Even visiting a site with adblock helps becuase then the site can say "I get xxx unique visitors a month."
i found out that flash kills any webM-Html5 speed on youtube in full screen.
Originally Posted by DaemonFC
because if you use flash in full screen it turn of the ads to render but if you use html5 in full screen the flash ads on other tabs are renderet at full speed.
because of this i can not use html5+webM or i need to install adblock or flashblock.
Here is the link to the adblock plus explanation page: https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads
If you are thinking of posting in this thread, please read this page first in order to stay informed and on-topic.
You're probably doing it wrong.
Originally Posted by Qaridarium
Opera 12 with GPU acceleration or Chromium 17 with mesa git builds and all GPU acceleration overrides on smokes Adobe Trash with HTML 5 video.
Well, no reason to complain, as we can all disable the new feature if we don't like it.
I most certainly will be disabling it.
While i can appreciate adblock's effort in trying to improve the web's annoying advertising situation (if that is in fact, what they are trying to do - kinda sounds like BS to me. - ie: coaxing better advertising habits out of companies/entities, that will be able to advertise through adblock, if they meet the guidelines ... But, in the end -> i don't care. I don't want any advertisements on my screen, so i've disabled it all, which is valid too.
That being said, i think this is a good move for adblock - some people will value this feature, and make good use of it - in turn someone will profit from it down the line. Good for them. For those of us, who don't buy into it (pay into it?), at least AdBlock can still be called Adblock - because obviously, if you couldn't disable this feature, they would have to change the name to 'AdFilter' because it no longer blocks Ad's, only filtered out the ones that don't meet 'Adblock standards'.
EDIT: and to whomever, posted about disabling ad's as being an 'issue of morality' (disabling ad's is immoral?). That is retarded. it has absolutely nothing to do with morality.
If we don't want to help some individual/company/entity make money off of advertising, then we don't have to. If their only way to make money is advertising, then maybe they should reconsider their current business model, and certainly they shouldn't expect that i will inconvenience myself, so that they can pocket some money.
Last edited by ninez; 12-14-2011 at 09:18 PM.
?? i use the firefox. yes maybe i do it wrong.
Originally Posted by DaemonFC
my point is adblock is usefull for html5+webM because adobe flash gives a fuck about webM videos and they just drain the speed of webM only for ads.
Preaching to the quire, message all wrong
Interesting thread, my main take on the subject is that Adblock plus allowing "acceptable" ads is totally fine, if you don't like it, fork it and stop being childish:
With regards to the Microsoft ads on Phoronix, an analogy that comes to mind would be if you died and went to heaven, when you get there God is walking around putting up flashy signs about how awesome it is down in hell. While sitting on your cloud and reading the bible or whatever, these signs for hell keep flashing into view and distracting you. You start taking these signs down but God and some other angels tell you that it is immoral. That's how stupid this situation is to me and it's one reason that my visits to Phoronix are an absolute last resort on a dry news day, as opposed to it being the first port of call it was when i first discovered the site.
Having a Linux focused site with heavy Microsoft advertising is sending all the wrong messages and the site owner could do himself a favour (increase traffic) by, at the very, least choosing more relevant ads.
Meh... I use Adblock to get rid of the "bling bling BLING BLING IN YOOOOOOOOOOUR FAAAAAAAAAAAACE click now!" ads.
If any of the ads deemed acceptable fall too often in that category for my taste, I'll use the appropriate checkbox, as mentioned on the page that popped up after Firefox updated the add-on.
Beside the post-installation reminder, they made the change public before hand. So I don't feel betrayed in any way.
Too much time spent needlessly complaining, that could be poured into much more constructive activities instead, seriously...
That used to bother me too, now I find it funny. They extort Android handset manufacturers, the least they could do is pay for Linux website hosting.
Originally Posted by mrintegrity
Now if you mean that they produce too much PR noise so as to undermine smaller FOSS players' ability to advertise their wares, then yes, ad space allocation should be reviewed.
Last edited by PsynoKhi0; 12-15-2011 at 09:24 AM.
Right now I'm using the Chrome dev channel with a bunch of override flags and Chrome Adblock (unrelated to Adblock Plus which will eventually port this nonsense to their Chrome version).
The reason for my moving over to Chrome and Chrome Adblock is because there's finally (recent Chrome with override switches) a way to get Chrome Adblock to kill off every ad, every bad element, and every pop under or pop up.
I'm just so pissed off by the way Firefox is going that this Adblock Plus nonsense from Wladimir Palant has been the last straw and has completely pushed me over the edge.
Here's a new one for Michael.
If I want to print something from your site, and don't want to waste my printer ink on your skyscraper ads (because printer ink is very expensive), and I only flipped on Adblock to not waste ink, am I "stealing"?
Don't you in fact harm your users that want to use the print function if you lock out anyone who blocks ads, even if they only do it to not waste a lot of very very expensive ink?
I had read somewhere that the printer ink is actually one of the most expensive fluids ever sold, so this is actually a very good point.