Slashdot Mirror

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)

---

"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

---

YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

I finished YOU WITH IT all above!

APK

P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

So

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

... apk

my bookmarks are updated automatically

Are they stored on Google servers in an encrypted form that Google can't read or are you being data mined by Google? You can sync your settings, tabs and bookmarks in IE 11 so if Edge doesn't do it already it will soon. Personally, I consider Firefox Sync more trustworthy than the other two.

Have you tried Thunderbird?

In a way, that's bad because it means advertisers have already started looking for ways to get around ad-block.

FTFY.

Googling "block adblock" comes up with a link dated December 16, 2011. We're already 4 years beyond this. And we're also 10 years beyond the in-kind response, showing that the advertisers are more than just a little bit behind the curve. (Noscript was first released on May 13, 2005.)

Personally, I've been blocking ads, scripts, trackers, and other assorted shit from my browser since about 2007. I haven't had any significant malware problems since then. A few minor scares, but nothing major. And it's somewhat jarring to see ads on YouTube videos. That's how rarely I see ads.

ECDH is possibly backdoored by the NSA. From what we know, DH is mathematically sound, provided you generate your own, large enough (2048b or larger) prime.

ECDH in TLS only uses curves proposed by NIST. Some cryptographers believe that constants used to pre-compute the curves are in fact backdoored, which would explain how they decrypt most of the traffic. Curve 25519 and a few others are very likely safe, but not available in TLS1.2. ALL available ECDH curves in TLS were proposed by NIST.

I believe that between precomputed ECDH curves and Logjam, the NSA is able to decrypt nearly https traffic.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/...
"I no longer trust the constants. I believe the NSA has manipulated them through their relationships with industry." - Bruce Schneier on ECDHE curves in TLS

I trust Bruce.

Ideally, the standards body would introduce curve 25519 to TLS1.2. Until then, server operators need to take this advice, configure their servers to prefer DHE (not EC) with 2k+ keys, and turn off older ciphers including EC*.

Oh, and get firefox to fix this bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)

---

"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

---

YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

I finished YOU WITH IT all above!

APK

P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

So

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

... apk

Note that the chrome rich notification center is different from the standardized Web Notifications API https://developer.mozilla.org/...

This story kind of freaked me out at first because I thought it was referring to that Web Notifications API, which I rely on heavily for web based chat and email apps.

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)

---

"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

---

YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

I finished YOU WITH IT all above!

APK

P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

So

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

... apk

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)

---

"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

---

YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

I finished YOU WITH IT all above!

APK

P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

So

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

... apk

It seems to me that Adobe Systems is no longer a well-managed company, and hasn't been since Bruce Chizen got tired of managing Adobe, which was well before he resigned in 2007. Here is a story from 2007 about that: Bruce Chizen's legacy.

This is a comment from a reader of that story who called himself Tidewind: "I might be in the minority on this, but under Bruce Chizen, I felt Adobe became, well, arrogant." That was my experience, also.

Part of the attraction of Flash has been that it is used to violate the privacy provisions of browsers. Flash can be used to generate what are called Flash-cookies, Local Shared Objects (LSOs), or Super-Cookies, which are files placed on a visitor's computer by the Flash plug-in.

(To avoid permanent tracking: In Firefox, use the BetterPrivacy add-on.)

Now Adobe is trying to make money by making its very expensive products even more expensive by charging monthly for them.

Microsoft followed that monthly business model with Office 365: Pay every day, 365 days each year, even if some of those days you don't have internet access. (Read the comments about Microsoft's other methods of abuse, such as restricting each copy to one country.)

Flash is either VERY buggy, or deliberately buggy. Possibly one way Adobe Systems makes money is by allowing vulnerabilities supplied by secret government agencies. Those agencies can spend billions of dollars of taxpayer money without public oversight.

The new software company business model is apparently "Be abusive".

While it isn't quite at the "800GB of random web page requests", there is a Firefox Add-On that can help with that sort of thing: TrackMeNot. At a user-configurable interval, it sends out semi-random search queries to a number of number of search engines (it pulls the search terms from a variety of RSS feeds of trending topics). It's aimed more at "poisoning the well" of search-engines databases than intelligence-agencies, but it helps ;-)

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)

---

"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

---

YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

I finished YOU WITH IT all above!

APK

P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

So

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

... apk

You'd need to ask the Pale Moon maintainer on his forum -- this is the only person who will "know for sure". The odds are 50/50, as unnecessary as that is to say. But here's why I say "you need to ask him":

The Pale Moon author has a tendency to backport changes from present-day Firefox *extremely* selectively. I read the PM Release Notes, and most things he isn't backporting at all. For example, for some reason he chose not to backport improved CSP specifications (Mozilla has long since implemented these) which in turn broke usability for at least one major site: Dropbox. Read the thread (see screenshots) for how this manifested itself -- end-users literally had no clue what was going on despite all troubleshooting available. Note that the forum post I linked to is from November 2014. It wasn't until Pale Moon 25.6.0, released August 27th 2015 -- 9 months after the report -- that the issue was fixed.

This is one of the biggest problems there is with Pale Moon -- it's continually behind Firefox in every way. Pale Moon is proclaimed on the Internet as "Firefox without the Dumb Stupid UI (Australis)", but it isn't -- it's literally "a fork of Firefox 24.9" that is in many regards (not all but many) stuck with the "technology" of Firefox 24.9. If you read the PM Release Notes slowly you'll begin to notice what I describe.

Similarly this is why add-ons (not plugins) that are for Firefox 25 or later won't install on Pale Moon. This sounds trivial until you realise how many Firefox add-ons require something more recent. A good example is the BTTV add-on for Twitch -- you're instead forced to install the UserScript version (missing features + ridiculously slow), which requires installation of Greasemonkey, which has its own weird problem (and that problem makes me want to never install Greasemonkey ever again, particularly due to this response from a maintainer (who's wrong in his statement -- the GM folks are who maintain the addons.mozilla.org entry for their software! It isn't some random end-user or Mozilla themselves!)). Instead, to get GM 1.5.1 installed, you gotta know exactly what URL to go to.

There are also several other commonplace behaviours on the web now that don't work in Pale Moon. One that still bugs me to no end is animated GIF playback stopping mid-way until you do something in the UI (like try to drag/move the GIF or something) which seems to fix it for that particular session. Odds are this is some weird Firefox bug that the PM author never backported (or possibly introduced himself through some other change, I have no idea).

Despite all the above and my overall negative tone, I am still an active Pale Moon user (it's my primary browser). I've tried twice to switch back to Firefox but there are still several things in Pale Moon which there are not replacements for in Firefox (i.e. all the UI tweaking and "classic" add-ons for present-day Firefox still can't get you the exact same UI as Pale Moon or older Firefox).

It's really too bad Mozilla turned their UI into an ugly mess.

@Anonymous Coward: "You know what's sad? This board. Take a look, people are getting six ways bent out of shape over nothing."

No, what's funny is that this is even an issue and that Mozilla had to consult a feminist from the 'North American culture-sphere' before allocating a three letter file extension.

@Anonymous Coward: "A couple of Google engineers thought it would be funny to name their new compression type ".bro", it was an arbitrary name. Then a (male) Mozilla engineer talked them out of it (wisely IMO)."

No, there was no joke intended, not being from North America the google engineer was indifferent to the cultural meaning of 'bro'.

Jyrki Alakuijala 2015-10-10 04:10:46 PDT

"bro is short for brotli -- there are no hidden meanings in it"

"I have asked a feminist friend from the North American culture-sphere, and she advised against bro. We have found a compromise that satisfies us, so we don't need to discuss this further. Even if we don't understand why people are upset from our cultural standpoint, they would be (unnecessarily) upset and this is enough reason not to use it."

https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/08/21/the-future-of-developing-firefox-add-ons/

O God.

As if the xml/xul/xpcom repetitive cargo cult nighmare wasn't bad enough.

Just as the code started to mature a little bit, and despite its ugliness and brittleness, people started to make (a little bit) sense of it, they plan to tear everything down and put into place another mumbo-jumbo of Web 3.0 idiocy (rewritten in Rust, no less!)

Just like the xorg/wayland bunch of idiots.

And to add insult to injury, they will make everything closed-garden: no more addons not reviewed by mozilla.inc, even if they're signed and you explicitly trust the developer's certificate!

If you'd like to avoid the ad-infested miasma that is TFA over at BetaNews, you can go straight to the proposal here:

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/10/07/proposed-principles-for-content-blocking/

Ghostery is an excellent add-on for Firefox.

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)

---

"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

---

YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

I finished YOU WITH IT all above!

APK

P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

So

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

... apk

Adblock and Adblock Plus will now both ultimately take money in exchange for allowing ads. You can tell the agenda from the "default on" position.

So, can we get a list of stuff that DOESN'T do this? Maybe with links to the developers saying why not?

We can't edit posts on slashdot, normally for better, but this means I can't add to this list with responses. Still, respond please if you got'em!

The ONLY ones I know for sure are:

** uBlock Origin **- For Firefox and Chrome, this blocks a lot of privacy related things. This one seems like you can customize it, and the addon page tells you about other ad lists you can also apply. Importantly, the developer (gorhill on github) has had to deal with "acceptable ad" beggars, and shuts them down. The odds of this addon staying clean seem very high based on this.

Chrome store: https://chrome.google.com/webs...
Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

I don't know if this works with popular privacy or usability forks of Firefox and Chrome, and maybe some Palemoons and Comodos and Waterfoxes and whatevers can chime in with details.

The old Adblock Edge was a solid Firefox addon, but discontinued with a message to use uBlock Origin. The somewhat similar dramafilled uBlock (without the "origin") I think has no acceptable ads either, but I have a hard time googling that stuff.

** uBlock ** - This and uBlock Origin share a relatively recent codebase, but there are some developer disagreements. I couldn't find any evidence that uBlock uses acceptable ads, however, so definitely listing it:

Chrome Store: https://chrome.google.com/webs...
Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

*What else has no acceptable ad option*???

I'd even be ok counting ones that have one that is disabled by default, something that uBlock Origin has fought off successfully.

Adblock and Adblock Plus will now both ultimately take money in exchange for allowing ads. You can tell the agenda from the "default on" position.

So, can we get a list of stuff that DOESN'T do this? Maybe with links to the developers saying why not?

We can't edit posts on slashdot, normally for better, but this means I can't add to this list with responses. Still, respond please if you got'em!

The ONLY ones I know for sure are:

** uBlock Origin **- For Firefox and Chrome, this blocks a lot of privacy related things. This one seems like you can customize it, and the addon page tells you about other ad lists you can also apply. Importantly, the developer (gorhill on github) has had to deal with "acceptable ad" beggars, and shuts them down. The odds of this addon staying clean seem very high based on this.

Chrome store: https://chrome.google.com/webs...
Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

I don't know if this works with popular privacy or usability forks of Firefox and Chrome, and maybe some Palemoons and Comodos and Waterfoxes and whatevers can chime in with details.

The old Adblock Edge was a solid Firefox addon, but discontinued with a message to use uBlock Origin. The somewhat similar dramafilled uBlock (without the "origin") I think has no acceptable ads either, but I have a hard time googling that stuff.

** uBlock ** - This and uBlock Origin share a relatively recent codebase, but there are some developer disagreements. I couldn't find any evidence that uBlock uses acceptable ads, however, so definitely listing it:

Chrome Store: https://chrome.google.com/webs...
Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

*What else has no acceptable ad option*???

I'd even be ok counting ones that have one that is disabled by default, something that uBlock Origin has fought off successfully.

It's unclear whether most of the FUD in this discussion is directed at the GPL itself or specifically v3. But it's entirely unfounded.

It's not FUD, and its about the GPL in general - although being GPL3 makes it worse. "GPL2 or later" would have been a better (but still flawed) choice.

You know why libraries aren't generally licensed GPL, right? Anything that links to them has to have the exact same license as the library. For instance, the GPL2 licensed Inkscape can't use this library.

That's the difference between the GPL and the LGPL. You can link to LGPL libraries from any software; you can only link to GPL licensed libraries from code with the same version of the GPL.

In RMS' ideal world, all software would move to the latest GPL and it wouldn't be a problem. Good luck convincing these guys of that.

This is the appropriate license for this image format.

The GPL is not the appropriate license for any general-purpose library. That's what the LGPL is for. Or, like most reference implementations, a non-copyleft license like the MIT license.

Look, I get it, you're a promoter of software freedom. So am I. But this is the real world, and this is a reference implementation. There are conventions to follow for reference implementations, and an OSS non-copyleft license is one of those conventions. This image format could outperform every other format on the planet and it will still see no adoption outside of academia unless there's a compatibly licensed library available. Unless it gets relicensed, or someone writes a non-GPL library, this will go down as just another interesting format that sees no adoption whatsoever.

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)

---

"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

---

YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

I finished YOU WITH IT all above!

APK

P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

So

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

... apk

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)

---

"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

---

YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

I finished YOU WITH IT all above!

APK

P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

So

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

... apk

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)

---

"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

---

YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

I finished YOU WITH IT all above!

APK

P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

So

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

... apk

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)

---

"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

---

YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

I finished YOU WITH IT all above!

APK

P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

So

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

... apk

The path and domain are not authenticated to make sure site A does not set a cookie fraudulently for site B.

These are called "third-party cookies", and browsers (for example, Firefox) already have knobs to disable them. That's not the real issue here, however.

Another problem seems to be, the browsers present all the values associated with the name to the web site, even the cookies not set by that site.

Not only that, a site could get cookies set by "parent" and "child" sites. Furthermore, a lot of web-programming languages (including PHP, ASP.NET, Classic ASP, and GWT) expose the cookies as a key-value store where the key is simply the name of the cookie, and don't document which cookie they use if the browser sends multiple ones with the same key. (Java is a bit better, it just exposes a bucket, but that's harder to work with.)

I used to be a "internet-optimist" also believing universal internet access is a good thing, and maybe it is in the longer run.

But right now, the web is badly broken. Most of these new users Mr. Zuckerberg wants to get online have no clue about the dangers, both cultural and technical. There are efforts by various foundations (eg: Mozilla) to educate new users, but they are hilariously mismatched to the big internet giants who want to siphon of people's privacy for $$$. On top of that you have the Snowden revelations

I work with many rural communities in India, and often the question of providing internet access comes up. Unlike before, where I would say an unqualified yes, I do not support providing internet unless there is a deep discussion held with the stakeholders. What is (pleasantly) surprising though is that usually the elders in a Village are quite concerned and want to discuss these issues.

Does Mr. Zuckerberg have it in him to have those discussions?

You can probably change this by editing Firefox's session preferences.

Try these settings in about:config

browser.sessionhistory.max_entries = 1
browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers = 1
browser.sessionstore.max_tabs_undo = 1
browser.sessionstore.interval = 1000000

http://blog.codefront.net/2008/09/10/optimize-firefoxs-memory-usage-by-tweaking-session-preferences/
http://www.grmtech.com/blog/desktop-configuration-at-grmtech/

You could also try the Session Manager extension:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/session-manager/

https://support.mozilla.org/en...

What's your point? None of those troubleshooting tips mention anything about Firefox using anything but the same system DNS as everything else.

https://support.mozilla.org/en...

I just don't understand the mentality.

It's just one more step in their grand master plan to remove all web browsing functionality from their web browser, announced back in April '15.

They already approved their decision to remove HTTP support from Firefox over the next year:
https://blog.mozilla.org/secur...

After which the new tab preference will be pretty unimportant in the overall scheme of things.
Although to be fair, they will force-expire that random guys plugin a few dozen times between now and then no doubt :P

Firefox 41 also removed the New Tab URL preference (browser.newtab.url), telling people to use a third-party extension instead.

The reason? Malware can change the setting. Full stop. That's it. So, because someone's computer is already compromised, and that malware changed a Firefox preference (alongside doing things like, you know, running a keylogger), Mozilla decided to cause headache and grief for everyone else. And to top it all off, if you want to continue to configure the new tab URL, you should use an extension written by some random guy.

I just don't understand the mentality. Choosing the default URL for a new tab seems like such an obvious feature, yet it's getting ripped out too, like so many others that Gavin Sharp has pissed on. Fuck Mozilla.

Perhaps because bug 366559 just landed today in Firefox, so it'll be in tomorrow's trunk nightly build.

You know what kind of ads I really hate? The autoplaying video ads that have started appearing on Slashdot. Is there an ad blocker that will kill only those?

Try Flashblock: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

Configure it to your taste, by whitelisting websites where you _want_ videos to play automatically.

No, fake contacts doesn't solve the problem. The problem is you need a better model is. Funny fact Android already has one:

http://developer.android.com/r...

A similar model was adopted by FirefoxOS from the start:
"Web Activities are a way to extend the functionality of HTML5 apps without having to access the hardware on behalf of the user. In other words, you don’t need to ask the user to access the camera or the phone, but instead your app asks for an image or initiate a call and the user then picks the app most appropriate for the task. In the case of a photo the user might pick it from the gallery, the wallpapers or shoot a new photo with the camera app. You then get the photo back as a file blob. The code is incredibly simple:"

https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013...

It's a form of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

There's nothing to find in the cert. The first method on pinning is in the browser itself. Microsoft can tell their browser which keys are allowed to sign for update.windows.com before they ship the browser.

The second method is via http headers:
https://developer.mozilla.org/...

Toolbars are just the tip of the iceberg. All major browsers are malware because they don't isolate cookie storage (or all storage, really) between origin domains, breaking the same-origin policy. Third-party cookies then become data trojans. Intent is important here. It isn't just a vulnerability, but a design flaw continued by the fact that all major browser development is funded by advertising companies.

See for yourself how Mozilla refuses to fix a security vulnerability that is enabling billions to be made from stolen user data: Bugzilla bug 565965

Clueless comment.

Chrome threads everything. Network, layout elements, compositing, JS, even GPU offloaded tasks.

Every browser currently does that, including Firefox; so the networking stack is separate to the layout engine, and many tasks are offloaded on to the GPU, including CSS animations, etc. That's not what servo is about, it's in competition with gecko and webkit, not the rest of browser.

Even though Mozilla has miniscule of funding as compared to Google's Chrome, yet they are surprisingly in tandem with Chrome, and in some cases, exceed Chrome in innovation and implementation of HTML5/ES6/and CSS3/4 specs. Read the changelogs with every release to get a better idea.

Firefox does okay in benchmarks, but it feels slow compared to Chrome and even to some extent Edge. The problem is this lack of threading.

Again, an ignorant comment which shows you know little about Firefox and how Chrome/Edge work.
All browsers are heavily multithreaded, including Firefox, in which JS / DOM / network stack / chrome (xul) / etc are heavily threaded.
The problem is all other browsers are multi-process, so better able to utilise parallel resourcing and cpu; while Firefox is still single-process and only able to utilise a single core of a cpu.

Here's a demo of Firefox utilising the upcoming electrolysis project in which the layout engine is separated from the chrome (browser ui).

Meh, they still haven't finished the Electrolysis project for multiprocess Firefox and they've been working on that since 2009, if it's in pre-alpha now it'll take a decade before it's usable.

What happens when you turn off Javascript?

God kills a puppy in your name.

Excellent, Smithers!

I'm a gonna go donate to noscript development right now. Kittens rule!

All programming languages suck. Some more then others.

Then you have complete clusterfucks like Javascript and PHP.

Javascript's lack of a standard "include" is a prime example of how retarded it is. Oh look "import" is supposedly being worked on, yet no browsers support it (yet.)

* https://developer.mozilla.org/...

At least with EcmaScript 6 "strict" mode is _finally_ enabled by default in classes, modules, etc.

* http://people.mozilla.org/~jor...

You can't fix retarded design(s) unless we first overcome ignorance with knowledge.

All programming languages suck. Some more then others.

Then you have complete clusterfucks like Javascript and PHP.

Javascript's lack of a standard "include" is a prime example of how retarded it is. Oh look "import" is supposedly being worked on, yet no browsers support it (yet.)

* https://developer.mozilla.org/...

At least with EcmaScript 6 "strict" mode is _finally_ enabled by default in classes, modules, etc.

* http://people.mozilla.org/~jor...

You can't fix retarded design(s) unless we first overcome ignorance with knowledge.

As most of you are aware, there are important cloud based extensions in the popular web browsers. I'm speaking, of course, of the "Cloud To Butt" extensions, which replace all instances of the word "cloud" with the word "butt". This replacement is truly revolutionary, and it discriminates not- even the text "clout to butt" becomes "butt to butt"!

There is a version for Chrome:
https://chrome.google.com/webs...
And the functionality is also on Firefox:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

So here are some highlights from THIS thread:

...I think the other butt limiter is WAN connectivity...

After all, the butt company has to pay for all the same things *and* make a profit (often a very substantial profit), ...
 
...Butts are going to eliminate the need for Corporate IT...

A huge chunk of sys admins will be absorbed into butt providers.
 
...the butt is simply incapable of delivering...
 
...you pretty much can host, colocate or rent your own stuff cheaper than an entire butt stack...

Many large corporations who haven't (and won't) embrace the butt...

With services going to the butt, the role of the network engineer is only going to become more and more important...

Butt is cheaper up front, but almost always more expensive in duration.

And our winner...

If you think it can be done in the butt, then assume it is being done in the butt- and forget doing that as a job.

> enough goodness, smartness, built into the language that if you can just avoid the bad parts,

That's incorrect. There a million and one ways JS can bite you in the ass.

When one is forced to use fucking hacks like

"use strict";

just so that one can get warnings about using mis-spelt variable names it tells me the designer learnt nothing from BASIC and all the shite that went along with it for the past 20 years.

I can't believe you're actually defending the retarded automatic semi-colon insertion. This is almost as stupid as Python. A language should NOT impose presentation (whitespace layout), only representation (semantics.) Mathematics doesn't. Spoken languages don't. So WTF should Javascript?? At the very least it should give you a WARNING about doing something "dangerous" or "unintended" like any good ol' C/C++ compiler will do with -Wall -Wextra. In JS? Nope, no errors / warnings / or diagnostic messages. This is one of the reasons Javascript sucks ass.

Javascript's automatic type coercion is likewise crap. When one is forced to do crap like

return "" + foo

in order to force the language to _actually_ return a string, it means you need to _manually_ inspect the _rest_ of the codebase for these undefined time bombs in your code. All this dumb shit could be easily be caught at "compile time" instead of blowing up, or worse, being silent at run-time.

More dumb shit like browsers treating leading zeros as octal (which NO one uses) in parseInt( "0#" ) is typical of how fucked up JS was. Mozilla and Chrome made excuses for years for why they didn't fix their broken crap:

* http://code.google.com/p/v8/is...
* https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...

There is a reason we moved to statically type languages -- because they catch stupid mistakes. We moved away from retarded languages like BASIC for professional programming because we have better things to do then to hand-hold a broken interpreter written by a moron.

Javascript uses `double` internally. This means it is impossible to get a native 64-bit int. Oh look, I can bit-wise OR a number with ZERO to get a "native" int32. More stupid hacks to work around the lack of a proper type system:

return foo | 0; // cast to int

Javascript's equality operator is so broken it is fucking useless and complete joke. Gee, why doesn't == even work for array and objects ?? WTF is the point of having == when any sane programmer will just use === and !== ?? http://dorey.github.io/JavaScr...

Javascript's 'scoping' is likewise dumb. Or I should say "complete lack of it." What the fuck is the point of braces if the language is just going to ignore block scope??

Every time you turn around the fucked up language adds yet another stupid "gotcha" that you have to be extra defensive about, and/or use a different work-around per-browser because the rational behavior is no where to be found. I means seriously:

typeof( [] + {} )

returns "string" ???

> But programmers can get used to anything, and it doesn't take any more or less discipline to work around these

The problem is that you don't _know_ about the quality of code written by the rest of the people on your team. There is no guarantee to catch broken JS code and that's even WITH running some sort of 'lint' and minifier program.

For the record, I _do_ use Javascript for my day job, which is WebGL.

Javascript is a the biggest piece of shit right before PHP; both languages are full of idiotic design kludges made by the typical beginner Co

It's very obviously true.

http://news.slashdot.org/story...
https://blog.mozilla.org/addon...

We have decided on an approximate timeline for the deprecation of XPCOM- and XUL-based add-ons.

Consequently, we have decided to deprecate add-ons that depend on XUL, XPCOM, and XBL. We don’t have a specific timeline for deprecation, but most likely it will take place within 12 to 18 months from now. We are announcing the change now so that developers can prepare and offer feedback. Add-ons that are built using the new WebExtension API will continue to work. We will also continue supporting SDK add-ons as long as they don’t use require(‘chrome’) or some of the low-level APIs that provide access to XUL elements.

A major challenge we face is that many Firefox add-ons cannot possibly be built using either WebExtensions or the SDK as they currently exist. Over the coming year, we will seek feedback from the development community, and will continue to develop and extend the WebExtension API to support as much of the functionality needed by the most popular Firefox extensions as possible.

A major challenge we face is that many Firefox add-ons cannot possibly be built using either WebExtensions or the SDK as they currently exist. Over the coming year, we will seek feedback from the development community, and will continue to develop and extend the WebExtension API to support as much of the functionality needed by the most popular Firefox extensions as possible.

Further, it's going to be a walled garden:

Starting in Firefox 42, add-on developers will be required to submit extensions for review and signing by Mozilla prior to deployment, and unsigned add-ons cannot be installed or used with Firefox.

You can disable the signing requirement, but only on the Developer or Nightly builds based on version 42.whatever.

Firefox is FUCKING DEAD and Mozilla killed it.

Most likely referring to this bug or one of its duplicates: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...

Oh so they do. Here's a fix for it as well:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

I think that these kind of wearable devices would really benefits from the Firefox OS. First, the Firefox OS is from Mozilla, and Mozilla is known for making the best softwares. Second, the Firefox OS embrace open web technologies like JavaScript, HTML5 and CSS3, which are the best there are. Third, the Firefox OS is open because it's from Mozilla and because it uses open web technologies. Fourth, the Firefox OS uses Linux kernel. Fifth, the Firefox OS can be used for the embedded softwares and hardwares. Sixth, the Firefox OS is big show in India, the country of softwares. Seventh, the Firefox OS is use important w3c standards. Seven points make me thinking that the Firefox OS is good choice! It is be best choice even!

Why isn't this post modded up?? This is the most hilarious post I've seen on Slashdot all year. And that includes Bennetts drivel.

I think that these kind of wearable devices would really benefits from the Firefox OS. First, the Firefox OS is from Mozilla, and Mozilla is known for making the best softwares. Second, the Firefox OS embrace open web technologies like JavaScript, HTML5 and CSS3, which are the best there are. Third, the Firefox OS is open because it's from Mozilla and because it uses open web technologies. Fourth, the Firefox OS uses Linux kernel. Fifth, the Firefox OS can be used for the embedded softwares and hardwares. Sixth, the Firefox OS is big show in India, the country of softwares. Seventh, the Firefox OS is use important w3c standards. Seven points make me thinking that the Firefox OS is good choice! It is be best choice even!

Why isn't this post modded up?? This is the most hilarious post I've seen on Slashdot all year. And that includes Bennetts drivel.

I think that these kind of wearable devices would really benefits from the Firefox OS. First, the Firefox OS is from Mozilla, and Mozilla is known for making the best softwares. Second, the Firefox OS embrace open web technologies like JavaScript, HTML5 and CSS3, which are the best there are. Third, the Firefox OS is open because it's from Mozilla and because it uses open web technologies. Fourth, the Firefox OS uses Linux kernel. Fifth, the Firefox OS can be used for the embedded softwares and hardwares. Sixth, the Firefox OS is big show in India, the country of softwares. Seventh, the Firefox OS is use important w3c standards. Seven points make me thinking that the Firefox OS is good choice! It is be best choice even!