On 02/01/2016 09:46 AM, Jonathan Roemer wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 01:52:03AM -0500, Eli Schwartz wrote:
>> Way to go on not answering the question in any way, shape, or form...
>
> uBlock Origin [random screed follows]
>
> As the user's current Adblock Plus solution is broken, and they
> s
On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 01:52:03AM -0500, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> Way to go on not answering the question in any way, shape, or form...
uBlock Origin is a less resource intensive, more thorough solution than
Adblock Plus. The relevant performance statistics are below.
https://github.com/gorhill/uBl
Mon, 1 Feb 2016 09:46:33 -0500
Jonathan Roemer :
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 01:52:03AM -0500, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> > Way to go on not answering the question in any way, shape, or form...
>
> uBlock Origin [blurp]
Again, this thread is not a discussion about add-ons, but what to do
about Mozilla'
On 01/31/2016 11:52 AM, Jonathan Roemer wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-01-31 at 11:45 -0500, Francis Gerund wrote:
>> is there a better idea?
>> Any opinions?
>
> uBlock Origin
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/
>
Way to go on not answering the question in any way, shape, or
On 01/31/2016 01:32 PM, Sebastiaan Lokhorst wrote:
> I think everyone is missing the point: the firefox-adblock-plus package[1]
> is broken since it does not work with the latest version of Firefox.
> It should probably be dropped from the repositories. I've opened a bug
> report.[1]
>
> [1] https
On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 19:25:56 +0100 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> For me duckduckgo is completely useless.
You never use '!archpkg firefox' or '!archwiki firefox'? The nice thing
about duckduckgo is the use of bangs (and for me that i don't need
to remember the original url :) ).
> However, I'm not talki
I think everyone is missing the point: the firefox-adblock-plus package[1]
is broken since it does not work with the latest version of Firefox.
It should probably be dropped from the repositories. I've opened a bug
report.[1]
[1] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/47970
On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 18:38:15 +0100, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
>duckduckgo
For me duckduckgo is completely useless.
>ixquick
Most of the times I'm using startpage.
However, I'm not talking about the Google search engine, but about
"safe browsing" and other Google features used by Firefox.
I wou
On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 18:38:15 +0100
Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
> Am 2016-01-31 um 18:07 schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
> > On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:58:57 +0100, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
> >> Besides this I would suggest some improvements in the default settings
> >
> > Defaults that differ from Upstream,
On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 12:15:13 -0500, Jonathan Roemer wrote:
>On Sun, 2016-01-31 at 18:07 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>> I guess Arch users expect to get defaults that most closely
>> correspond to Upstream.
>
>Yes. The relevant bug report is here.
>https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/45900
To disable
Am 2016-01-31 um 18:07 schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:58:57 +0100, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
Besides this I would suggest some improvements in the default settings
Defaults that differ from Upstream, such as removing everything Google
related from about:config or what kind of "im
On Sun, 2016-01-31 at 18:07 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> I guess Arch
> users expect to get defaults that most closely correspond to Upstream.
Yes. The relevant bug report is here.
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/45900
This was also covered in a mailing list thread earlier this month.
https://lis
On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:58:57 +0100, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
>Besides this I would suggest some improvements in the default settings
Defaults that differ from Upstream, such as removing everything Google
related from about:config or what kind of "improvements"? I guess Arch
users expect to get de
Am 2016-01-31 um 17:45 schrieb Francis Gerund:
Hi.
Firefox 44.0 does not seem to allow installing the firefox-adblock-plus
addon package from the Arch community repository. Instead, Firefox states
that it only allows addons "signed" by Mozilla to be installed. That seems
to exclude the package
On Sun, 2016-01-31 at 11:45 -0500, Francis Gerund wrote:
> is there a better idea?
> Any opinions?
uBlock Origin
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Hi.
Firefox 44.0 does not seem to allow installing the firefox-adblock-plus
addon package from the Arch community repository. Instead, Firefox states
that it only allows addons "signed" by Mozilla to be installed. That seems
to exclude the package mentioned.
I could install the adblock-plus add
16 matches
Mail list logo
