when it is pretty clear that they aren't any better.

      • Gary D September 1, 2017 at 6:28 pm #

        Thank you Martin

    • Anonymous September 2, 2017 at 9:31 am #

      Just left AMO there is a 1.14.4 now.

  3. Absolutely not gorhill August 31, 2017 at 11:59 pm #

    Never automagically update your addons (or webextensions) without looking at the growing problems.

    Thank you, MOZILLA CORPORATION

  4. brisson September 1, 2017 at 12:53 am #

    So does this mean that uBlock Origin will stop "forcing" content processes in Firefox to drop from 4 (Mozilla's default number) to 1? Do Firefox users have to manually go back in and change this from the Options page?

    • gorhill September 1, 2017 at 4:35 pm #

      I don't understand why you would make such an assumption. Such assumption is based on what exactly?

      uBlock Origin has been multiprocess-compatible since its first release on AMO. The webext version is of course still multi-process compatible. I even run it personally in its own process, by setting the "extensions.webextensions.remote" config to "true".

      • brisson September 1, 2017 at 6:21 pm #

        I assumed it was an issue with uBlock Origin not being a WebExtension since when I did a completely fresh install of Firefox 55, the default number of process was listed as "4". When I installed uBlock origin 1.13.8, it was knocked back down to 1 and I had to manually force the change back to 4. Since uBlock Origin is the only add-on I run on Firefox, I assumed it was an issue with uBlock being in the process of transitioning to WebExt. Obviously that wasn't the case and it appears to be something else.

  5. Ron September 1, 2017 at 1:33 am #

    For those who need the (so-called) legacy version, go here. It's the file named "uBlock0.firefox.xpi" (there's also a hybrid file and a "pure" webextension also).

    https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/1.14.0

  6. CHEF-KOCH September 1, 2017 at 2:11 am #

    32-Bit Firefox user should stay on uB 1.13.8 because:
    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1371255#c21 + https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1371255#c16 which is not fixable within uBlock, this needs to be fixed within Firefoy source.

    • Mark September 1, 2017 at 6:31 pm #

      Thanks faced this problem on by stem and ram/cpu is 100% most of the time & pages never finish loading.

  7. bfs September 1, 2017 at 7:11 am #

    the bit i don't understand is whether to enable Anti-Adblock Killer | Reek​​​​​​​​​ or uBlock Protector List​​​​​​​​​. one seems to be chrome only and both need greasemonkey equivalent to actually work.

    • Kim_Dotnet September 1, 2017 at 8:54 am #

      Anti-Adblock Killer | Reek​​​​​​​​​ is unmaintained , use instead Anti-Adblock Killer Continued (IMO Violentmonkey is better/lighter than greasemonkey) https://gitlab.com/xuhaiyang1234/AAK-Cont#anti-adblock-killer-continued

      alternatively if you're in Chrome/ium you can install "uBlock Protector" https://jspenguin2017.github.io/uBlockProtector/

      Take a look at the comments here https://www.ghacks.net/2017/08/13/dcma-removes-domain-from-popular-ad-blocking-list/

    • gorhill September 1, 2017 at 4:40 pm #

      I soon plan to remove Reek's AAK from the stock filter lists. I also plan to review whether uBlockProtector should be part of uBO's stock filter lists, given it has different requirements for different browsers. In any case, as usual whoever can still use these lists by importing their URL as a custom list.

      • Mark September 1, 2017 at 6:35 pm #

        Thank you for this,
        another thing can you add adguard lists also for people who prefer it since you plan to change the lists.
        Also facing the problem with startup & page loading times mentioned above in a bug.
        Hope if gets fixed.

  8. Appster September 1, 2017 at 7:29 am #

    Aaaaand... Just saw the first ads ever since installing uBlock Origin. Truly great. Thanks Mozilla for the destruction you cause.

    @All users losing their shit about WebExtensions: Why aren't you using Chrome to begin with? I mean, the add-ons are pretty much the same. Why are you still on Firefox? Is it because you like the logo?

    • Anonymous September 1, 2017 at 8:07 am #

      Why I use Firefox? I use it because it's a great browser that keeps getting better and better.

      • Appster September 1, 2017 at 8:59 am #

        You tell me.

    • Rick A. September 1, 2017 at 8:55 am #

      Because we don't want a Google browser like you-(i guess), we don't want Google's unblockable tracking cookies-(which i guess you don't mind, we do). Some of us like how Firefox handles Bookmarks, Tabs and honors our Coookie Exceptions, unlike you-(i guess) and we want multi-process and look forward to a faster, more reliable browser that the future holds for Firefox, unlike you. We don't comment cry over things we don't like, we move on or use another browser.

      Question: Why is it that you care so much if were not "using Chrome to begin with?"
      Why do you wanna know "Why are you still on Firefox?"
      Why do you care if we "like the logo?"

      i have never seen a comment asking you why you love Google Chrome so much, or irrelevant browsers like Google Opera, Pale Moon, Waterfox or Seamonkey, cause i don't think any one cares.

      • Nebulus September 1, 2017 at 10:50 am #

        @Rick A. The fact that some browsers are not relevant to you, it doesn't mean that they are irrelevant for others as well...

        As for a "fast" browser, I never understood the need to load a site 0.1 seconds faster in a browser than in another one. Probably that is one of the reasons why I wasn't seduced by Chrome when everyone was talking about how "fast" it was. I considered Firefox to be the better browser because it was way more configurable than Chrome. Unfortunately, right now the advantages Firefox holds over its competitors are going away one by one. :(

        Now back on topic of uBlock... I really appreciate gorhill's work on that addon, and the fact that he keeps on working on it. But the sad thing is that for me script:contains was a very useful feature that will not be supported in the WebExtension and that means I'll have to stick to the legacy addon version and to ESR Firefox for now.

      • AnorKnee Merce September 1, 2017 at 10:55 am #

        @ Rick A

        You guessed wrong. Appster is not using Google Chrome as his main browser.

        Most of those who have avoided using Chrome as their main browser will also avoid using Firefox 57+ because basically, Firefox 57+ = Chrome or a clone of Chrome.
        ....... IOW, they will use non-Chrome/Firefox 57+ as their main browser, eg Palemoon, Waterfox, Cyberfox, Brave, Vivaldi, Slimjet, Chromium, Cent, Midori, etc.

        If Firefox 57+ = Chrome or a clone of Chrome, people might as well use Chrome.
        ....... That was how M$'s Win 10 Mobile and Windows Phone 8/7 lost out to Google's Android in the mobile OS market, ie Windows Phone 8/7 was just like Android, ie a free OS that is walled-off(eg Windows Store = Play Store).

        Firefox 57+ = Chrome or a clone of Chrome.
        ....... Imagine Ubuntu 18.04+/Linux Mint 19x+ trying to be like Windows 10, eg fees licensing, mandatory auto-update, cumulative updates, twice-yearly OS upgrades, display of ads in the OS, Telemetry & Data collection, optional subscriptions, etc.

      • Rick A. September 1, 2017 at 4:41 pm #

        @Nebulus - i never said other browsers are not relevant to me, and i know other browsers are relevant to other people.

        You should share a link with information that we can read up on how future Firefox versions will load sites 0.1 seconds faster than other browsers.....

        Was that "0.1 seconds" statement most likely an exaggeration? i'm sure it was, my point is if someone who uses Firefox or any browser as their main browser, how is it hard to understand that the user welcomes any kind of speed improvement, stability improvement, security improvement on THEIR main browser of choice ?

        i agree about the uBlock stuff. Really appreciate Gorhill and i hope that script thing will be supported in future versions of Firefox and uBlock.

      • Rick A. September 1, 2017 at 5:05 pm #

        @AnorKnee Merce - it wasn't a real guess, just using that to get a point across as i couldn't care less what browser he uses as his main browser.

        Sorry for your misinformation but Firefox 57 is far from a Chrome clone, if you or anyone else is looking for a "Chrome clone", they're other browsers for that, Chromium, Google Opera, Vivaldi, Brave browser, SrWare iron, Comodo Dragon and others that all fit the bill of being a "Chrome clone" since they're based on..... Chromium..... Seriously, stop spreading misinformation.

        "Most of those who have avoided using Chrome as their main browser will also avoid using Firefox 57+" - Yeah, i'm sure hundreds of millions of Firefox users will jump ship because Mr. App and Mr. Knee say so.....

        "people might as well use Chrome." - Obviously they aren't using Chrome for a reason, and YOUR reason will not affect that AT ALL, get over it already.

      • AnorKnee Merce September 1, 2017 at 7:13 pm #

        @ Rick A

        So, you LIED or spread misinformation about Appster using Chrome just because you wanted to get a point across.
        _ _ _ _ _ _ _

        From https(colon)//blog(dot)codeship(dot)com/building-web-extensions-because-you-can/ , dated 08 May 2017;

        [" What’s a Web Extension Anyway?

        The current thing we call a web extension was started in Google Chrome as a simpler variation on the older (and more proprietary) means of extending a web browser.

        A web extension is built of pieces you’ll recognize: JS, CSS, and HTML. These pieces are then tied together in a manifest.json file that also handles describing things like permissions, storage, and other browser or webpage-specific connections.

        Mozilla’s 'What are WebExtensions' is a great place to start for a deep dive. For now, let’s take a look through a basic manifest.json file and a handful of things you might use today. ....

        ... These days you can write the same JS, CSS, and HTML, describe it in some JSON, and install it(= the web extension) in everything from Microsoft Edge to Vivaldi. "]
        _ _ _ _ _ _ _

        Mozilla Firefox 57+'s WebExtension system means it is a clone or copycat of Google Chrome.

        Firefox's 2013 Australis theme was an exact copy of Chrome's theme. Previously, Firefox had the boxy Classic theme.

      • Rick A. September 1, 2017 at 9:43 pm #

        @AnorKnee Merce - Like i said, "it wasn't a real guess" where i was trying to win anything, just a simple little guess-(if you wanna even call it that) on something "i could care less about". if anyone wants to say i "Lied" or "Spread Misinformation", i'm a big boy, i can take it.....

        "Mozilla Firefox 57+'s WebExtension system means it is a clone or copycat of Google Chrome." - That's like saying when dvd players first came out and they could play CD's and people crying "their just copycat CD players!". Or if Gateway was the first Laptop manufacture to start including SSD's in their Laptops out of the box and then Acer starts putting SSD's in their Laptops, and Gateway Fanboy's crying "their Gateway copycats!". Or how about when Sony put a dvd player in their PlayStation 2, then Microsoft put a dvd player in the original Xbox and Sony Fanboy's crying "Microsoft is Sony copycats!".

        Does Google OWN web extensions? As in does Mozilla have to pay Google a Licensing Fee to use web extensions in Firefox? Does Microsoft or Google Opera or any other developer of a browser have to pay Google to let them make their browser web extension compatible?

    • Harushi September 1, 2017 at 1:48 pm #

      uBlock issue. criticize Firefox for that.
      Nice try Appster - anti Firefox - er

      • Appster September 1, 2017 at 2:12 pm #

        @Harushi: You realize that the WebExtensions transition causing this issue was forced on Gorhill by Mozilla, right? Furthermore ver. 1.13.10 was confirmed to have been broken because of a bug in Firefox 55 which needs to be fixed in Firefox 56. That's why the current version is unable to transition any user data.

        Nice try, Harushi. Better don't comment if you are uninformed like that.

    • gorhill September 1, 2017 at 4:43 pm #

      uBlock Origin webext is not inferior in its ability to block ads. You fail to provide details for others to see for themselves. Just report actual cases with repro steps to filter list maintainers[1] -- filters will be added to uBO's filters if needed.

      [1] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/issues

      • Alex September 2, 2017 at 4:38 am #

        I have two machines running 55.0.3 (64-bit), one is Windows 8.1 and the other is Windows 10. Upgrading to uBO 1.14.0 broke syncing ("cloud storage") -- each machine saw only it's own uploads and not those from the other one. Downgrading back to 1.13.8 restored sync functionality.

  9. Noob September 1, 2017 at 10:43 am #

    Left Failzilla camp a few months ago.

    • Bob September 2, 2017 at 6:34 pm #

      Probably another FlopMoon user then.

  10. Gary D September 1, 2017 at 11:22 am #

    @ AnorKnee Merce

    "You guessed wrong. Appster is not using Google Chrome as his main browser."

    How do you know that ? Are you best buddies ? Are you one person using Appster and AnorKnee Merce as two different pseudonyms ?

    NB I use Firefox 52 ESR and Cyberfox 52 ESR, incorporating the user.js settings complied by Pants, earthling, et al.

    • AnorKnee Merce September 1, 2017 at 12:05 pm #

      @ Gary D

      No, you guessed wrong. Appster and AnorKnee Merce are not one person using two different pseudonyms.

      • Gary D September 1, 2017 at 12:40 pm #

        @ AnorKnee Merce

        You didn't answer one of my questions ! "Are you best buddies ?"
        If not, how do you know that Appster doesn't use Chrome? Are you a Savant or Psychic ?

  11. Harushi September 1, 2017 at 1:53 pm #

    Many WE are coming out and someone still says that Mozilla is falling.
    Logic of anti-Firefox: using same extension standard with Chrome = clone of Chrome

  12. Faxndicke September 1, 2017 at 4:11 pm #

    I am wondering why some people here have the insatiable need for insulting and belittling others for no reason at all. Is it because they can do it anonymously and there are no consequences ? Or are they only trolls and are desperately looking for anykind of attention they can get ?

    Well, I don't know. But it's obvious that these fine characters are popping up here more and more. Maybe some herbal tea or a warm footbath may help to fix their so openly shown deficits. I am sure I am not the only one who wishes you people good luck since you greatly need it. You all have a wonderful day.

  13. Matt September 1, 2017 at 5:35 pm #

    I have to admit. I am one of those people who left Firefox for Chrome two years ago. The speed comparison between the two was painfully obvious, Chrome was so snappy to the point I couldn't bare to use Firefox anymore.

    However, I just installed FF 57 and HOLY SH*T. NOW I GET WHY THEY DID IT. Guys, go install this now, I have migrated all my userscripts and customizations I had on Chrome over to this version and it's now my new daily driver.

    FINALLY. I was skeptical about this at first. But after seeing the massive speed improvements I am back on the Firefox train.

    • Anonymous September 1, 2017 at 6:04 pm #

      +1. It's also very nice to see WebExtensions take off and more and more replacements become available.

  14. gorhill September 1, 2017 at 6:51 pm #

    > there appears to be a limit to how much data can be stored in indexedDB

    Martin, I concluded wrong yesterday when I said 1.14.0 had limited storage capacity: it's not true, I erred.

    I updated the release notes[1], and posted on reddit[2], hopefully this will put a stop in the spreading of this erroneous statement I made.

    [1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/1.14.0
    [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/6xfluq/i_was_wrong_there_is_no_storage_limit_with_ubo/

  15. Tom Hawack September 2, 2017 at 10:42 am #

    Gorhill, uBO's developer, has released two updates of uBlock Origin, one as a Webextension and another as a Firefox legacy add-on, primarily intended for Firefox 52 (I have ESR in mind) users. The version is 1.14.4 and both are downloadable from [https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases].

    Here with Waterfox 55.0.2, the browser that supports (for the time being anyway) Webextensions as well as legacy add-ons, I've opted for the 'Firefox' version. I prefer to have the filtering lists in their dedicated [user_profile/]extension-data folder rather than in the storage folder.

    Also, I've been unable to install the Webextension version of uBO here on Waterfox 55.0.2 and this is not related to the browser : starting a new profile and installing uBO Webextension 1.14.4 led to no issue, but installing it with a profile containing another 65 add-ons would not allow updating the filters' lists (excessively slow downloads at 1-2 kB/s, sometimes failing! !), even after having backed up my filters, removed uBO 1.13.8, installed uBO 1.14.4, restored my filters. Hence, most likely due to incompatibility with one or more of my legacy add-ons, unless it be that uBO Webextension requires e10 which is disabled here (to preserve my dear legacy add-ons). One thing is sure, the issue is not related to my user.js file built with Pants' Ghacks-user.js file : I had pasted it in the new profile and uBO had performed perfectly well as I said.

    What I mean is this : Gorhill not only works like no one to make uBO comply to the Webextension format, he continues as well to offer updates for the (legacy) add-on version. Frankly, as we say in French, "Respects, Monsieur" (~"You have respectful").

    Last point : if you have uBO 1.13.8 legacy installed and if you check for updates from Firefox/Waterfox the update will present uBO 1.14.4 Webextension, not legacy of course. So if you wish to update 1.13.8 legacy to 1.14.4 legacy the best is to download the latest from [https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases] / uBlock0.firefox.xpi

  16. A different Martin September 2, 2017 at 2:46 pm #

    @ gorhill:

    Pale Moon user here. Do you anticipate continuing development of legacy (XUL/XPCOM) UBlock Origin past June 2018, when I gather Firefox ESR will stop supporting legacy extensions?

    Thanks and props for an awesome extension, BTW!

    • Zeus September 2, 2017 at 4:53 pm #

      Can't find the exact post but i do remember he said that he's going to continue to support the legacy version of uBlock Origin for the foreseeable future.

      • Tom Hawack September 2, 2017 at 6:38 pm #

        Seems to me I've read that as well. Anyway, the fact latest uBO 1.14.4 is delivered in both Webextension and add-on formats is a good sign.

        I don't use the 'HTTPS Everywhere' extension any more but it would be interesting that both formats exist as well or at least a separate download for filters only.

        I think Mozilla is going to be surprised, once Webextensions mandatory starting Firefox 57, with the number of users who will either stick with a previous version of Firefox (52 ESR, 52-56) or switch to a fork such as Waterfox or 'Pale Moon'. IMO it'll be the same surprise as that of Microsoft with Win10. Too fast, too mandatory, a too radical method. Users are not puppets and i'm always surprised that big companies don't realize that. Where do they hire their psychologists and sociologists ?

    • Another Martin September 2, 2017 at 6:31 pm #

      Only for a year. After that, legacy version will be abandoned.

      • A different Martin September 2, 2017 at 7:11 pm #

        If that's so, I hope someone will maintain an updated legacy fork of it.

    • Eureka September 2, 2017 at 6:32 pm #

      A fellow Pale Moon user here, Gorhill has already stated that uBO Legacy will be continued for the indefinite future for Firefox 52 ESR and Firefox based web browsers.

      https://i.imgur.com/QpEofqO.png
      https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases

  17. Scott September 4, 2017 at 4:56 pm #

    Firefox 54.0.1 won't let me download UblockO 1.14.6 or 1.14.8 (Legacy).

    I tried to download the file from https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases. (uBlockO.firefox.xpi)
    I then get a message that says. "Firefox has prevented this site from installing an unverified addon.."

    I tried the "save the link as.." but got the same result.

    Any ideas what could be wrong?

    • Tom Hawack September 4, 2017 at 5:37 pm #

      Maybe you can try to set xpinstall.signatures.required to false in about:config or add :
      user_pref("xpinstall.signatures.required", false); to your user.js file, but I doubt this alone will work with Firefox.

      That's also why I moved to Waterfox, Firefox's mandatory frames have become far too strict.

      • Scott September 4, 2017 at 5:45 pm #

        Yeah, I just checked that config entry and it is set to false.

      • Tom Hawack September 4, 2017 at 6:14 pm #

        If the reason is that the files aren't signed you can try the workaround I used when running Firefox ESR 52 :
        "How to override the Firefox Add-on Signing requirement" detailed here on Ghacks at :
        [https://www.ghacks.net/2016/08/14/override-firefox-add-on-signing-requirement/]

        It was brilliantly efficient. No more need for that now with Waterfox :)

  18. Scott September 5, 2017 at 2:16 am #

    Oh man. I forgot all about that Ghacks article. I even had it bookmarked and did not see it until now.

    I just created/added the two .JS files and they work! The download/installation of 1.14.6 worked just fine!

    I am curious about "Blackjack's" comment at the end about altering the code though. I didn't add that code but it still worked.
    ____________________________________________________________
    Blackjack's comment...

    Updated code to work on Fx54+ (it is needed because of the new XPIInstall.jsm introduced in Fx 55 -- a consequence of Mozilla enabling WebExtensions permissions system, upon installing and checking add-ons):

    //
    try {
    Components.utils.import("resource://gre/modules/addons/XPIProvider.jsm", {})
    .eval("SIGNED_TYPES.clear()");
    }
    catch(ex) {}

    try {
    Components.utils.import("resource://gre/modules/addons/XPIInstall.jsm", {})
    .eval("SIGNED_TYPES.clear()");
    }
    catch(ex) {}
    ___________________________________________________________
    Thanks!

  19. Tom Hawack September 5, 2017 at 2:53 am #

    Great!
    I wasn't aware of "Blackjack's" comment regarding code modification for FF54+
    It could be related to the following scenario that I had already encountered with FF ESR 52 which was that some Webextensions wouldn't install with the two .js scripts in place. I had to remove both, restart FF, install the Webextension, paste back the two .js files. So cumbersome that I had built two little batch files, one to delete the two scripts, one to paste them back.

    Also, but you wrote above that it was the case, always keep -- even with those two .js scripts -- 'xpinstall.signatures.required' set to false. Yet, I had encountered a Webextension (I think it was the 'AnonTab' Webextension) which required 'xpinstall.signatures.required' set to true AND the removal of both .js scripts! (I did it then and re-initiated all three after install : it's only for the install).

    So : it is possible to run unsigned extensions on Firefox but it certainly is a brain teaser!

    Anyway, glad you made it to uB0 legacy(Firefox) add-on version. Here with Waterfox I had tested uB0 Webextension and returned to uB0 Firefox (legacy) add-on ... because I dislike an add-on's data using the same folder ('Storage') as Websites. With a Webextension using this 'Storage' folder (sub-folder called 'default') I can no longer block that 'default' folder by replacing it with a zero-byte Read-Only file. I have to block sites storing data on my disk without asking because the built-in Firefox option made available on its Page Info / Maintain offline storage (default-allow-block) regarding a site does not work! Try [bostonglobe.com], open PageInfo, look at 'Maintain offline storage' : it shows 40+KB and an erase option. Erase, set 'Maintain offline storage' to 'Block', reload the site and ... 40KB data come back, in the Storage/Default folder! Who is Firefox kidding? And now I should accept a Webextension using that sale damned Storage/default folder to store its data?! Hey: one Storage folder for Webextensions' data, another for sites storage, not the same!

    Well, looks like I slipped from our original topic. Happy you made it.

Leave a Reply