We’ve been anticipating it for years,1 and it’s finally happening. Google is finally killing uBlock Origin – with a note on their web store stating that the ...

We’ve been anticipating it for years,1 and it’s finally happening. Google is finally killing uBlock Origin – with a note on their web store stating that the …

  • Ilandar@aussie.zone
    3·
    3 hours ago

    But that’s not what you claimed. Direct quote from the article (bold emphasis is mine):

    Vivaldi users point out that the built in blocker is noticably worse than uBlock Origin, with some guessing that Vivaldi doesn’t fully support uBlock Origin filterlists (Vivaldi is closed source, so it’s harder for users to investigate).

    You clearly implied that the reason Vivaldi’s source code regarding ad-blocking is harder for users to investigate is because it’s closed source. This is not true.

    • yoasif@fedia.ioOP
      12·
      2 hours ago

      But it is, because making users download a 2GB repo and looking through the code, or crafting custom filter rules to investigate how rules work is harder than looking at a hosted source code repository (like what Brave has).

      Where is the misinformation?

      • Ilandar@aussie.zone
        4·
        2 hours ago

        (Vivaldi is closed source, so it’s harder for users to investigate).

        Please show me where you explained that Vivaldi’s source code is harder to investigate because “users need to download a 2 GB repo” or a “tarball dump”.

        Is English your first language? Do you understand the definition of “so” in the sentence you typed?

        • yoasif@fedia.ioOP
          12·
          2 hours ago

          I’m asking you what the misinformation is. Is this harder to investigate because the software is closed source? In my mind undoubtedly yes. I know it was harder for ME to investigate because it wasn’t open source - no open issue trackers, SCM repository, whatever.

          So please tell me why what I said was misinformation - I’m really curious.