Manifest v3 update: Vivaldi is future-proofed with its built-in functionality
-
Look this post and the following:
https://forum.vivaldi.net/topic/79579/manifest-v3-webrequest-and-ad-blockers/192
-
-
@Hadden89 said in Manifest v3 update: Vivaldi is future-proofed with its built-in functionality:
FYI Adguard has an element picker.
I've looked into this and after some reading (from other sources) I gave it a try. It's not bad at all. Above my expectation. A bit of a clunky (meh, maybe I should call it "different") approach to the settings compared to uBO, but overall good to work with. I'll still be using uBO for now, but at least I'll have a backup-plan in case the drop is there. (Unless this will also be "killed" by the next manifest... Who knows. Let's hope not.)
EDIT: Forgot to mention something: I can't get the LifeWire website to work with uBO, but with AG it works fine ... XD
-
uBOL can't have an element picker (this creates a custom filter list), can't have custom filter lists and can't have auto-updated filter lists for quick fixes which handle sites like YouTube (it is custom filter list).
Hill has explained why it is not possible, uBOL operates entirely declaratively, meaning no permanent process is required for filtering. The browser handles CSS/JS injection for content filtering, ensuring that uBOL does not consume CPU or memory resources while blocking content. The service worker process is only active when interacting with the popup panel or options pages.
MV3 service workers shutdown themselves immediately by design. Adguard MV3 tries to bypass this for adding custom filters. BUT... you have an ad blocker that consumes at least 200 MB all the time just for waking up its service worker. Also an ad or a tracker can manage to load until the service worker wakes up.
Vivaldi native ad blocker is currently basically a Adblock Plus clone and comes with ABP filter lists. It can work in various sites, but there is a reason power users have stopped using ABP long time ago. ABP filter lists get detected by many sites and you can't access these sites, sites with "advanced" ads are not supported and you basically can't visit sites with aggressive popups (piracy sites do this), it is a nightmare visiting them.
I am sorry guys this is what we do. Because we love Vivaldi we currently try to find alternatives to uBO in order to keep using Vivaldi. The sad truth is that currently there is no substitute to uBO for Vivaldi. We should be truthful to people asking what to use as a uBO substitute after June. In order to have in their browser an ad blocker that is as powerful as uBO and friendly to CPU or memory resources is them to switch to another browser.
That's the sad reality. I don't believe the native ad blocker could become a uBO substitute in 6 months considering the development of it the last 6 months and a MV3 ad blocker will always have disadvantages, Google made it sure they will be inferior. -
@barbudo2005 said in Manifest v3 update: Vivaldi is future-proofed with its built-in functionality:
Look this post and the following:
https://forum.vivaldi.net/topic/79579/manifest-v3-webrequest-and-ad-blockers/243
Thanks for the info. It is appreciated.
-
@electryon said in Manifest v3 update: Vivaldi is future-proofed with its built-in functionality:
BUT... you have an ad blocker that consumes at least 200 MB all the time just for waking up its service worker.
I did not realize this, so I did a small comparison. All numbers are after a restart of Vivaldi, 5 unopened pages (slumbering in the background) and the extension-page open. I waited a minute to make sure it was stabilized.
AdGuard uses around 200MB MORE RAM than uBlockOrigin. For me its peanuts, but can see that it could become problematic for others. Obviously this is a quick and dirty test on startup, but the difference is large.
- AdGuard: Lowest I've seen: 551MB to 573MB (highest I've seen).
- uBO: Lowest I've seen 339MB to 352MB (highest I've seen).
-
@jrkl75, inbuild blocker+ Web Eraser script only few Kbytes + out of the Google influence.
>Laptop Lenovo V145 15AST, AMD A9- 9425 Radeon R5 - 5 cores 3,1 GHz RAM 8GB, GPU 2+1 GB SSD 256GB -Win10 64 v22H2| Vivaldi last stable|
-
@Catweazle said in Manifest v3 update: Vivaldi is future-proofed with its built-in functionality:
@jrkl75, inbuild blocker+ Web Eraser script only few Kbytes
Great tip, but its not about the inbuild blocker and some script. You probably missed the part where @electryon talks about the build-in blocker. -
@jrkl75, it's about the ABP filter lists in the Vivaldi blocker, this don't convert it in a ABP clone, you are free to use any other filterlist in the settings, even those from uBO. The only drawback is to find the correct combinacion of Filterlists, which certainly is somewhat tricky and is changing sometimes because of new anti- adblock measures of some pages.
At the moment I've only problems with YT in some Videos, but I can scip these with the scripts.
The biggest problem is the dependency of the Chrome Store, extensions from there are controlled by Google and even can delete these from the browser, not possible with inbuild features with local data or sources out of the Chrome Store. This is for me way more important as an ocasional adblock warner or an banner in some few pages.
But anybody to their like. -
@Catweazle said in Manifest v3 update: Vivaldi is future-proofed with its built-in functionality:
@jrkl75, it's about the ABP filter lists in the Vivaldi blocker, this don't convert it in a ABP clone, you are free to use any other filterlist in the settings, even those from uBO. The only drawback is to find the correct combinacion of Filterlists, which certainly is somewhat tricky and is changing sometimes because of new anti- adblock measures of some pages.
At the moment I've only problems with YT in some Videos, but I can scip these with the scripts.
The biggest problem is the dependency of the Chrome Store, extensions from there are controlled by Google and even can delete these from the browser, not possible with inbuild features with local data or sources out of the Chrome Store. This is for me way more important as an ocasional adblock warner or an banner in some few pages.
But anybody to their like.It would be better not advising people to load filter lists with so many invalid and unsupported rules to the native ad blocker because rules in a filter list are designed to "work" together and this can actually break adblocking in various sites.
There is also no point doing that, the unsupported rules are the important ones created by uBO or Adguard that handle for example the sites which detect the ad blocker.
This is the current situation.AdGuard Base filter without easylist
40310 valid / 65 invalid / 4384 unsupportedAdGuard Quick Fixes filter
312 valid / 0 invalid / 224 unsupporteduBlock filters
7540 valid / 23 invalid / 482 unsupporteduBlock filters – Unbreak
1798 valid / 67 invalid / 550 unsupported -
Therefore the first thing that should be implemented in the built-in adblocker is the support of all lists that uBO and Adguard use, which are the "de facto" standard.
-
@barbudo2005, yes, but not so easy. Some times ago I tried it, adding all uBO list I found, but with the result to break almost all websites. Only some few filterlists from uBO can be used without problems.
