Firecucks 52, released today, is the first browser to come with support to WebAssembly.
It's basically the same shit as Java from the 90s, but it's going to be built-in in all browsers. All pages will be served as binary blobs. No adblocker will be able to detect, block, hide or modify any ad in the soon future.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
webassembly.org
twitter.com
Only foss can save us now.
Block at router level. Done and done
>Irrelevant shit browser becomes even more shit and irrelevant
>what are host files?
works for android
Imagine this page being served as Sup Forums.org/59287899.ly instead of a bunch of requests from different domains. Your router CAN'T block or tell anything apart, because it will all come to you together in a single blob.
Easy, AI adblocking on a post-networking level will become a thing
In a shocking plot twist, adblockers begin serious competition, and eventually becomes an intelligent service people pay money for
>Your router CAN'T block or tell anything apart, because it will all come to you together in a single blob.
Most ads don't get served from first-party domains. They get served from third-party servers. The obfuscated webassembly page still needs to call those other servers to place ads. And when it does, the router's DNS resolver can just answer "What? doubleclick.net? Never heard of it."
en.wikipedia.org
It uses S-Expressions!
I knew Lisp was the past, present and future!
these attitude is exactly the reason why FF becomes more shitty each day.
No it's actually the attitude of the developmentally disabled developers that make Firefox more and more shitty with each day
They WILL start making those requests on the server side and give you just the final binary product. They haven't been doing that yet because you would still be able to block them. From now on, you won't.
In that case ads would become immensely more expensive to be hosted locally on every server in the world, we would likely be seeing less of them
>a single Ad doesn't load properly
>entire website breaks
I don't mind ads as much as all the tracking. If everything comes from the first-party server itself it's OK with me.
It won't.
If it bleeds, we can kill it. If it's compiled, we can decompile it, target the ads, remove them, and recompile before presenting it to the user.
This. Sites will be forced to groom ads much more thoroughly since they want people to come to their site (no malware/screamers/etc) and also don't want extra garbage taking up local space (non animated, no flash)
Is this the reason why i just got a desktop notification that was an advert from firefox?
There is no reason to run ads if you can't track. They are unseparable concepts
marketers are worse than heroin addicts. they will do anything while kicking and screaming to get their money
>WebAssembly
It's going to be 10 times more effort to make a website entirely out of this shit rather than just use HTML. And then 20 times harder to modify it reguarly. Nobody is going to bother.
I've had it enabled in flags for like half a year in Chromium.
>A web browser adds support for a web standard
Thanks baitman
i don't know man. i ran some wasm in chrome months ago. are you sure about this??
webassembly.org
Web assembly is a JS replacement, not DOM replacement. Besides, if it can be done in Android(blocking in-app ads, that is) it can be done in browsers as well.
That won't work simply because 40% of the internet will refuse it for political and practical reasons. The broswers can not abandon the 40% of the world. It will never happen.
It's like the wishful thinking that the internet can be 100% controlled.
It can't because anyone can run a LAN.
>adblockers
normie get out
sjw central is depricating netscape api for sandboxing
>All pages will be served as binary blobs.
>No adblocker will be able to detect, block, hide or modify any ad in the soon future.
it's just the javascript m8, the DOM is unchanged
>decompile and recompile before presenting to user
enjoy your 38742ms load times
>implying assembly is hard to compile
It's getting compiled regardless - it's a bytecode. Imagine xposed for web browsers.
It's no different than javascript.
>implying devs will write plain web assembly
you're supposed to write C, Java, Python, Javascript or other high level language that gets compiled to web assembly
what if you use a cache so you only recompile it on the first visit and when the site updates
>C
>high level
>I get my programming knowledge from Sup Forums
>No adblocker will be able to detect, block, hide or modify any ad in the soon future.
Incorrect.
WebAssembly doesn't change the fact that URLs will remain text strings, and are used only in a limited set of contexts ( tags, XMLHttpRequest(), location.href, etc.)
Ad-blockers can check all these contexts in which URLs are used (or, even better, perhaps the add-on architecture allows ad-blockers a single point of access to all URLs from all contexts).
COME ON MOZILLA I BEEN USING FIREFOX FOR FUCKING YEARS WHY ARE YOU FORCING ME TO CHANGE BROWSERS?
WHAT THE FUCK fvhdasfdksjhnfgdjk;lhngkr;AFLM[spoiler][/spoiler]
Firefox has been shit for years. Why haven't you changed already?
Every sane man dropped it at version 4.
People still use Firefox? Everyone switched like 5 years ago at the least.
This
Really? THIS is what drove you over the edge? Not the fact that Firefox has been absolute garbage for years and years?
Come home, white man.
>They WILL start making those requests on the server side and give you just the final binary product.
Nope. The advertisers will never allow that. (If the advertisers allowed that, they'd be doing it right now at the HTML level.)
The reason the advertisers won't allow the requests to happen on the server side is because the publishers would then be responsible for making sure that the end user actually sees the ad. The problem is that the publisher has zero motivation to ensure that the end users actually sees the ad, and would be highly motivated to exaggerate their ad traffic by generating lots of fake ad hits.
The advertisers absolutely insist on delivering ads from their own servers. This is simply not a negotiable issue. Advertisers can only trust the hit counts that come from servers that they actually own and control themselves. Advertisers are never going to take someone else's word that they supposedly delivered an ad -- that would open the door to massive abuse.
This lack of trust is the foundation that allows the web to be a tolerable place: The web is only tolerable if ad-blockers are used, and ad-blockers rely totally on lists of ad servers, and ad servers exist only because advertisers don't trust the publishers to serve the ads.
Advertisers don't trust content providers and with good reason. Myshittyblog.com can swear that they've served up ten trillion ads yesterday so they're owed ten million from the advertiser. Third party loading of ads is how they know it is really being served.
snort/suricata binary processing nids rules will fix it :D
Here's wut u do
Don't update firecock
Annnd done
Yey
Yes. Fuck ads.
They're enabling malicious practices.
Spying on data for personal ads, adding attack vectors from malicious advertisement which I've been bombarded with before from an otherwise benign website, that's such bullshit. Ads are simply malicious now. It's not the innocent thing, ads are malicious.. website operators claim keeps their revenue going but it's a lie, ads are simply terrible.
PLUGINS
Firefox is the only malicious practice here
Even fucking Edge has them. The most useful one(Ublock) even appeared on Chrome first.
>spying on data
Cant let them know how many times I clicked their ad, they might know it was 0!
And you're the only one at fault if you actually get malicious data onto your local PC, common sense 2017 doesn't work out so well when you're the 100,000th visitor who won a free iPad, does it?
Hm. An actually informative and well reasoned post.
/thread
>about:config
>set javascript.options.wasm to false
Wow, that sure was difficult. It's also possibly to write an addon that lets you toggle it on or off on a per-site basis.
You know what a 100% flash site looked like when you disabled it? That's what all sites will look like for you if you disable Webassembly.
If firefox is no longer a viable browser then what is?
considering that I can still read most of the content I want on the web with either JS disabled, or only first-party JS enabled, and with lots of tinsel like canvas, webgl, and so forth disabled, I predict that disabling webassembly won't hurt anything.
unless you want to play the 2020 equivalent of those god-awful flash games, I guess
just use icecat
>In the meantime, we strongly encourage our users to upgrade to a version of Windows that is supported by Microsoft. Unsupported operating systems receive no security updates, have known exploits, and are dangerous for you to use. For planning purposes, enterprises using Firefox should consider September 2017 as the support end date for Windows XP and Vista.
;_;7
shreekt
You are retarded.
>Still using Shitfox
Anyway:
1. Uninstall Shitfox
2. Never reinstall Shitfox
3. ???
Yeah, it's that easy
You realize webassembly is a web standard and not only on firefox? Just that its support for webassembly shows that its coming soon?
Kills the purpose if you have to pay for them
Hence the plot twist, advertisers crumble in the web market and better adblockers become profitable because "ours works with the new dystopian future!"
>It's basically the same shit as Java from the 90s,
and yet it's still better than js
in ten years we'll be pirating our ad blockers
I'd just like to interject... bla bla bla... GNU Icecat, not Icecat... bla bla bla... Anyway it too will have WebAssembly since it's not a non-free technology.
>when websites become so overloaded with ads and redundant js cancer you have to write data mining AIs to be able to use them at all
>they become the new face of the web with current web sites considered black-box "backends"
>the browser that doesn't look native on any platform
wtf is this meme
>No adblocker will be able to detect, block, hide or modify any ad in the soon future.
this is the tech level of Sup Forums is today. Holy shit, fuck gentoo you fags would have trouble installing windows.
There are literally no good alternatives
>suggesting a mitm ad injecting browser
Is this some kind of post modernist bait?
>implying it will
cute puppers. Will it suck my bepis?
...
Muh cyberpunk ad-free porn future
XHTML was a web standard too, and look how that turned out.
Meanwhile could've been but Marc Andreesen didn't bother with the standard-cucks and added it to netscape.
This is the great thing about the net. Stuff that users want becomes popular and shit they don't dies off. That's why wasm is fucking retarded in 2017 - because everyone that matters has a decent connection now. Meanwhile nobody wants to see banner ads. So firefox is essentially adding support for shit that will cause more pain than pleasure to users.
The important thing is to make everyone aware of the tradeoffs so people can put it in the trash.
1. what kind of a moron doesn't use his hosts file to block all ad servers?
2. firefox is shit. opera 12 is no longer usable for the most part so vivaldi is the only other choice.
You know you can just do an addon to block requests like always you tech illiterate
The best thing firefox could do is a native content blocker like safari
There are no good browsers anymore but there's still better alternatives. Chromium, Brave, Opera, Vivaldi. Just about anything is better than Firefox these days.
You can disable Web Assembly. At least in Chrome.
It's not like browsers will force you to get Wasm content if you don't want.
Even now Chrome gives you the option to block JS. So, there is an option to block Wasm too.
but muh addons
Wasm has nothing to do with bandwidth you fucking retard.
Ads aren't actually on the server of the page you're requesting though. Usually the ads are from a third party (why would I take someone's money to let them put ads on my site and then have to turn around and pay to cover the bandwidth cost of their ads?)
So unless it's done like the way some mobile browsers serve up desktop versions of pages where the page is actually being loaded on a Mozilla server and then piped to the browser basically like a VNC session, I don't see how ad blocking at the host level won't do the trick.
All of them have add-ons.
It has to do with JIT speed right?
It will definitely make the web more tolerable on mobile
Not to change the UI to be something not cucked
Even embedded ads can(and are being) hidden by cosmetic filters. Hell, even script injected ads can be hidden.
If browser doesn't provide necessary UI settings on its own it belongs to trash.
the w3 browser is an irredeemable shitpile more news at 11
No browser does this
why do web developers treat the web as an application platform, when it was only meant to serve text?
Won't be any different than JS.
...
because currently it's the easiest way of making stuff cross-platform
also no installation required
>well, you need a browser, but 99.something % of people have one
>doesn't force you to use a cuck language
It has already won