adblocker VS browser-base

No well-known content blocker "process about 90,000 regexps" to find out whether a resource needs to be blocked or not, that's just not how it works internally.

Last time I ran benchmarks of all well-known content blockers using Ghostery's benchmark tool[1], all of them could process a network request under 20µs on average.

Some do have performance concerns, but it has nothing to do with network filtering, it has to do with other stuff they do beyond network filtering (for example see [2]) and declarativeNetRequest does not help there, so they will still suffer these performance issues under MV3.

---

[1] https://github.com/ghostery/adblocker/tree/master/packages/a...

[2] https://www.extremetech.com/computing/182428-ironic-iframes-...

Only benchmarking can tell, we shouldn't make assumption about this. Currently the only comparative benchmark which I know of is ghostery/adblocker and running it with the latest static filtering engines shows uBO performing better:

With that in mind, uBO's blocking engine is currently the fastest as demonstrated by latest Cliqz's benchmarks, so the "quicker" claim does not hold either.

Author of RSS Guard here. After considering many approaches, I managed to dump old C++-based slow adblocking mechanism from RSS Guard and replaced it with this.

Thanks to the Wexond Shield powered by Cliqz

Otter Browser is very lightweight and open source, Dot Browser (based on Firefox), Skye (a fork of Wexond, which is based on Electron) and Midori Browser (based on Blue Hawk, which is a fork of Falkon) are also being developed in the open

Try Skye based on Wexond with compact UI.

Here it's if you want: https://github.com/wexond/browser-base . The browser looks quite nice.

You might want to check https://wexond.net, however it's not ready yet.

That's all the browser engines you get that can load most pages today so if one is out for being too far behind what's implemented and another is out for personal reasons that leaves you with Firefox. People not using Firefox anymore (95% on desktop and 99% on mobile) just have different personal reasons that outrank "I trust the organization behind it values me" when selecting their browser.

As far as fun tech things Flow looks like it could be interesting but they aren't interested in being your day to day browser (yet at least) and it's still early in it's life.

For "chromium browsers that aren't a megacorp" Brave and Vivaldi are oft talked about. I don't really see all the appeal of Brave myself but it does have some decent customization options while still being able to be typical Chromium. Vivaldi is the old Opera spirit of "your browser can be a pane window with a web page in it or modern emacs" but the way it is implemented causes it to become a bit slower than other Chromium browsers. Ungoogled chromium is also a popular thing, basically Chromium minus some stuff.

For another fun tech thing "wexond" is a browser built in... Electron :). It used to have some whacky ideas but these days it's turning into more of a "chrome built out of chrome's guts". It has (and still is) been a work in progress and I'm not sure it has a fully reliable security policy for use day to day but it's still interesting to check out for fun if that's your thing https://github.com/wexond/browser-base/releases/tag/v5.2.0 notably it's the only browser I've seen with a built in single line tabs/url/extensions/menu/window-buttons gui option.