@m-e Not to be a jerk, but it's "ad," not "add." There are no addvertisements. Only Advertisements.
BoneTone last edited by BoneTone
@m-e Native ad-blocking was one of the most requested features for the Android version of the browser. Whipping together that feature was simpler than implementing full scale extension support (which is now the most requested feature on Android). Once implemented in Android, it's not much work to port it to the desktop browser.
uBlock Origin doesn't do anything special to identify which ads to block, that's taken care of by the filters which, unless you've created your own custom filters, it's driven by the third-party filter lists you have subscribed to in uBlock Origin. (In fact, gorhill denies any attempts to donate to his projects, and instead suggests that people donate to the maintainers of the filter lists as their workload is much larger and without them users would have a very large task on their hands to create the filters themselves.) If you add the same filter lists to the native ad blocker, they'll be blocked there too.
The simplest thing would simply be to look at the lists enabled in uBlock Origin and add them into Vivaldi's blocker. One could also use the logger in UBO to see which filter(s) block that ad, to identify the specific list(s) which include a relevant filter.
@BoneTone obviously native has great chances of being faster as it doesn't have to go through all extension APIs, but to be actually better it has to be functionally equivalent at least, if it's not everyone gonna install uBO ASAP anyway
on mobile it's especially important to block all third party requests by default but that's not available yet (if ever)
functionally equivalent at least, if it's not everyone gonna install uBO ASAP anyway
No, it really doesn't. First of all, nobody can install uBlock Origin, or any other ad/tracker blocking extension -- this feature request is for Android. Secondly, on the desktop people install extensions that aren't functionally equivalent uBlock Origin to use as their blocker instead. There are numerous people unaware of uBlock Origin, many of them install AdBlock Plus, to which the native ad blocker is already superior in my opinion.
You and I are not the model for everybody. For me, the native blocker would have to exceed the functionally of uBlock Origin for it to replace the extensions I use to block ads & mitigate against tracking. uBlock Origin, as great as it is, is insufficient in itself; gorhill's other extension, uMatrix, actually does most of the heavy lifting for me, yet even with these working together there are still other extensions necessary to achieve the level of hardening I do.
Native ad blocking doesn't need to be superior (or at minimum equivalent) to every extension on the planet to be useful, especially when considering the vast differences among Vivaldi's userbase. There are lots of features of Vivaldi that I don't use, but that doesn't make them worthless. Even though I don't use native ad & tracker blocking (on the desktop‡) and would personally have preferred they spend their time on other things, that doesn't prevent me from recognizing the value native blocking adds to the browser, especially this browser (Vivaldi Android).
‡ On Android, I'm very thankful for having the native ad & tracker blocking as it alleviated my greatest pain point from the beta version. uBlock Origin extended the ABP filter syntax, but I don't think I have created any custom filters which make use of those extensions, and so I'm able to block most things I normally would, and this feature is in its infancy. It serves well as a very good stop gap until full extension support is released.
that's what I'm saying: either do it right or not at all, especially for features that are provided by extensions already
for that reason proper extension API (chromium API nor WE can be called proper but that's another topic) should be prioritized, being able to do literally anything thanks to extensions made Firefox the most powerful browser on the market, despite Opera having much more stuff built in
but on FF you could install (or create!) extension to extend (duh) browser capabilities while in Opera you could at best keep asking devs to add it
and due to chromium API limitations desktop V is pretty much on the same page and mobile is exactly the same
hence: extensions, at the very least chromium as it should be reasonably doable to port while proper API takes time to surface
and I do agree, uMatrix has more power and if I could I'd direct built in blocker to be uM with filter lists support, but using both uM and uBO is a hassle, quite much of overhead and uM on mobile barely usable while uBO works quite well (not on V obviously)
maxtao last edited by
Yandex Browser on Android has ability to install Chrome extensions.
haleakalari last edited by
This would be a welcome addition to Vivaldi on Android.
tverye last edited by
Extension support is really lacking. For example, the implementation of a translator for Vivaldi, as I understand it, has certain difficulties, since Vivaldi, as an official company, need to buy access to the api of translation providers. Unlike amateur extensions, which simply use indirect access to translators.
I would also like to see functions similar to the clearurls extension in the browser, without which any talk about surfing privacy is meaningless, even if you use dozens of filter lists for adblock. Meaning? If every second click on links from a search or on a social network has tracking right in the url address that you use to go. And here, too, implementation difficulties arise, since in order to maintain the functionality at the desired level, you need to maintain a list of current rules, which the Vivaldi team is unlikely to do on its own, unlike the clearurls volunteers. (Although it would not be so difficult to implement basic link cleaning from redirects from major social networks, search engines and ad tags from major ad networks. Maybe someone will create a topic with this suggestion?)
In general, it will be quite difficult to implement quite a lot of useful things in the browser on your own, at the same time, extensions have all this for a long time. Unfortunately, now only Yandex and Kiwi support the chrome extensions, but the first is inherently spyware, and the second has not been fully supported for a year now (updates come purely as automatic builds).
the implementation of a translator for Vivaldi
functions similar to the clearurls extension
Maybe someone will create a topic with this suggestion?
Do a request here but I think is better to inherit this via extension support as it would an additional layer which could slow down the browser.
only Yandex and Kiwi support the chrome extensions
And Firefox, which use chromium-like extensions.
tverye last edited by
And Firefox, which use chromium-like extensions.
For some reason, Mozilla is in no hurry to unblock a larger set of extensions, although I recently read about a small fork with disabled telemetry and unblocking the installation of any extensions from the Firefox catalog, but I'm not sure that even some of them will be able to work correctly. Therefore, I did not mention Firefox, as it is more accurate to say that it supports 9-11 extensions out of the box than to say that it supports extensions in general.
@tverye True, newer FF has limited support.
Probably other forks - like palemoon/waterfox - are using legacy fox code which still support most of them.
The issue is these extensions won't get (frequent) updates as the "main" browser don't support them anymore.
ahmetulusoy last edited by
@m-e you can try adding filters from adguard filters site, it performs well like ublock origin.
jesus2099 last edited by
If you disabled auto updates and kept Firefox 68, you can still install all add-ons.
TianlanSha last edited by
@BoneTone Kiwi browser has already implemented it. Yandex browser and Samsung Internet have also partially implemented it. Now the only ones left in the dust are Vivaldi and Brave.
would be testing New Original Features within Extensions Support implementation.
One of the reasons about the "delay" would be this.
"Off Topic Tip"
Follow the Signature's Backup | Reset link.
Take the opportunity to start a Backup plan and even create a Template Profile.
Windows 7 (x64)
Vivaldi Backup | Reset
@TianlanSha Kiwi browser's ability to keep current with Chromium updates has been, shall we say, less than stellar. For the better part of a year there were no updates because it couldn't work with the later Chromium releases. I have qualms about installing Yandex, it's privacy protection is questionable to me, and others. I certainly won't be switching. The are, of course, other extensions I want to use, and eagerly await the support of extensions -- it's my to priority for Vivaldi Android. But the native ad & tracker blocker is a great stop gap and alleviated my number 1 pain point from the beta release. That it was included in Vivaldi Android's first official release of a testament to their user focus.
ahmetulusoy last edited by
@BoneTone But these days kiwi began to release more updates , do you think it is still unreliable or we can begin to trust kiwi? Last update was especially on security issue with chromium based browsers.
do you think it is still unreliable or we can begin to trust kiwi
That's up to you. Everyone has their own cost/benefit analysis, and are risk adverse to different levels. The original author had also open sourced the entire project, which seemed like his attempt at an exit from maintaining the project. That's when there was finally an update, and I honestly haven't kept up with it since because it doesn't offer me enough benefit to consider switching to it. Previous results being something of an indicator of future performance, it would take more time for me to have faith the project is going to see the kind development activity we see from Vivaldi. But any longer discussion of other browsers should be in a different thread, it's not really on-topic here.
I've Kiwi on my mobile and the version page says
chromium 77 / Detected as chromium 86(via user agent spoofing).
I don't think is bad, maybe a bit slow, but the fact is on such older chromium version is concerning, even if some security patches from 78 to 86 were backported.