Slashdot Mirror

Do you have Invisible Hand installed as an extension? Seems to be related to that. Mozilla seems pretty clear on Yahoo being their partner.

Do you have Invisible Hand installed as an extension? Seems to be related to that. Mozilla seems pretty clear on Yahoo being their partner.

Tell that to:

Automattic
Mozilla
GitHub
Basecamp (formerly 37signals) (who even wrote a book about how great remote working can be)

along with a myriad of other companies who work either entirely remotely, or have very liberal policies around remote working.

Most, if not all of whom, can be considered to be quite successful within their field.

https://careers.mozilla.org/

HTH, HAND. :-)

See the May 12, 2015 Mozilla Foundation article, Update on Digital Rights Management and Firefox Quoting: "... the Adobe Content Decryption Module (CDM) to play back DRM-wrapped content ... will be downloaded from Adobe shortly after you upgrade or install Firefox."

Adobe has a long history of being invasive and abusive and releasing buggy software, in my opinion. Basically, installing new versions of Firefox now appears to give Adobe complete control, even though it is "sandboxed". Mozilla Foundation apparently does not disclose if it was paid by Adobe.

A huge problem, apparently, is that technically knowledgeable users will complain intensely. So, Mozilla Launches A New Firefox Version Without DRM Support. (See the U.S. English version 39.0, for example.)

Apparently the idea is that the technically knowledgeable users will get what they want, but most users will be sneakily manipulated, and the technically knowledgeable users will accept that.

See also this May 12, 2015 article: That DRM support in Firefox you never asked for? It's here. Quoting: " The first version of Adobe's CDM for Firefox is only available on Windows Vista and later and then only for 32-bit versions of the browser. Windows XP, OS X, Linux, and 64-bit versions of Firefox are not yet supported, and there's no word yet on when they might be."

Weird.

Funny how you mention Pocket, because this was one of they things they mentioned they wanted to improve:

"Folks said that Pocket should have been a bundled add-on that could have been more easily removed entirely from the browser. We tend to agree with that, and fixing that for Pocket and any future partner integrations is one concrete piece of engineering work we need to get done."

https://mail.mozilla.org/piper...

___

FirefoxOS actually helps improve and streamline the Gecko engine and is the place where they started testing multi-process support in the real world. I don't think it would ever be a total loss. It is also what they use to help define new webstandards which can help give the web parity to native: https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAP...

Funny how you mention Pocket, because this was one of they things they mentioned they wanted to improve:

"Folks said that Pocket should have been a bundled add-on that could have been more easily removed entirely from the browser. We tend to agree with that, and fixing that for Pocket and any future partner integrations is one concrete piece of engineering work we need to get done."

https://mail.mozilla.org/piper...

___

FirefoxOS actually helps improve and streamline the Gecko engine and is the place where they started testing multi-process support in the real world. I don't think it would ever be a total loss. It is also what they use to help define new webstandards which can help give the web parity to native: https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAP...

Remember when everyone made fun of Mozilla because it had everything including the about:kitchensink in it? Remember how Firefox was supposed to get rid of all that bloat and modernize the web browser? Guess Mozilla is back to bundling a ton of junk together in to one package.

Only this time its far worse, at least with Mozilla it was useful stuff like a web browser and an HTML editor. This time we get junk of dubious value like Firefox Hello and Pocket which would be much better kept as downloadable extensions. Of course, it is painfully obvious that the reason they are not separate extensions is because of the financial upside they get from bundling them. Same thing with the "sponsored tabs."

I guess they just view Firefox as a cash cow that they need to milk to keep funding non-browser projects like that POS called Firefox OS, the Mozilla Science Lab, and all those grants they have given out over the years.

Oh and most their paid programmers/QA staff make little more than minimum wage. Just because Mozilla is "cool" doesn't make it okay to pay vastly under market value for their employee's services. Unfortunate to see how much Mozilla has become poisoned with mission creep and lack of a clear direction to the point that they have to lower themselves to the level of Java and bundle sponsored junk.

Remember when everyone made fun of Mozilla because it had everything including the about:kitchensink in it? Remember how Firefox was supposed to get rid of all that bloat and modernize the web browser? Guess Mozilla is back to bundling a ton of junk together in to one package.

Only this time its far worse, at least with Mozilla it was useful stuff like a web browser and an HTML editor. This time we get junk of dubious value like Firefox Hello and Pocket which would be much better kept as downloadable extensions. Of course, it is painfully obvious that the reason they are not separate extensions is because of the financial upside they get from bundling them. Same thing with the "sponsored tabs."

I guess they just view Firefox as a cash cow that they need to milk to keep funding non-browser projects like that POS called Firefox OS, the Mozilla Science Lab, and all those grants they have given out over the years.

Oh and most their paid programmers/QA staff make little more than minimum wage. Just because Mozilla is "cool" doesn't make it okay to pay vastly under market value for their employee's services. Unfortunate to see how much Mozilla has become poisoned with mission creep and lack of a clear direction to the point that they have to lower themselves to the level of Java and bundle sponsored junk.

Remember when everyone made fun of Mozilla because it had everything including the about:kitchensink in it? Remember how Firefox was supposed to get rid of all that bloat and modernize the web browser? Guess Mozilla is back to bundling a ton of junk together in to one package.

Only this time its far worse, at least with Mozilla it was useful stuff like a web browser and an HTML editor. This time we get junk of dubious value like Firefox Hello and Pocket which would be much better kept as downloadable extensions. Of course, it is painfully obvious that the reason they are not separate extensions is because of the financial upside they get from bundling them. Same thing with the "sponsored tabs."

I guess they just view Firefox as a cash cow that they need to milk to keep funding non-browser projects like that POS called Firefox OS, the Mozilla Science Lab, and all those grants they have given out over the years.

Oh and most their paid programmers/QA staff make little more than minimum wage. Just because Mozilla is "cool" doesn't make it okay to pay vastly under market value for their employee's services. Unfortunate to see how much Mozilla has become poisoned with mission creep and lack of a clear direction to the point that they have to lower themselves to the level of Java and bundle sponsored junk.

But if I open more than one or two Amazon tabs, even if that's all I have open, life slows to a crawl and my Firefox CPU usage goes to 101% of one CPU core.

Out of curiosity, does your clean install involve re-installing an adblocker? iFrames are a known problem, and I'd bet that Amazon is framing in content from sponsors, modules, etc and it would make one's adblocking extensions go nuts.

One man's experience: I run NoScript, a cookie whitelister, and I've recently added uMatrix on top of both of those; and I'm not breaking 9% cpu with 5 different Amazon tabs open (FF38.0.5). I also run MVPS Hosts and some others.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/SeaMo...

Soon for v2.35. They're having build issues. No to the lame features like Firefox is getting AFAIK.

Firefox can handle HTML5 video. Media Source Extensions API, DASH, and similar is what they are working on. It is complex task with a lot of active sub tasks Bug 778617 - (MSE) Tracking bug for Media Source Extensions API implementation , https://w3c.github.io/media-source/

The problem is also exampled by https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...

That's a completely different "problem" to your original complaint. For completeness I've addressed it - in context, further down.

[...] They've also effectively killed Thunderbird.[...]

They no longer devote paid resources to develop new features and versions (which IMO, is a good thing). - rumors of it's death are grossly exaggerated. Mozilla still actively devotes paid resources to the security side of things, and community development is still strong. Lots of Open Source projects do well without the original upstream development - some do even better (LibreOffice). In this case we'd like to keep the current situation as it is to ensure integration with Firefox - but if Mozilla completely severs it's involvement development of Thunderbird is very unlikely to stop.

tl;dr? Mozilla still supports their original ESR commitments and have announced no plans to change that.

[...] They've also effectively killed Thunderbird.[...]

They no longer devote paid resources to develop new features and versions (which IMO, is a good thing). - rumors of it's death are grossly exaggerated. Mozilla still actively devotes paid resources to the security side of things, and community development is still strong. Lots of Open Source projects do well without the original upstream development - some do even better (LibreOffice). In this case we'd like to keep the current situation as it is to ensure integration with Firefox - but if Mozilla completely severs it's involvement development of Thunderbird is very unlikely to stop.

tl;dr? Mozilla still supports their original ESR commitments and have announced no plans to change that.

Nope, it's Firefox. Plaintext files often don't have a mime type so present as unknown.

Here's the nearly 15 year old bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...

I just dragged a text file (ANSI windows standard) to my browser and it rendered fine. Never had a problem doing so on any prior version, back to 3.0 either.

ANSI windows standard is mimetype text/plain not text/*

The problem is also exampled by https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...

Nope, it's Firefox. Plaintext files often don't have a mime type so present as unknown.

Here's the nearly 15 year old bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...

I just dragged a text file (ANSI windows standard) to my browser and it rendered fine. Never had a problem doing so on any prior version, back to 3.0 either.

Nope, it's Firefox. Plaintext files often don't have a mime type so present as unknown.

Here's the nearly 15 year old bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...

You appear to be confused. That (wishlist) bug is not that Firefox can't or won't show plain text files (it certainly will, ftp, http, or local) - it's Add "View as Text/HTML/..." option for unknown mime content-type. As a typical /. reader I can appreciate how you missed reading the description or saw words that plain weren't there. i.e. conflated that with your claim that "Firefox will not render plain text files". Tricky.

The reason that hasn't been "fixed", and may never be fixed is because it's blocked by two other bugs (1 and 2). The main problem being that servers are unreliable when it comes to describing the mimetype.(in reference to your second sentence).

More importantly, as I've already pointed out - Firefox/Iceweasel does display plain text files

Rather than dismissing that fact, maybe you should have taken the time to read the link I posted on how to solve your "issue" (which works fine when the server provides the correct mimetype).

The relevant sections from the default mimeTypes.rdf (~/.mozilla/firefox/$gibberish.default/mimeTypes.rdf)

<RDF:Seq RDF:about="urn:mimetypes:root">
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/pdf"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/postscript"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/x-bittorrent"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/zip"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/vnd.google-earth.kmz"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:binary/octet-stream"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/x-gzip"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:text/plain"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:text/html"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/x-mobipocket-ebook"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:audio/mpeg"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/x-msdos-program"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/x-deb"/>
</RDF:Seq>
<RDF:Description RDF:about="urn:mimetype:text/plain"
NC:value="text/plain"
NC:editable="true"
NC:description="plain text document">
<NC:fileExtensions>txt</NC:fileExtensions>
<NC:fileExtensions>asc</NC:fileExtensions>
<NC:fileExtensions>text</NC:fileExtensions>
<NC:fileExtensions>pot</NC:fileExtensions>
<NC:fileExtensions>brf</NC:fileExtensions>
<NC:fileExtensions>srt</NC:fileExtensions>
<NC:handlerProp RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:handler:text/plain"/>
</RDF:Description>
<RDF:Description RDF:about="urn:mimetype:handler:text/plain"
NC:alwaysAsk="true"
NC:saveToDisk="true">
<NC:externalApplication RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:externalApplication:text/plain"/>
</RDF:Description>

Note: the order in which they occur is important. As is the presence of any other handler rules for text/plain.
If you have those rules, in that order, and no other rules about text/plain then plain text files will be rendered by the browser - I checked with Windows 8.1 (and I want that 10 minutes back).

If modifying/correcting mimeTypes is too hard for you. Use the extension that achieves the same outcome.

Nope, it's Firefox. Plaintext files often don't have a mime type so present as unknown.

Here's the nearly 15 year old bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...

You appear to be confused. That (wishlist) bug is not that Firefox can't or won't show plain text files (it certainly will, ftp, http, or local) - it's Add "View as Text/HTML/..." option for unknown mime content-type. As a typical /. reader I can appreciate how you missed reading the description or saw words that plain weren't there. i.e. conflated that with your claim that "Firefox will not render plain text files". Tricky.

The reason that hasn't been "fixed", and may never be fixed is because it's blocked by two other bugs (1 and 2). The main problem being that servers are unreliable when it comes to describing the mimetype.(in reference to your second sentence).

More importantly, as I've already pointed out - Firefox/Iceweasel does display plain text files

Rather than dismissing that fact, maybe you should have taken the time to read the link I posted on how to solve your "issue" (which works fine when the server provides the correct mimetype).

The relevant sections from the default mimeTypes.rdf (~/.mozilla/firefox/$gibberish.default/mimeTypes.rdf)

<RDF:Seq RDF:about="urn:mimetypes:root">
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/pdf"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/postscript"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/x-bittorrent"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/zip"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/vnd.google-earth.kmz"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:binary/octet-stream"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/x-gzip"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:text/plain"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:text/html"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/x-mobipocket-ebook"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:audio/mpeg"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/x-msdos-program"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/x-deb"/>
</RDF:Seq>
<RDF:Description RDF:about="urn:mimetype:text/plain"
NC:value="text/plain"
NC:editable="true"
NC:description="plain text document">
<NC:fileExtensions>txt</NC:fileExtensions>
<NC:fileExtensions>asc</NC:fileExtensions>
<NC:fileExtensions>text</NC:fileExtensions>
<NC:fileExtensions>pot</NC:fileExtensions>
<NC:fileExtensions>brf</NC:fileExtensions>
<NC:fileExtensions>srt</NC:fileExtensions>
<NC:handlerProp RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:handler:text/plain"/>
</RDF:Description>
<RDF:Description RDF:about="urn:mimetype:handler:text/plain"
NC:alwaysAsk="true"
NC:saveToDisk="true">
<NC:externalApplication RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:externalApplication:text/plain"/>
</RDF:Description>

Note: the order in which they occur is important. As is the presence of any other handler rules for text/plain.
If you have those rules, in that order, and no other rules about text/plain then plain text files will be rendered by the browser - I checked with Windows 8.1 (and I want that 10 minutes back).

If modifying/correcting mimeTypes is too hard for you. Use the extension that achieves the same outcome.

Nope, it's Firefox. Plaintext files often don't have a mime type so present as unknown.

Here's the nearly 15 year old bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...

You appear to be confused. That (wishlist) bug is not that Firefox can't or won't show plain text files (it certainly will, ftp, http, or local) - it's Add "View as Text/HTML/..." option for unknown mime content-type. As a typical /. reader I can appreciate how you missed reading the description or saw words that plain weren't there. i.e. conflated that with your claim that "Firefox will not render plain text files". Tricky.

The reason that hasn't been "fixed", and may never be fixed is because it's blocked by two other bugs (1 and 2). The main problem being that servers are unreliable when it comes to describing the mimetype.(in reference to your second sentence).

More importantly, as I've already pointed out - Firefox/Iceweasel does display plain text files

Rather than dismissing that fact, maybe you should have taken the time to read the link I posted on how to solve your "issue" (which works fine when the server provides the correct mimetype).

The relevant sections from the default mimeTypes.rdf (~/.mozilla/firefox/$gibberish.default/mimeTypes.rdf)

<RDF:Seq RDF:about="urn:mimetypes:root">
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/pdf"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/postscript"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/x-bittorrent"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/zip"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/vnd.google-earth.kmz"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:binary/octet-stream"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/x-gzip"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:text/plain"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:text/html"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/x-mobipocket-ebook"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:audio/mpeg"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/x-msdos-program"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/x-deb"/>
</RDF:Seq>
<RDF:Description RDF:about="urn:mimetype:text/plain"
NC:value="text/plain"
NC:editable="true"
NC:description="plain text document">
<NC:fileExtensions>txt</NC:fileExtensions>
<NC:fileExtensions>asc</NC:fileExtensions>
<NC:fileExtensions>text</NC:fileExtensions>
<NC:fileExtensions>pot</NC:fileExtensions>
<NC:fileExtensions>brf</NC:fileExtensions>
<NC:fileExtensions>srt</NC:fileExtensions>
<NC:handlerProp RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:handler:text/plain"/>
</RDF:Description>
<RDF:Description RDF:about="urn:mimetype:handler:text/plain"
NC:alwaysAsk="true"
NC:saveToDisk="true">
<NC:externalApplication RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:externalApplication:text/plain"/>
</RDF:Description>

Note: the order in which they occur is important. As is the presence of any other handler rules for text/plain.
If you have those rules, in that order, and no other rules about text/plain then plain text files will be rendered by the browser - I checked with Windows 8.1 (and I want that 10 minutes back).

If modifying/correcting mimeTypes is too hard for you. Use the extension that achieves the same outcome.

Nope, it's Firefox. Plaintext files often don't have a mime type so present as unknown.

Here's the nearly 15 year old bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...

You appear to be confused. That (wishlist) bug is not that Firefox can't or won't show plain text files (it certainly will, ftp, http, or local) - it's Add "View as Text/HTML/..." option for unknown mime content-type. As a typical /. reader I can appreciate how you missed reading the description or saw words that plain weren't there. i.e. conflated that with your claim that "Firefox will not render plain text files". Tricky.

The reason that hasn't been "fixed", and may never be fixed is because it's blocked by two other bugs (1 and 2). The main problem being that servers are unreliable when it comes to describing the mimetype.(in reference to your second sentence).

More importantly, as I've already pointed out - Firefox/Iceweasel does display plain text files

Rather than dismissing that fact, maybe you should have taken the time to read the link I posted on how to solve your "issue" (which works fine when the server provides the correct mimetype).

The relevant sections from the default mimeTypes.rdf (~/.mozilla/firefox/$gibberish.default/mimeTypes.rdf)

<RDF:Seq RDF:about="urn:mimetypes:root">
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/pdf"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/postscript"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/x-bittorrent"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/zip"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/vnd.google-earth.kmz"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:binary/octet-stream"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/x-gzip"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:text/plain"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:text/html"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/x-mobipocket-ebook"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:audio/mpeg"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/x-msdos-program"/>
<RDF:li RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:application/x-deb"/>
</RDF:Seq>
<RDF:Description RDF:about="urn:mimetype:text/plain"
NC:value="text/plain"
NC:editable="true"
NC:description="plain text document">
<NC:fileExtensions>txt</NC:fileExtensions>
<NC:fileExtensions>asc</NC:fileExtensions>
<NC:fileExtensions>text</NC:fileExtensions>
<NC:fileExtensions>pot</NC:fileExtensions>
<NC:fileExtensions>brf</NC:fileExtensions>
<NC:fileExtensions>srt</NC:fileExtensions>
<NC:handlerProp RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:handler:text/plain"/>
</RDF:Description>
<RDF:Description RDF:about="urn:mimetype:handler:text/plain"
NC:alwaysAsk="true"
NC:saveToDisk="true">
<NC:externalApplication RDF:resource="urn:mimetype:externalApplication:text/plain"/>
</RDF:Description>

Note: the order in which they occur is important. As is the presence of any other handler rules for text/plain.
If you have those rules, in that order, and no other rules about text/plain then plain text files will be rendered by the browser - I checked with Windows 8.1 (and I want that 10 minutes back).

If modifying/correcting mimeTypes is too hard for you. Use the extension that achieves the same outcome.

Firefox is multi-threaded although all those threads currently reside in the same process. So one tab can easily bog down entire browser.
Multiprocess Firefox is coming soon.

As long as this https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s... BUG is present, Firefox is a far cry from being a secure browser. Since I know about this, I advise anybody that needs to have secure browser to stear away from Firefox!

Nope, it's Firefox. Plaintext files often don't have a mime type so present as unknown.

Here's the nearly 15 year old 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

"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

Can adblock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious ads: See 2-10 next)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phishing
10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

* ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!

APK

P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

AdBlock's SLOWER than hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...

For the BEST hosts file?

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

... apk

Luckily this isn't the bad old days where it was just IE and netscape, today you DO have options! There is Comodo Dragon (what I use, better security features and no phone home to Google) Chromium, SWIron, and Opera which my oldest boy swears is the greatest thing ever (boy is he still pissed they quit using presto) and on the gecko side there is Firefox, PaleMoon (the other browser I use, I prefer the UI over IceDragon and it seems snappier), SeaMonkey, IceDragon, if you need really low resource there is always Kmeleon which runs really well even on a P3 running Win98SE and if you want to avoid BOTH the Chromium and Gecko engines you can go with QTWeb which is just what it says on the tin, a cross platform browser that uses Webkit and QT.

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

Inefficient: Hosts @ 3mb-11mb current data vs. threats/ads (+ does things adblock(s) can't & U RAN vs. 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 it all (& I didn't say it!)

---

"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 to NOT block all ads by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

AB+ too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/AdBlock variants = Less efficient on CPU & RAM (adding messagepass overhead in SLOW usermode vs. hosts in fast kernelmode) & NONE do a fraction of what hosts do for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

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

Above shows different & hosts do MORE BY FAR w/ less & U RAN vs. it - 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 Mr. CLOUDWORDS Advertiser (Marketo affiliate)?

Hosts = better & do FULLY work vs. ads (cutting YOUR MONEY): I see you/you're exposed.

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

+

ClarityRay defeats it, not hosts (via native browser methods).

APK

P.S.=> Quote Howard Stark from "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock etc (steel):

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

"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 @ 3mb-11mb current data vs. threats/ads (+ does things adblock(s) can't & U RAN vs. 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 it all (& I didn't say it!)

---

"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 to NOT block all ads by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

AB+ too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/AdBlock variants = Less efficient on CPU & RAM (adding messagepass overhead in SLOW usermode vs. hosts in fast kernelmode) & NONE do a fraction of what hosts do for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

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

Above shows different & hosts do MORE BY FAR w/ less & U RAN vs. it - 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 Mr. CLOUDWORDS Advertiser (Marketo affiliate)?

Hosts = better & do FULLY work vs. ads (cutting YOUR MONEY): I see you/you're exposed.

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

+

ClarityRay defeats it, not hosts (via native browser methods).

APK

P.S.=> Quote Howard Stark from "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock etc (steel):

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

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

... apk

Can adblock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phishing
10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

* ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!

APK

P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

AdBlock's SLOWER than hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...

For the BEST hosts file?

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

... 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"

"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 @ 3mb-11mb current data vs. threats/ads (+ does things adblock(s) can't & U RAN vs. 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 it all (& I didn't say it!)

---

"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 to NOT block all ads by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

AB+ too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/AdBlock variants = Less efficient on CPU & RAM (adding messagepass overhead in SLOW usermode vs. hosts in fast kernelmode) & NONE do a fraction of what hosts do for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

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

Above shows different & hosts do MORE BY FAR w/ less & U RAN vs. it - 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 Mr. CLOUDWORDS Advertiser (Marketo affiliate)?

Hosts = better & do FULLY work vs. ads (cutting YOUR MONEY): I see you/you're exposed.

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

+

ClarityRay defeats it, not hosts (via native browser methods).

APK

P.S.=> Quote Howard Stark from "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock etc (steel):

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

"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 @ 3mb-11mb current data vs. threats/ads (+ does things adblock(s) can't & U RAN vs. 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 it all (& I didn't say it!)

---

"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 to NOT block all ads by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

AB+ too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/AdBlock variants = Less efficient on CPU & RAM (adding messagepass overhead in SLOW usermode vs. hosts in fast kernelmode) & NONE do a fraction of what hosts do for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

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

Above shows different & hosts do MORE BY FAR w/ less & U RAN vs. it - 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 Mr. CLOUDWORDS Advertiser (Marketo affiliate)?

Hosts = better & do FULLY work vs. ads (cutting YOUR MONEY): I see you/you're exposed.

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

+

ClarityRay defeats it, not hosts (via native browser methods).

APK

P.S.=> Quote Howard Stark from "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock etc (steel):

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

"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 @ 3mb-11mb, current data vs. threats + ads (things adblock variants can't do & you 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 subject + 'p.s.' below - Says it 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 OFF to NOT block all ads by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

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

UBlock & AdBlock variants = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (adding to messagepassing overheads from SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NONE do a fraction of what hosts do for added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity.

---

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

Above shows otherwise & 'shitty idea' does MORE BY FAR w/ less & you RAN from it - 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)

So you're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

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

+

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

APK

P.S.=> Quote Howard Stark from "Captain America" - hosts (Captain America Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

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

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

... apk

You still use NoScript?
uMatrix is available for Firefox now.
Goodbye NoScript. Goodbye RequestPolicy. Goodbye CookieSafe. uMatrix does it all and does it better.

Your web browser is a dog. uMatrix is its leash.
It's available for Chrome as well.

Can adblock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious ads: See 2-10 next)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phishing
10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

* ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!

APK

P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

AdBlock's SLOWER than hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...

For the BEST hosts file?

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

... apk

See, this is exactly why I want a HTTPS web.

I do think Let's Encrypt is on the right track. When they show their protocol and open source software works. I'm pretty sure other CA's will follow.

Automating HTTPS deployment is a good thing.

Yes, the CA-system isn't a perfect system at all, but at least we are seeing some improvements in use of HTTPS:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (better revocation of certificates and faster loading of sites and better privacy)
- https://blog.mozilla.org/secur... (better revocation of certificates)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (old browser finally dying)
- HTTP/2 is faster than HTTP and sort of depends on HTTPS for backward compatibility for old proxy servers and public websites
- finally we are getting rid of all the old protocols like SSLv3 and get our server configurations cleaned up

Especially for regular visitors of a site things are improving:
https://developer.mozilla.org/... (a CA can NOT issue a cert for a fake certificate - works in Firefox and Chrome)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (always HTTPS, no HTTP on the second visit)

See, this is exactly why I want a HTTPS web.

I do think Let's Encrypt is on the right track. When they show their protocol and open source software works. I'm pretty sure other CA's will follow.

Automating HTTPS deployment is a good thing.

Yes, the CA-system isn't a perfect system at all, but at least we are seeing some improvements in use of HTTPS:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (better revocation of certificates and faster loading of sites and better privacy)
- https://blog.mozilla.org/secur... (better revocation of certificates)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (old browser finally dying)
- HTTP/2 is faster than HTTP and sort of depends on HTTPS for backward compatibility for old proxy servers and public websites
- finally we are getting rid of all the old protocols like SSLv3 and get our server configurations cleaned up

Especially for regular visitors of a site things are improving:
https://developer.mozilla.org/... (a CA can NOT issue a cert for a fake certificate - works in Firefox and Chrome)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (always HTTPS, no HTTP on the second visit)

"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"

"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"

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

... apkb

"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"

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

... apk

See subject: by native browser methods dumping addons used + AdBlock = slower, inferior + 'souled-out'!

Can adblock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phishing
10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on anything webbound (i.e. email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

* ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!

APK

P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

AdBlock's SLOWER than hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...

For the BEST hosts?

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

... apk

See subject: Can adblock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phishing
10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

* ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!

APK

P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

AdBlock's SLOWER than hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...

For the BEST hosts file?

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

... apk

Another option, for Firefox users, is this: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

Apparently it sets up the search box in Firefox to use Verbatim by default.

Can adblock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phishing
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on anything webbound (i.e. email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily controlled data
16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

* ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all + hosts = already on every device natively.

APK

P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

AdBlock's SLOWER than hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...

For the BEST hosts file?

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

... apk