uBOL-home
brave-core
uBOL-home | brave-core | |
---|---|---|
16 | 174 | |
363 | 2,322 | |
13.5% | 1.7% | |
8.4 | 10.0 | |
3 days ago | 5 days ago | |
JavaScript | HTML | |
GNU General Public License v3.0 only | Mozilla Public License 2.0 |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
uBOL-home
-
Brave Leo now uses Mixtral 8x7B as default
> It allows for 30,000 dynamic rules
That is not what we mean by dynamic filters. From https://developer.chrome.com/blog/improvements-to-content-fi...
> However, to support more frequent updates and user-defined rules, extensions can add rules dynamically too, without their developers having to upload a new version of the extension to the Chrome Web Store.
What Chrome is talking about is the ability to specify rules at runtime. What critics of Manifest V3 are talking about is not the ability to dynamically add rules (although that can be an issue), it is the ability to add dynamic rules -- ie rules that analyze and rewrite requests in the style of the blockingWebRequest permission.
It's a little deceptive to claim that the concerns here are outdated and to point to vague terminology that sounds like it's correcting the problem, but on actual inspection turns out to be entirely separate functionality from what the GP was talking about.
> Giving this ability to extensions can slow down the browser for the user. These ads can still be blocked through other means.
This is the debate; most of the adblocking community disagrees with this assertion. uBO maintains a list of some common features that are already not possible to support in Chrome ( https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b... ) and has written about features that are not able to be supported via Chrome's current V3 API ( https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as... ). Of particular note are filtering for large media elements (I use this a lot on mobile Firefox, it's great for reducing page size), and top-level filtering of domains/fonts.
- UBlockOrigin Lite
- Current status of uBlockOrigin in Safari 17
-
Chrome's next weapon in the War on Ad Blockers: Slower extension updates
For an extension to be entirely declarative, it must package all the scripts to inject anywhere, the scripting.registerContentScript API doesn't allow injecting code as string[1], the content scripts must be part of the package.[2]
There is userScripts API which allows injecting code as string, but it's impractical as in Chromium-based browsers this requires extra steps by the user to enable the API.[3] In Firefox, the documentation for this API has the following note[4]:
> When using Manifest V3 or higher, use scripting.registerContentScripts() to register scripts
* * *
[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...
[2] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/tree/main/chromium...
[3] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/userS... ("Availability Pending")
[4] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...
-
Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future
AIUI it's because declarativeNetRequests requires the filters to be specified statically, see https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/decla...
Also note that the site you linked is for UBlock, which is a different extension from UBlock Origin. The UBlock Origin Lite (UBlock Origin for MV3) page has an explanation: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...
- UBlockOrigin Lite (partially) works on Safari
-
Browser extensions spy on you, even if its developers don't
You can also use a declarative adblocker like uBlock Origin Lite [1], which only provides the browser with a list of elements to filter, but doesn't have any permissions to read content or perform requests. Or simply use your hosts file to apply OS-wide filtering with no browser add-ons needed: https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts
Be aware that if you use these "passive" blocking methods, there are some sites like YouTube where you will see ads, because in these cases it's necessary to actually manipulate page content to hide them. What you can do is use a traditional adblocker but enable it only for these few sites where the declarative approach is not enough, take a look at [2] for more details.
[1] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home
[2] https://seirdy.one/posts/2022/06/04/layered-content-blocking...
-
uBlock Origin Lite now available on Firefox
> The author's description even seems to praise Manifest v3 in the same way Google PR did.
No, it simply declares the goal of that add-on: to fully comply with declarative ways of MV3 and its limitations, and no uBO extended features that need workarounds to be implemented.
He's more strict to Lite than full version:
- https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/17
-
uBlock Origin 1.50.0
Obviously a project like this has already been offered 7-figure deals already: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-issues/issues/44
And he declined all.
- のーもら公認アドオン『ublock origin』収益化のご提案をまたもや相手にせず
brave-core
- GitHub pull request support for Brave Leo
-
Brave's AI assistant now integrates with PDFs and Google Drive
Unrelated but about Brave and interesting to me: I recently found myself having a large upstream project that I need to maintain some custom patches for, and there's a need for deeper customizations and I worry that my rudimentary system of applying .patch files will turn into an unmaintainable nightmare of merge conflicts after every rebase. I was thinking about possible solutions, and it occurred to me that Brave being Chromium-based must have this same challenge but an order of magnitude more difficult, so I looked for their code to see how they solved this issue.
It's pretty interesting! They do basically the same thing for core Chromium, applying a (big) set of patches[1].
Incidentally, I'd be interested to hear any ideas/approaches to this problem. I'm guessing if there was something clearly better, Brave would be doing it, but it seems like there should be a better way even if I can't think of one.
[1] https://github.com/brave/brave-core/tree/master/patches
-
Brave browser simplifies its fingerprinting protections
https://github.com/brave/brave-core/pull/13737
(Incidentally, that PR number is not quite elite. :)
-
Brave appears to install VPN Services without user consent
I disagree that it's lip service Brave has a ton of engine level privacy patches https://github.com/brave/brave-core/tree/master/patches
To my understanding you can't match it with just js extensions.
Only firefox on the highest security mode comes close I think?
Or ungoogled chromium? (brave has most of their patches IIRC)
Are there other options that have this number of patches?
- With the merge of this pull request, Brave Browser disables WebEnvironmentIntegrity
-
Brave cuts ties with Bing to offer its own image and video search results
Chromium is not 100% Google's forever and always, though they do currently lead the way, and with the most used/backed fork.
https://github.com/brave/brave-core/pull/19476
- With merge of this pull request, Brave Browser disables WebEnvironmentIntegrity
-
Brave is a fork, not a Chromium reskinn
They have much more changes than just compile flags. Here's the repo where they maintain their patch set: https://github.com/brave/brave-core/tree/master/patches
-
Brave Ads are back? Even when they're turned off?
Brave Private Ads toggle controls just Push Notification ads at this time. So, if you are still seeing Push Notification ads, that would be incorrect. However, it's normal to still see New Tab Page image ads, and/or other ad formats. We are introducing a new UI that helps you better toggle on/off specific ad units, and removing the "Brave Private Ads" toggle that can be confusing: https://github.com/brave/brave-core/pull/18938
-
brave browser Dark mode in settings not saving on newest LinuxMint
Yes, being fixed. Github at https://github.com/brave/brave-core/pull/18922
What are some alternatives?
example-chrome-extension - Example Chrome Extension - open source examples for Chrome extension APIs
ungoogled-chromium - Google Chromium, sans integration with Google
webextensions - Charter and administrivia for the WebExtensions Community Group (WECG)
uBlock - uBlock Origin - An efficient blocker for Chromium and Firefox. Fast and lean.
little-rat - 🐀 Small chrome extension to monitor (and optionally block) other extensions' network calls
Vanadium - Privacy and security enhanced releases of Chromium for GrapheneOS. Vanadium provides the WebView and standard user-facing browser on GrapheneOS. It depends on hardening in other GrapheneOS repositories and doesn't include patches not relevant to the build targets used on GrapheneOS.
AdGuardDNS - Public DNS resolver that protects you from ad trackers
iceraven-browser - Iceraven Browser
remove-youtube-suggestions - A browser extension that removes YouTube suggestions, comments, shorts, and more
brave-browser - Brave browser for Android, iOS, Linux, macOS, Windows.
uBlock-issues - This is the community-maintained issue tracker for uBlock Origin