#Glimmerblocker review install#
Probably a nice guy but he can man-in-the-middle you into thinking he is your bank website if he decided to or he were hacked.Īdditionally install a HOSTS file. It has you trust their certificate to make it work. Rather, I just longed for the system-wide protection offered by GlimmerBlocker, and wondered if it would be possible to abstract out a piece of uBlock that could take care of the fastest, easiest blocking on a system-wide level. I hope I didn’t give the impression that I wanted to replace uBlock as a browser extension with my suggestion. You mentioned using other stuff in conjunction with uBlock a couple of times. Still, use this in conjunction with uBlock. It has been around forever and people use it, lots of projects adapt it for various things. It's a multi-platform, ad-blocking, privacy protecting HTTP proxy. I read everything, but I’ll limit my response to the most important points.ĭo check out Privoxy. Thanks for reading this long post!, and may The Source™ be with you.ĭaaaamn, you for the reply of unsurpassed detail! I just want it to protect as much as possible. Still, I love uBlock’s user-empowering mission, and its dedication to integrity and performance. If this is a naïve request, sorry about that I’ve been immersed in the Web since the late 90s, but I’ve never been great with networking itself. (Or better yet, having a dedicated machine running uBlock to protect an entire network.) Rather than protecting individual browsers on each computer, I love the idea of uBlock protecting the whole computer. Obviously, the scope would probably require a separate project. Would it be ( theoretically) possible to adapt uBlock into some kind of system-wide HTTP(S?) proxy? But in spite of its large HTTPS shortcoming, there was something I miss dearly about having system-wide ad blocking. Today, I use uBlock and absolutely love it, and don’t really keep up with GlimmerBlocker any more. GlimmerBlocker’s website even banks on this, stating that ads were not likely to use HTTPS because of the additional overhead. When GlimmerBlocker was first released, most ads were sent over HTTP. for technical reasons, it was unable to block (or do anything with) HTTPS requests.input for future development was not easy (only 1 developer, only reachable through email, no community discussion).it was written in Java (which is seldom installed on Macs these days).it did not rely on SIMBL “extensions” or “hacks”, which was the standard method for Safari users to block ads at the time (before Safari extensions existed).Īt the same time, I lamented some of its drawbacks:.it offered incredible fine-tuning of requests (including modification, which I recognize uBlock deliberately eschews for performance).it was system wide (rather than browser-specific).As a system-wide HTTP proxy, it touted benefits over traditional ad blocking extensions: Several years ago, I used to use GlimmerBlocker.
0 kommentar(er)
