Safari Version

[philipamour]

There doesn't seem to be a Safari version of uBlock Origin, therefore I would like to request it.

[lewisje]

Who wants to maintain the platform-specific bits and pay for the external server (because Apple doesn't host Safari extensions on its own servers the way all other browser extension platforms do)? (NOTE: I failed to realize that even as of the time I made this comment, Apple had moved to hosting all extensions in the Gallery, so that barrier is gone.)

I remember when @chrisaljoudi tried that out and it quickly overwhelmed him; I actually bought a used Mac (but one that could still run El Capitan) with part of my Christmas bonus with the intention to port uBO to Safari, and I just haven't been arsed to get down to work on it, and even then, I'd be looking for someone else to take over that port and set up proper servers, because right about now I don't feel like paying the $99 per year for the privilege of building signed Safari extensions.

[philipamour]

@lewisje Thanks! Hope you like your Mac! $99/year for being able to publish apps to the macOS, tvOS & iOS App Store is a steal. I used to pay $200 to have both macOS and iOS dev membership.

[5t3f4n]

@lewisje if the $99 is the only thing standing in your way, I'd be happy to pay it for you. But since it's an annual fee, maybe we could hold off on doing that until you've reach at least "public beta tier" stability so that already paid for months don't go unused.

I believe I tried to pursueade @gorhill into installing OS X in a VM once but I guess he simply doesn't have the time and/or interest. I'd even offer remote access to an actual Mac if necessary.

By the way, would the Safari fork utilize the new content blocking API in any way or would that mean most of uBlock Origin's codebase would be unusable?

[lewisje]

I honestly haven't looked into the new API enough to answer your question intelligibly.

[gorhill]

doesn't have the time

This is it. Even if I was going into a coding marathon to make a workable version, I would have to maintain and address specific issues. I just do not have the time for this.

[Hrxn]

I think I have posted this link on another issue thread before, but I guess it's still relevant:

GH:
https://github.com/infernoboy/JavaScript-Blocker-5
HP:
http://jsblocker.toggleable.com/

Features

• Quickly and easily block advertisers, tracking agencies, and social media networks from monitoring your online activity.
• Prevent all scripts on the webpage from being allowed to run.
• Prevent links from sending referrer information.
• Block frames, XHRs, embeds, objects, videos, and hide images.
• Block many annoyances such as alert dialogs popping up, forms not autocompleting, windows being resized, and more.
• Full support for Greasemonkey-style user scripts so you can make webpages work exactly how you want them to.
• Canvas fingerprinting protection.

It doesn't use the new Safari Blocking API, apparently, because of some strange limitation. (Note: This might be outdated, I have no idea if it still applies)

About Safari's New Content Blocker API
Safari has a new feature called "Content Blockers" that allows for extremely efficient resource blocking on both the desktop and iOS version of Safari. As much as I'd like to incorporate this into JS Blocker, it is not feasible to do so. Using a content blocker will prevent JS Blocker from showing you exactly what's going on on a website (i.e. you won't see what's allowed or blocked.) It'll also break all of JS Blocker's "other" features, such as showing alerts within the webpage and canvas fingerprinting protection. Besides the loss of features, content blockers are limited to 50,000 rules. While this seems like a high number, it isn't enough for efficient protection and a lot of rules would need to be cut out to even run a content blocker. Until Apple eases the restrictions (or at least raises the number of rules that can be in a content blocker), JS Blocker will not be using this API.

[lewisje]

Oh yeah, so it's the same API used in iOS, and that means a whole new extension would need to be created if that API were relied on.

[AndyWendt]

Maintaining a proprietary Safari version would be quite time consuming. Sounds like a good case for a fork (changed from incorrect PR) from somebody who uses Safari/Mac (Used to but I don't now that I found the land of milk and honey which is linux).

[gorhill]

The solution to time-consumption is not to shift the time-consumption issue onto someone else.

[lewisje]

^^I think you meant "fork" rather than PR.

[Hrxn]

The solution to time-consumption is not to shift the time-consumption issue onto someone else.

Coming soon to a http://www.brainyquote.com/ near you.. ;-)

[..] now that I found the land of milk and honey which is linux.

If I only had known! Don't get me wrong, I like Linux too, but it comes with its own set of disadvantages and problems. The culprit is usually not the Linux kernel itself, ironically..

[tiberian83]

A Safari version would be highly appreciated. I hope @gorhill will change his opinion about it.

[jellyfishcoder]

Safari 10 has a new API that is much better than the old one, it is now distributed via the Mac app store, but the safari 10 is only is macOS Sierra, which is in beta. It allows for more access than the old content blocker API

[kenips]

Actually Safari 10 will be available for 10.10+. Only Apply Pay on the Web, multiple results suggestion, and Picture in Picture are exclusive to 10.12. So any effort into making a Safari 10 Extension will benefit most Safari users once Safari 10 is released.

[freediverx]

I realize Apple has created their own framework for Safari extensions. But it's been a year and I have yet to see any Safari ad blockers that come close to the effectiveness and functionality of uBlock. I am still using the original, no longer supported version of uBlock for Safari and it works better than any of the newer ones offered via Apple's App Store.

Bear in mind that Apple has not blocked the installation of Safari extensions outside of their store, even in the current beta of macOS Sierra, due to be released this fall.

For anyone who uses a Mac, Safari is arguably the best available web browser by far. It is the most secure, most stable, and the one that uses the least resources and battery power - not to mention support for numerous native Apple features such as Reader mode and tab/favorites/password syncing.

What would it take to persuade the devs to create a version for Safari? I would happily pay a premium for it, and I'm certain there are many others who would as well. Also note that Apple users are not as stingy as those on other platforms (ducks!) so it's likely you would find a very receptive audience to a paid version of the extension.