I concur to this request. I love AdBlock for Mozilla Firefox and simply cannot stand browsing without it. I really do enjoy the idea of Google's browser and I'd be sold if there was an ad blocking extension made available for that browser.
It sort of makes me sad to think that on day, when extensions for Chrome become apparent, that I may turn my back on using Firefox. :'(
Porting request: Google Chrome
-
Wladimir Palant
As somebody noted already, Google Chrome is based on WebKit and not on Gecko - which means that "porting" would require writing from scratch. If you don't feel like doing it, nagging the authors of SafariBlock and Safari AdBlock should be a better choice - they already have something that works with WebKit.
I don't see the big attraction to the new Google browser. Installed it, had a quick look and got over it !!
A bit of competition should be good for Firefox though. We have IE8 and now Chrome to help push things along and to possibly borrow new ideas from.
A bit of competition should be good for Firefox though. We have IE8 and now Chrome to help push things along and to possibly borrow new ideas from.
________________________________
ABP Subscriptions
ABP Development Builds
Submit an issue report with Adblock Plus
ABP Subscriptions
ABP Development Builds
Submit an issue report with Adblock Plus
-
qayin
Solution for now
Since Google chrome does not yet support third party extensions, try making some entries in your hosts file to block ads. The space allocated will still render, for things like an iframe, but you wont see the ad.
-
Wladimir Palant
Sorry Rick but you are quoting somebody very misinformed here. I have seen claims about Chrome sending visited URLs to Google - that's non-sense, it is the malware protection verifying URLs, and it only sends hashes that you cannot reconstruct the original URL from. I don't see Google tracking users from the browser, they aren't stupid. And I want to see hard facts when claims like this one are made.rick752 wrote:Chrome: "the world's first ad-serving and privacy tracking browser"?
What I just wrote in a mail: apparently, Google Chrome isn't extensible yet but they announced plans for adding this functionality (which isn't a big surprise, no browser nowadays is complete without some way to extend it). As soon as they do it, somebody will come along and write an ad blocker - probably one with many issues like the IE ad blockers, but it will work. And I don't think that Google will try to prevent this - as I said, they are too smart as to trying to prevent people from doing what they want. They will probably attack the problem from a different angle - by removing incentives to block ads (something they have been largely successful at already, and which they probably can improve thanks to Gears).
Well, I may be being a bit suspicious ... but I was also just reading this:
"This Post Not Made In Chrome; Google's EULA Sucks"
http://tapthehive.com/discuss/This_Post ... EULA_Sucks
... these stories are starting to pop up on the net today. I just don't trust this browser ... especially with that EULA.
"This Post Not Made In Chrome; Google's EULA Sucks"
http://tapthehive.com/discuss/This_Post ... EULA_Sucks
... these stories are starting to pop up on the net today. I just don't trust this browser ... especially with that EULA.
-
Wladimir Palant
Yes, that's a standard EULA and that clause is definitely targeted at web services. They need to adapt it so it can be applied to a browser.
PS: Here are some details on Google Chrome and privacy: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-ch ... unication/
PS: Here are some details on Google Chrome and privacy: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-ch ... unication/
Or maybe it is written like that for a reason? ...Wladimir Palant wrote:Yes, that's a standard EULA and that clause is definitely targeted at web services. They need to adapt it so it can be applied to a browser.
Google can say what they want. Smarter and more knowledgeable people than us about this are complaining about some of my same concerns ... like Dennis Howlett's:
"Chrome’s EULA is a cut ‘n’ paste showstopper"
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howlett/?p=477
I'll have to give these concerns a little time to "shake out" before I make a decision on its non-evilness. Every commercial entity has an angle. But for now, all I will do is read.
EDIT:
The first thing that needs to be done IMMEDIATELY is that parts of the EULA have to be changed ... pronto! If that doesn't happen, I will stand my ground on my suspicions.
I have the same suspicions with Google that I had when AOL/TW made a Netscape9 clone of Firefox. It all starts innocently enough ..... but fortunately, no one 'bit' on that one. If they did, it would have been AOL/Netscape7 all over again.
-
halka
Well, i don't see what the fuss about privacy is about. Since it is a fully open-source browser, i doubt that they would risk being criticized by half of the known world. And secondly - take look at Chromium [dev.chromium.org], which is essentialy the original source code with a different name [and licence] slapped on top of it.
Then you need to do some research. I have been doing a lot for a very long time ... as others have too.halka wrote:Well, i don't see what the fuss about privacy is about.
Just do a Google search on:
Code: Select all
Google "privacy invasion"They may be innocent at the beginning figuring that geeks will question this move ... but just wait until the near future when everyone is 'comfy'
. Their EULA is an open-ended invasion.-
halka
I just said that Google's EULA has nothing to do with Chromium [the 'other' Google Chrome]. You can always inspect the sources yourself, if you are so inclined [a lot of people will be, don't worry about that]. Sure, google could make a lot of money from crunching the input of your addressbar, but i doubt they would want to stand the public embarrasment when anyone found about that. Also, i am not a lawyer, but from what i've read on slashdot [sigh], EULA shouldn't even be there as it is open source, and i guess it can be safely ignored.
-
halka