Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 3.7 Dropped In Favor of Feature Updates
Barence sends in a report from pcpro.co.uk that says "Under its original plans, Mozilla would roll out Firefox 3.6 and 3.7 over the course of 2009, each bringing minor improvements to the browser. However, a steady stream of delays to Firefox 3.6 has rendered that goal unobtainable, forcing Mozilla to rethink its release. As a result, Firefox 3.7 has been dropped and will be replaced with feature updates for Firefox 3.6 that will be rolled out with security updates. This should free up the team to work on the next major release, Firefox 4, slated for the last quarter of 2010, which is expected to follow the same development process." Updated 20100116 00:54 GMT by timothy: Alexander Limi, from Firefox User Experience, says that the PC Pro article linked above misinterprets the situation, and that 3.7 is still on the roadmap before 4.0. The confusion stems from a schedule realignment: the out-of-process plugins feature, originally slated to land in 3.7, will instead ship as a minor update in Firefox's 3.6 series. According to Limi, CNET gets it right."
I wonder what effect this is going to have on the implementation of SVG animation, which is part of gecko 1.9.3, which was to be used in 3.7. Is it going to be slotted into 3.6 sometime or will it get pushed to 4?
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
What's the difference between "Firefox 3.0 with updates" and "Firefox 3.7"?
People have said Firefox is multithreaded, and I'm no coder, but I know when a piece of software is using all available resources.
Firefox never goes above 25% CPU usage when I open up a new window (which in turn loads about 15 tabs). Maybe the Gecko rendering engine can't render two pages at once. All I know is that the Firefox becomes unusable/unresponsive on my quad core for about 5 seconds while everything loads. Chrome hits much higher CPU usage-- but it doesn't have [true] adblock.
So now we have to wait until 2011 for Firefox 4 to get tab previews in the taskbar? Time to investigate ad-block addons for IE8.
Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
I'm using it already as my predominant web browser of choice. Works like a champ so far. I know it's not even pre-release blah blah. It works for me.
I've been running the 3.7alpha nightlies for a while now (codename: Minefield...which is now, possibly, ironic) and it's been quite good. Shame to see it dropped, but hopefully they can move the code into 3.6 quickly.
What purpose does it serve to skip version numbers, except for some political or media-relations reason? The Linux kernel and many other open source projects have release cycles of "it's done when it's done" -- and a predictable version numbering system. What next, Mozilla Firefox 2010 Professional Edition? Delays are inevitable in any software development project.
Also, Slashdot -- this news post was like saying "X replaced by Y. Z reported jealous, but A and B are looking forward to bringing C onboard soon." Numbers should not be used in place of content. $WITTY_COMMENT. $RETORT. $TROLL. $VAGUE_REFERENCE_TO_SEXUALITY.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
This should free up the team to work on the next major release, Firefox 4, slated for the last quarter of 2010, which is expected to follow the same development process.
Firefox will be dead before it hits version 5.0.
will be replaced with feature updates for Firefox 3.6 that will be rolled out with security updates
This seems to be a horrible idea to me, unless I'm misinterpreting it. I can see this being implemented in two ways:
One, Mozilla withholds security updates until there is a feature ready to go, which is just stupid - don't leave a hole if you've got a fix ready. One of the arguments in favor Firefox over IE is the more rapid security updates.
Two, Mozilla withholds features until a security update is necessary. I can't see any advantage to doing this, but there's a few obvious downsides (like withholding a perfectly good feature until someone finds something we're supposed to be hoping is not there).
Unless I'm missing something?
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
So Firefox 3.7 has been renamed Firefox 4.0?
Security updates should never be combined with feature updates. Anyone who doesn't want the feature update is then in the unfortunate position to decide whether they'll get the unwanted features or keep the unwanted vulnerabilities. Bad Mozilla.
Unless I'm missing something?
Well, two things you are missing is evidence that the Mozilla foundation will (1) "withhold security updates until there is a feature ready to go", and (2) "withhold features until a security update is necessary".
Perhaps they intend to roll out new features to 3.6 in the same manner as they do security updates; one 3.6.x release might be a bug fix, another might be new features and another a combination of the two. You don't have to bring out new features on major releases, so this might even mean that we'll get features added to 3.6 sooner than we would have done waiting until 3.7 before releasing them all in one go.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
I don't think the Mozilla Foundation is dumb enough to wait for new features for 3.6.x version security updates! I do think the version number could go as high as 3.6.15 (my guess) as security updates and the new features are "slipstreamed" in.
As far as I'm concerned, Firefox jumped the shark within the last year.
I was getting sooo tired of constant nagging and add-on updates just
about the time Chrome came out and saved the day.
Now in a couple of years, Chrome will have bloated to include add-ons, etc
and I'll be looking for a replacement for it...
Yes, you're missing option 3.
Three, Mozilla rolls out a patch that includes a feature when it's ready, and rolls out a different patch when a security update is ready, and combines them if/when possible. That would still be "with" security updates, after a fashion, and it would be the logical, intelligent way to do so.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
Since 3.5 released, I've had a grand total of maybe two crashes (at least one of which was clearly caused by Flash). It does use a decent amount of memory (100-400 MB depending on how I'm using it), but nowhere near what IE8 is using (often 50 MB or more per tab), and on my machine, I've got more than enough memory to handle it. Maybe you really are using unstable plugins and add-ons?
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
Maybe I'm lucky (conversely, maybe you are unlucky), but 32-bit Firefox 3.5x is 100%* rock-solid stable on my PCs. I can't compare this to IE's stability, as I never, ever, use IE. Granted, I only have 4 add-ons installed (ColorfulTabs, Flashblock, ForecastFox, and Oldbar), but Firefox simply works.
*Actually, I can remember 1 time that Firefox locked up on me, months ago, so its stability is 100% minus one_event.
Continuing to support old versions is a heavy burden, and has to end at some point. It's not a question of if people will have to make that decision, but when.
Per my subject-line above: Perhaps Mozilla/FireFox's dev. team need to check out those API calls on Win32, & find analogs for them on all the other OS platforms they port to + use them...
That is, provided you're telling it how it is for you, well? Well, those tools above in my subject-line, work.
Now: As far as your subject, in "multithreading"?
Well - There are "drawbacks" to what you state in using it @ times though, & not EVERYTHING lends itself well to that...
(In fact, below? I provide a math example in the URL in my P.S. (that one points to where I did a simple math example of when multithreading doesn't help, & in fact, where it can hinder & slow up code too (single CPU/single CORE systems)), where I went thru that with the article writers @ hardwareanalysis.com iirc, & where multithreading makes you gains, & where/when/how/why it does not in others (& that too, depends on the types of multithreading involved, coarse (which this sounds like in your case, diff. datasets run on diff. threads, easier & less "race conditions" possible too) vs. fine-grained (multiple threads working on the SAME data concurrently, harder to do, more prone to "race conditions" imo @ least)).
As far as FireFox? Well, I'd let them know what you're seeing (who/what/when/where/why/how IF you can provide that much detail), because they DO help, & in person @ times!
E.G.-> I've pointed out bugs to their dev teams before, & in dealing w/ a "home-grown" forums engine @ NTCompatible (the author wrote the dev tool for their forums engine, & it was having troubles w/ FireFox early on (few years back now)). I wrote the dev team @ Mozilla, & they even showed up @ the forums in the thread we spoke of this on with they there, & guess what?
They fixed it, right on the spot, that very next day...
(I was impressed, & "talk about personable service"... point this out to them, but I wager they're trying to use those types of API call features available to their best advantage anyhow (still, one never knows, so... it may be worth noting to they!))
APK
P.S.=> Earlier this month, on this very topic (yours) in fact, & in regards to FireFox? Well - I put out more SPECIFIC material on that note, here -> Testing a Pre-Release, Parallel Firefox http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1497542&cid=30653170 in fact, & in regards to what your subject line was, in "Multithreading". If you're interested, take a read, if not, then just "blow it off" etc. et al... apk
"Mozilla would roll out Firefox 3.6 and 3.7 over the course of 2009, each bringing minor improvements to the browser. However, a steady stream of delays to Firefox 3.6 has rendered that goal unobtainable."
[jay@gobstopper ~]% date
Fri 15 Jan 2010 12:32:18 EST
I think you're missing two things:
1) The article's first paragraph is taking a proposal for a possible future plan of action
and claiming that it is the plan of action.
2) Right now (Firefox 3.0 and Firefox 3.5) there are no features shipped as minor updates;
all features are "withheld" as you put it until the next major version.
The only firm current plan here is that one particular feature, namely out-of-process plug-ins, is currently planned to be backported to Firefox 3.6 and shipped in some form in one of the minor updates. Once it's judged ready and so forth. Since minor updates are all about security and stability, this particular feature fits well in their scope (for example, a significant fraction of Firefox crashes are actually Flash crashes).
There is also talk of possibly backporting some other small features (mostly performance-related) to the stable branch as they become ready. This may or may not happen. There is also discussion about what and when the next Firefox major update will be, and discussion about what and when the next Gecko release will be. These may not happen at the same time. None of that is decided.
I have seen you post this ANY time Firefox has been mentioned for the past couple of weeks, cut and paste style. You are either a shill of some sort, or forced to do this because of one of your clients. Either way, you aren't wanted here.
Living With a Nerd
There is a serious problem, and you don't want to hear about it?
Small feature updates are not conducive to getting corporate support. With large updates, a company can say, "We support Firefox 3.5+", and they can be reasonably confident that they don't need to fully test every minor release of Firefox 3.5. With small updates they have to say, "We support Firefox 3.6.7", and can't be sure that they will actually be able to support 3.6.8 without fully testing it. If you want corporate support, you have to have feature freezes, or support stops being worth the testing time.
No operating system should crash due to a misbehaving application. If it does crash, the operating system sucks.
It's true that my Fx has crashed seven times in the last three months. However, I can trace two of them to a faulty extension. The rest may very well come from the Flash plugin, which isn't entirely stable on Snow Leopard and hasn't been fixed in ages. Offhand I can't remember a single crash not directly related to Flash (excepting the extension, of course).
I'm willing to bet that a fair part of the stability issues people have actually comes from badly-written extensions and plugins. Remember that most other applications don't execute code written by Adobe (and yes, I see that as an argument as to why they're more stable).
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
You're missing this:
(3) Mozilla does individual security fixes and feature updates for 3.6 as they are completed (maybe grouping the two together in an update if they happen to be ready at the same time, but not holding either to wait for the other), but doesn't have one big list of featur updates that must be complete for a "v3.7" that are released all at once. The "feature updates that will be rolled out with security updates", in this case, would mean that the feature updates are rolled into the usual chain of flowing, as-completed security update point releases rather than bundled together into a minor version release, not that each individual feature update must accompany at least one security fix.
Huh. I typed in about:crashes, and it was completely empty.
Anecdote vs. anecdote. To continue this argument you need real data.
You don't have the problem, so it doesn't exist?
Did you read the crash reports? They are automatically generated. Are you saying they didn't happen?
Did you consider that maybe your use of a browser is lighter than that of others?
Have you seen $200 million worth of development in Firefox?
http://planet.mozilla.org/
Spend a little time reading this on a regular basis, and you'll soon discover how many projects Mozilla handles, and all the developers they're paying.
The big projects include:
Firefox, Bugzilla, Camino, Fennec, Lightning, Sunbird, Seamonkey, and Thunderbird.
These are major multi-platform projects.
Mozilla has several projects for first-party add-ons for all of the above such as Firebug, Chromebug, . Then they have tons of major projects that most people never hear about. At the moment they're working on:
Jetpack
Raindrop
Bespin
Concept
Personas
Prism
Snowl
Test Pilot
Ubiquity
Weave
Electrolysis
A tool recently said the KDE code based purely on lines of code should have cost $175 million to develop, and that wasn't counting Koffice, and anything outside the main KDE trunk.
Mozilla also doesn't just do code projects, they do tons of community management and outreach projects like Mozilla Education, which costs even more money.
They also help support outside developers using Mozilla and Xulrunner for other apps such as Kompozer, Songbird, etc.
I don't know where all their money goes, but Mozilla does *A LOT*. To suggest they're not doing much development is ignorance or lies.
Firefox experiences a LOT of crashes and memory hogging, and has for years.
Firefox does crash for me from time to time, on Windows and Linux. I tend to use a lot of extensions, and the most common thing I hear is that extensions are the largest source of memory and stability issues. Do I get daily crashes, or 10 crashes a day? No. And I run daily snapshot builds. I maybe get 1 crash a week, if that.
As a Systems Engineer, I troubleshoot and support some big money apps that crash fairly often. Large software projects are going to have bugs. However, I wager if you run without extensions, you'll find that Firefox is pretty damned stable for such a massive multi-platform app.
Memory issues are all but lies these days. Memory usage has improved so much over the past few years. Firefox is actually better with memory usage than Chrome in many ways. The core app doesn't take too much memory on first load. It doesn't have memory leaks.
There are some intentional features which cause Firefox to eat up some memory that you can turn off, such as Firefox keeping fully rendered pages in memory, so that when you hit the back button, they just display immediately without having to re-render. When you close a tab, it still keeps that full session in memory for some time, so that you can reopen the closed tab with full rendered pages and history if you want.
If you don't like these features, turn them off. Not to mention, these are set to use dynamic chunks of memory which is preportional to your total memory. If you have a desktop with 8 gigs of memory that you're not using, why get upset that Firefox is using 300-400 megs of memory?
Unused memory isn't doing you any good.
Stop with the FUD. Real geeks know better and see right through BS and lies.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I don't see any of these problems. Firefox has never crashed for me under reasonable circumstances.
Sibling posts are right - this seems way too long and too calm. If someone writes a lot, it's usually a rant. Also, the bolding, etc.? It's way too artificial.
Yet Another Tech Blog
(but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
"about:crashes" shows no submitted crash reports on my computers.
I run two to three Firefox windows with dozens of tabs 24/7, with active browsing of a variety of content types (Flash, images, embedded video, text, heavy scripting, AJAX, et cetera) for many hours daily, and a wide variety of addons installed. This particular install of firefox has been running for a little over a year.
My about:crashes is blank.
The randomness of failures suggests that Firefox writes to a random location memory that is important in some systems and not others. That's crucial in an unstable, poorly designed OS like Windows XP. Linux merely throws Firefox off the system.
This is ridiculous. You're obviously talking about things you don't know anything about -- concerning programs or OS's to start with, let alone Firefox specifically or the function thereof.
And the issue is what? Seriously. So no major overhauls until FF4, continuous minor updates both feature & security wise. This is what Microsoft, Linux, Amarok, Opera nd others do. Why would Mozilla be different?
Mountain out of a molehill. Start worrying if Mozilla stops talking about FF4.
Note: I know Amarok isn't in the same league as the other three up there, but I was going over their changelog yesterday and there were some pretty big updates done on a minor point change. Finally looking like it's back to all the functions of 1.4.10. Now if it would now get stuck scanning my collection at 49% I'd be gold
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
You'll have to admit a detailed accounting of the apparently more than $200,000,000 Google has given to the Mozilla Foundation would be interesting.
Submitted Crash Reports
Report ID Date Submitted
bp-b2805390-8582-45cb-b032-68afb2090xxx 27/09/2009 02:45
bp-f22e1c1e-9643-11dd-8cfc-001321b13yyy 09/10/2008 21:50
Terrible!
shut up you stupid fucking cunt!
The randomness of failures suggests that Firefox writes to a random location memory that is important in some systems and not others. That's crucial in an unstable, poorly designed OS like Windows XP. Linux merely throws Firefox off the system.
What that suggests to me is that your memory is bad. Try running memtest and see if it reports any errors. Even if it doesn't, it might be heat related.
I've had issues with Firefox crashing in the past (although mostly due to my playing around with XPCOM while writing an extension), but I've never seen it crash the OS. If it's crashing the OS, it seems highly likely to me that there's something physically wrong with your system.
After all, even Linux crashes when the CPU physically falls out of its socket. (Don't try that at home.)
The last time I was routinely crashing Windows XP was due to an overheating issue with my graphics card. It'd run fine until I tried to play a game. Start up a game and then after a while, boom: PAGE_FAULT_IN_NONPAGED_AREA.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
So you think the firefox team should just quit and that the people currently using firefox should switch to another browser? Just like that?
Clearly, your opinion of what counts as a "fatal flaw" is not widely held or firefox's market share wouldn't continue to grow as it has. People will continue to use firefox until they find another browser that is more appealing to them and as long as there's enough users to justify further development, the firefox team will continue to work on the code-base.
Out of curiosity, what are the "fatal flaws" as you see them?
*sigh* back to work...
Interesting post ..
I run FF in Linux and can't recall the last time I've seen FF crash
As you state FF crashes in XP constantly, the problem may be partly with XP
As from my experience as a windoz user, everything crashes daily, from the main OS to the applications, although XP is much improved over past windoz versions. It still melts down from time to time
The FF delayed mouse event problem, I have seen though. I was wondering what was causing that .. now I know
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
Strange, 2.x and below were massive memory hogs and somewhat unstable in my experience, when 3.x came along and they started worrying about memory usage and plugging the memory leaks of old by firefox experience did improve, especially on older hardware. Chrome is the biggest memory hog of current browsers, this is very much by design.
Shiretoko? isn't that the codename for an old unstable/testing version of firefox? I would certainly expect that to be unstable and crashprone.
Not that i don't think firefox is starting to lag behind, the XUL GUI is just feeling impossibly slow at this point, but less FUD and more substance next time, please, ok?
Bollocks. Anybody that's used FF for any length of time knows that what you're describing is nothing like the typical user experience. I've been using FF pretty much daily since it was called Firebird, and can count on one hand the number of times it's crashed. This is on multiple versions of Windows, Linux, and Mac. I've never seen any lag in processing mouse events. When I look at about:crashes (thanks for that one), the page is blank, not surprisingly.
FF is not the fastest. I used Chrome exclusively for about a month, and although it was quicker than FF, and generally good, I missed to many features and had to go back. On an Atom 330 I have to say Chrome is indispensible for using all 4 virtual cores, while FF too quickly gets CPU-bottlenecked by a single core, but for everything else I find FF quick enough, totally stable, and king of usable features.
I'm forced to conclude that either you have some interest in denigrating the Mozilla people, or you've just had really bad luck with your hardware/OS/browser combination and it's made you bitter.
"You really should think about these things more before you post."
You didn't read the article, did you? That's $68 million per year. You really should think about what you read before you respond.
"crashes, when they do occur are almost never caused by firefox itself, but one of the extensions."
The only reason people use Firefox is because of the extensions. So, is it okay that Mozilla Foundation disclaims responsibility for extensions being allowed to make Firefox unstable?
'I'm also saying that the "Automatically Generated Crash Reports" "Didn't happen" because, well, they didn't.'
What? Did you visit the Mozilla Crash Report web site? All those crashes didn't happen?
Why did you put so much effort into posting things that make no sense?
I can't find official documentation on this subject. However, based on the updates that I get, there are 4 numbers in a given Firefox Version:
A.B.C.D
A= Major revision
B= Minor revision
C= Small feature revision
D= Bug / security fix
It now appears that features that was going to be in 3.7 will now be put into 3.6 feature by feature. So you may see an update like 3.6.0.2 which is just security/bug fixes from 3.6.0.1. When you see an update like 3.6.1.0, it means it has a new feature that would have been in 3.7 but was put into 3.6 instead.
"Dude. There have been threading calls on "other OSs" long before Microsoft butchered the design." - by PaladinAlpha (645879) on Friday January 15, @01:16PM (#30781558)
Not true in early Linux, for example:
It had "multithreading" for user-mode apps, alright, (a 'sort-of' kind) in "round-robin" type called "cooperative threading", which was driven off a SINGLE kernel mode thread though...
This disqualified LINUX from being given "Enterprise Class Operating System" status for QUITE a while in fact, just as an example of where Windows NT-based OS had it PRIOR to a *NIX or *NIX-like OS having it in place for that classification.
----
"You're misinformed or shilling." - by PaladinAlpha (645879) on Friday January 15, @01:16PM (#30781558)
No. I'm just making a valid suggestion for something for him to look @ himself, as well as possibly the FF team too (see my original post, my guess is they have, but one never knows!
(Please, & notice that I also note how/when/where/what/why gains are made via multithreading, or not with examples... & later, since FF like IE is supposed to be a multi-process browser? I cover that too, via the SetThreadAffinity &/or SetProcessAffinity API calls in Win32 (suggesting alternates be used on other OS types too, no less, on my part IF they have not been done already)).
----
"Also, ffs, take an english class." - by PaladinAlpha (645879) on Friday January 15, @01:16PM (#30781558)
Get proof of your PHD in English, & get back to me on writing WHEN (lol, IF is more like it) YOU EVER DO... because until then? You're just "the Writer Critique OFF TOPIC Troll" that lurks around here, lmao, & like this one this week, who said he was a professional writer, & then?
LMAO: He screws up on English himself, per this example thereof there -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1505462&cid=30729986 ...
So, please - give us a break already: This place is chock full of off topic writer critique slinging off topic trolls like yourself, & minus PHD's no less in English... lol! Writing checks their mouths cannot ca$h... lmao, as shown above!
----
"The way you write makes me think you might actually be an MS coder trying to turf a little." - by PaladinAlpha (645879) on Friday January 15, @01:16PM (#30781558)
No, the way I write is apparently above your comprehension, & again/once more, please - get a PHD in English? Maybe, JUST MAYBE, then I'll take your "writing critiques" a bit more seriously!
(However, I'd tear that up too even IF you had one, because point blank/bottom-line here -> DOES THIS WEBSITE HAVE AN "ENGLISH GRAMMAR CRITIQUE" SECTION? Answer = NO. ARE YOU ON TOPIC HERE?? Answer = No).
APK
P.S.=> "too, Too, TOO EASY!"... apk
"WHY ARE THESE MINES EVEN HERE???"
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1770138
You know, sometimes the architecture that you originally designed (and that was great and the right thing back then) does not fit your current needs anymore. You get slower and slower, everything becomes bloated and messy, and starts to look like an upside-down pyramid (Windows ME syndrome).
And that’s the time, where it’s good to think about not just making the next version. But about making the next generation. Like a complete rewrite, but not. More like forgetting everything and designing a good and more future-proof system from the ground up. Which usually results in not much loss of work, because you notice how much falls into that new design as if it were made for it, because you lose the coding around that you previously had do employ. (Which also is the indicator that a new generation was the better decision: When it is less work than what the other choice.)
Has anyone else the feeling, that we’re pretty close to that with Firefox right now?
It’s strange how many experienced developers think they can just pile up version after version of major new goals onto the same architecture.
I myself would at this point make two branches: One called Firefox. And one called Firefox Two / Firefox II / SomethingCompletelyDifferent. (As in “SomeMovie 2”, not as in “SomeSoftware 2.0.” One level higher.)
I hope the team makes the best decision.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Mod parent up! Super informative post...I knew they were stretched across many projects, I didn't realize it was THAT many -_-;;
Living With a Nerd
Uuuuhhhhh...dude? Got five boxes here, all running Firefox. Did the little about:crashes thing? There ain't any. Zip zero nada squat. Maybe they are running a funky extension, which you can't blame the company if a user decides to PEBKAC the thing. And it isn't like I'm running without extensions here-Distrust, Downloadhelper, downloadstatusbar, FEBE(must have), iMacros, ABP, Noscript,nightly tester tools, and Forecastfox.
That is NINE extensions, running on THREE different OSes (Win2K, WinXP Home/Pro, Windows 7 X64) with a range of....how many years since they released the 3.5 branch? Because I installed it clean on the Win2K. The other are a mix from a couple of years to 4 months for the new Windows 7 box. And ALL are stable, ALL are doing fine with regards to memory, and ALL are crash free.
Not saying you don't have a problem, I'm saying I'm willing to bet one of those more funky extensions are the culprit. The programming extensions like Firebug from what I understand are more than a little unstable. But I have been running those same above extensions almost since the day each individual one was released and been running Firefox since the 1.x days, and can say I could probably count the number of crashes I had on one hand, all during the 2.x branch, which was seriously unstable with regards to memory.
So while I don't know which extensions you are using, if it is any that isn't on my list above you might want to disable them for a couple of days and see what happens. Or don't and just put up with the occasional crash. I personally like my extensions enough that even if they did become unstable in the future I would probably just return to a previous version or put up with it. I like having my browser MY way too much to go back.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Other than Firefox crashing due to Adobe Flash, I have not had a single crash. Looking into the Adobe issue, its been a known problem on their plate for some time (even affecting other browsers like IE). Without Flash, browser don't crash!
So, is it okay that Mozilla Foundation disclaims responsibility for extensions being allowed to make Firefox unstable?
Um, yes.
I don't take responsibility for any code you write, and I don't expect you to take responsibility for any code I write.
Why in the name of sweet holy fuck would you expect the Mozilla Foundation to take responsibility for any code that some random developer completely unassociated with them writes?
bp-9fdb9830-fab6-4214-9607-28bac2090325 3/25/2009 9:52 AM
bp-a5f78c70-6933-4491-ab7a-e265d2090317 3/17/2009 4:27 PM
bp-71dde8dd-1f7b-4c35-92db-16ca20081111 11/11/2008 3:15 PM
So in 2009 it crashed twice, and in 2008 it crashed once. Far better than I get with Office, and I use FF far more than office.
The far and away priority one feature should be Multithreading. Each tab and each plugin should have its own process and its own memory space, so that a crash of one tab/plugin, or one tab/plugin using loads of CPU power, should have practically no effect on my other tabs/plugins on my 4-core CPU.
So I don't care about copying Chrome's GUI. But copying Chrome's sandboxing and multithreading architecture I very much care about!
There is a Mozilla project to implement this, but the project page hasn't been updated in months, as far as I can tell.
SO damn slow
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Real data? Did you read the EXTENSIVE crash reports linked above?
No? Why not?
You have to end-of-life old versions at some point. Yes, it's good to support old versions if there's a valid reason to be doing so (Apache 1.3, maybe. Firefox 2.0, no.), but there is a limit.
It's all rather moot with free software anyway. If you really think something should still be maintained, then just do it. (Or pay someone else to.)
Mine too:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100106 Ubuntu/9.10 (karmic) Firefox/3.5.7,
no crashes reported. I normally have 50+ tabs open (several hierarchical sets using tree-style tab, most of which are reference info I like to have available.)
Addons installed:
Adblock Plus, All in one Sidebar, Better Privacy, DownThemAll, FireGestures, FoxyProxy, Gmail Manager, Image Zoom, Leet Key, Morning Coffee, NoScript, Moonlight, Nuke Anything Enhanced, PDF Download, RSS ticker, Session Manager, Targeted Advertising Cookie Opt-Out, Tree Style Tab, Update Notifier, XUL Profiler, Youtube Comment Snob.
Flash plugin occasionally crashes, when that happens I kill the npviewer.bin process & reload the page. I've never seen it actually bring firefox down, at least not with the latest versions of each.
Not a sentence!
Because Safari 4 is out, and Chrome 4 is in beta, Having Firefox move to 4.0 sooner rather then later makes a great deal of sense based on that alone. It also seems that the features planed for what used to be 3.7 and the stuff shortly included in 3.6 when its released seems to be the second half of the 3.5 version jump justification.
Anyone know what features are being planned for Firefox 4?
From the rumors I've heard, it's likely I won't want to upgrade to Firefox 4.
I've heard things about replacing the menu and toolbar with a ribbon. I despise the ribbon concept, finding it eats up my screen real estate, and for me is much harder to find things in.
And there were a couple of other things I heard which turned me off, but I don't remember what they were right now.
Unless I'm missing something?
Well, two things you are missing is evidence that the Mozilla foundation will (1) "withhold security updates until there is a feature ready to go", and (2) "withhold features until a security update is necessary".
How else are you going to roll out features alongside security updates? Just hope really really hard that every feature update is completed at the exact same moment as a security update?
Either feature updates will have to wait for security updates, or security updates will have to wait for feature updates, or they will not be coming out "alongside" each other.
You don't need "evidence" for that.
Good luck using the Hosts file in a computer where you don't have admin privileges.
Also, the Hosts file can't be auto-updated, like adblock.
And Hosts file block all the domain - good luck blocking that big annoying image or flash animation that's served from the same domain as the content.
And as far as I know Adblock removes the ad *before* Firefox tries to load it, so I doubt it even sends a DNS request. But with Firefox you can use both Adblock and Hosts, and get the advantages of the two. Chrome can't.
Dilbert RSS feed
"Good luck using the Hosts file in a computer where you don't have admin privileges." - by icebraining (1313345) on Friday January 15, @04:18PM (#30784074)
Well, then they ought to be deployed via logon scripts then, because HOSTS files have definite benefits in security and allow for gains in speed, many ways (& they are easily obtained, in updated form (witness mvps.org or bluetack/biss, or the wikipedia link I put up in my post which is parent to yours)... Personally though, per what I quoted from you?
I don't have that problem.
----
"Also, the Hosts file can't be auto-updated, like adblock." - by icebraining (1313345) on Friday January 15, @04:18PM (#30784074)
See the link from wikipedia for reliable & regularly updated HOSTS files (mvps.org's is good), or, use Spybot "Search & Destroy" (because both provide regular trustworthy updates to HOSTS files, easily)...
(& again: HOSTS files don't use up extra CPU & slow browsers up in THAT capacity @ all, whereas browser addons DEFINITELY do (nor are HOSTS files subject to the same types of bugs that browser addons are either, much less DNS servers as well)).
HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).
----
"And Hosts file block all the domain - good luck blocking that big annoying image or flash animation that's served from the same domain as the content." - by icebraining (1313345) on Friday January 15, @04:18PM (#30784074)
IF a site's KNOWN as bad? You BET I want to block ALL OF IT... my sources? Very reputable & reliable, are as follows (typically & mostly):
----
A.) Spybot "Search & Destroy" updates (populates HOSTS and browser block lists)
B.) Sites like ZDNet's Mr. Dancho Danchev's blog -> http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/
C.) Sites like FireEye -> http://blog.fireeye.com/
D.) SRI -> http://mtc.sri.com/
----
Plus, ALL of the HOSTS files @ WIKIPEDIA's site for them I noted in my post parent to your own!
(Albeit, here, I wrote an app that used ALL of the above, & my HOSTS file is currently @ 655,552 entries... My app (APK HOSTS File Grinder 4.0++) "normalizes" & removes duplicates, plus, makes the blocking address used as SMALL as possible for the OS platforms its used on (be that 0, 0.0.0.0, or the largest & slowest of all, the "loopback adapter" of 127.0.0.1), & lastly it PINGS my favorite websites, & places their IP-to-DOMAIN/HOST NAME to its correct resolution in the file ("hardcoding in" & speeding up my favorites too, ontop of adbanner blocking or blocking of KNOWN bad sites like botnet "c&c servers", malicious name servers, or known bad websites & known malicious adbanners too).
One of the last things I'd like to build into it?
(& I have been planning that for a LONG time?)
I.E.-> A client-server design where the user can set it active as a tooltray app & have it check X times a day for updates of a HOSTS file I plan to serve up from GOOGLE DOCUMENTS (once it finalizes as a site that is), to overcome "one of your objections" in fact, & I've always thought it'd be a good idea & way to do this all for end-users in fact... & when it finds updates to the HOSTS file I do? Download it FOR the user & install it (no reboots needed on Windows XP/Server 2003/VISTA/Windows Server 2008, or Windows 7 either).
----
"And as far as I know Adblock removes the ad *before* Firefox tries to load it, so I doubt it even sends a DNS request. But with Firefox you can use both Adblock and Hosts, and get the advantages of the
If the browser had a decent plug-in architecture, a crash of a plug-in would crash ONLY THE PLUG-IN. The rest of the browser would keep running.
It follows that FireFox does not have a decent plug-in architecture.
Furthermore, a good application design would allow a single page/tab to crash without bringing down all the other pages/tabs. Again, FireFox's architecture is lacking in this regard.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
It is a serious flaw in FireFox that a crashign plug-in brings down the entire browser and all tabs. Yes, applications and plug-ins are going to have bugs. Software architects should take this into account when designing things. FireFox's architects seem not to have done so.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Last time I used Firefox it was using up to 1.5 GiB memory and had several crashes per day. Although Internet Exploder was and is a tad more stable it can crash at a moment's notice as well. That is why I am staying clear of both web browsers. So far Google Chrome seems to be very stable and less memory intensive. When Mozilla stops following Microsoft in the terms of web browsing then I will continue to use Firefox.
Mods- I am not trying to troll. These are my actual experiences.
"And as far as I know Adblock removes the ad *before* Firefox tries to load it, so I doubt it even sends a DNS request." - by icebraining (1313345) on Friday January 15, @04:18PM (#30784074)
Problem here is, YES, it does (for sites you go to and do NOT block out though)...
E.G. #1 -> Let's say, for instance/example, that you "hardcode in" this website /. into your HOSTS file to avoid the DNS server roundtrip lookup & resolve + return time... 70ns wasted doing those to external DNS servers typically roundtrip. You also get put on a DNS request log when you do so! SO, I was not talking about adbanners or known bad sites being blocked, but, rather where you actually DO WANT TO GO and where you DO ACTUALLY GO, being loggable that way!
(Slashdot would just as an example, nobody would probably CARE too much if you visit this site ordinarily, but, others site you go to POSSIBLY?? Well, they might... HOSTS can "put an end" to that, easily enough also, via those "hardcodes" I note you can do in a HOSTS file!)
Can you STILL be tracked & traced? Yes. Via pings &/or traceroutes to the IP's you went to tied to your MAC Address on your modem, but that's harder to do (because those programs use top level domains that do NOTHING but maintain "reverse DNS lookup" information on them, but... that's more work than going thru a DNS request log filtered on YOUR Mac Address of your modem!)
APK
P.S.=> Think about it - It's DEFINTILEY some "Food 4 Thought" 4U, so, "drink it in, & digest it"... apk
They are taking that into account for the future now. There are two projects to address that.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Content_Processes
Jetpack
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Labs/Jetpack
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
This makes me laugh: I criticized Firefox management in my parent comment and got an immediate -1 Troll, with lots of hostile and unthinking and irrational comments. Someone even criticized my use of a bold headline.
I criticized Microsoft management and got an immediate +5 Insightful, with no comments at all, at present: Confused by Microsoft P.R.?
The crashing in Firefox doesn't happen with all users. It happens especially frequently when many windows and tabs are open, such as when doing extensive research. Firefox crashes happen more frequently if the computer is often put into hibernation or standby.
For those who like debugging, the Firefox crashes are fascinating, partly because they are sometimes able to crash the Windows OS, also.
There are also Firefox crashes under other circumstances, with one window and one tab, and only one extension, WOT. Those also are able to crash Windows XP SP3.
It's time for Mozilla Foundation to fix the instability in Firefox! It's been there for years. It's time for Microsoft to fix the vulnerabilities in IE! They have been there for years.
"Good luck using the Hosts file in a computer where you don't have admin privileges." - by icebraining (1313345) on Friday January 15, @04:18PM (#30784074)
On Windows 7 (& doubtless Windows VISTA + subordinate models like 2000/XP/Server 2003 etc. et al)?
You can OVERWRITE the HOSTS file if you do a "run as ADMINISTRATOR", allowing for the copy... & most users who setup their own rig KNOW that password.
(That is, provided that you have the admin password + username combination of course)...
Thus, so you know, it IS "doable"!
(Heck - I had to do that, & right when I first got Windows 7... Well, until I elevated my normal user into the "ADMISTRATORS" group later that is).
HOWEVER - On a corporate LAN/WAN though, where Group Policies don't permit it (possibly)? You may be correct (&, especially IF you don't have local ADMINISTRATOR priveleges on said machine either).
APK
P.S.=> "onwards & upwards"... &, @ this point?
I *THINK* you only have HOW MANY POINTS in favor of ADBLOCK vs. HOSTS files?
Well - Not as many as I can point out vs. ADBLOCK by this point, this is sure (especially after I overcame, what? 4/5 of your "objection points"??)...apk
And they're currently working on exactly that. Do note that prior to Chrome, nobody had that particular idea so everyone else needs to catch up. You can argue that Mozilla is taking a long time to do so (and they certainly are) but you can't argue that their plugin architecture is unacceptably substandard when in fact the "standard" has changed too recently for everyone to be implementing it already.
Mozilla is slow but they're not idiots.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Quick, let me tell you home many of those people actually give a shit about: 3, possibly 4
Firefox, Thunderbird, Fennec, and if you count devs, Bugzilla, which is a pretty stagnate project at this point. Fennec is debatable as well at this point.
Perhaps its not so impressive to see this massive list but more a sign that they don't have any direction and are infact pulling the exact same failure mode that Netscape did. Good job guys, maybe if you're lucky after this time around you can go for a threepeat on doing a bunch of shit no one wants while stroking your own egos and utterly failing to provide anything actually useful.
I'm just jealous, I want to get paid to sit around writing shit that suits me rather than producing something people actually want.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
And better memory management. It's annoying that it doesn't seem to do garbage collection when I close tabs and pages in Snow Leopard. I end up closing it and having it reload my pages and tabs at least once a day to shrink its memory footprint.
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Um, the dates you listed, and the operating system you listed, on the hardware you listed...
Those problems would be commonplace on systems without firefox.
Or at least, that's what my kid the Windows 7 beta tester says. He says you might want to check if you got some windows 7 patches when you suddenly went from crashing every day to a couple crashes a month. Wait, he says there were problems with your nVidia hardware on windows 7 64-bit also, check for patches there too.
But, seriously, you need to ditch every single one of those extensions and stop running the latest bleeding edge OS before you start blaming firefox itself in a public forum. You've got at least one known problem child (.NET Framework) in there. You need to do more problem isolation - it's not the power company's fault if a dog chews through your TV cable.
Excuse me, I know we're living in a post trillion bank meltdown, but $200 million is still a boatload. Even two dozen projects can't justify that kind of money, certainly not if most go along at the pace of Thunderbird, for example.
soo right... I use 3.6 NIGHTY. Every night it updates. 36 Extensions. My profile is 131MB big, 5 years old. Constantly ~20 tabs open. And i get crashes something like one time a month. All tabs recovered every time. And it uses half the memory of chrome.
If it's number 2, and I suspect it will be, they will do what Drupal does. Drupal releases NO bug fixes until a .X release. They ONLY release .X releases if they have a security issue to fix. There for a while there were months a months without security holes, which is nice, but then again there were simple bugs that just sat languishing. The response was always: Install the dev if you really need it, but don't ask us for help if it breaks something because you really shouldn't run anything that is in dev.
bear in mind that Drupal 7 was supposed to launch last year. They're just now getting around to thinking about a alpha release.
I only mention this because once 7 drops, 5.x is unsupported, and you'll be told to upgrade to 6 or 7. Which you'll do, and then a bug will be found, and perhaps you'll fix it and submit a patch, and then 9 months later, it'll get committed. I hope your boss understands this. Your new project can wait 9 months, right?
For all you Snow Leopard users...
In case you did not know, you can download optimized Mac versions of a number of browsers from here
Specifically, one of the browsers available is a 64-bit optimized version of FF 3.7 for Snow Leopard.
I finally installed it the other night, after eyeing it warily for the last month or so (as I worked through the latest 3.6 optimized builds). I finally installed it last night, and have to say that it's the biggest improvement to FF that I've came across.
It loads faster, uses less CPU & memory than previous builds, and it's mega fast. My impressions are that it's now as fast as Safari is on a Mac.
It's now my main browser. If you run Snow Leopard, you should check it out.
Most distros disable the crash reporter, such as Ubuntu.
These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based upon the order I joined. -Homer Simpson
about:crashes only shows submitted crash reports... so if you didn't submit it won't be there
I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
I have it running on Ubuntu 9.10, OSX 10.6, and WinXP, and no, I have no problems whatsoever. Neither does anyone I know. Neither does anyone I've ever heard of, except for around here.
I tried the URL's listed, and so far, after about going through 2/3rds of them, nearly all work as expected. No animation. The fonts won't look identical as in the png version unless you have your system resolution set correctly (most people don't), and have the fonts that are used in the tests, loaded onto your system. I didn't have all the fonts, and I'm pretty sure I have more than most people.
Do your your fonts display identically in all your other applications? I.e. when you
display a page in multiple browsers, -- how about when you print to PDF and display in Acrobat? If your fonts are consistent aross all those (might as well throw in your favorite WYSISWYG editor as well). Oh -- and finally -- if you print it out and hold copy up against your screen, are the fonts identical on paper as on screen?
If all that is true, then you probably have your fonts configured right on your system reasonably well. Even then, you have to have the right fonts loaded onto your system -- specifically the ones used in the tests.
So give FF a break on its SVG tests regarding the fonts -- because getting those "perfect" will take the most configuration on your part. Some of the tests even say that you should ignore differences in font sizes and styles because they are likely to be misconfiguration on your machine for use as a test verification device.
Please make sure your DPI are set accurate and try to look through the sources to find what fonts you will need to have things look correctly. These are tests designed to operate under specific circumstances.
Some things are obviously broken -- like text displays one place, but not another,
and the animation stuff not displaying at all. Not good. But other stuff...my only
main gripe with SVG so far is execution speed on more complex images. But getting it working is probably the best first priority.
The SVG font tests I saw looked fine on my monitor. But I do have alot of fonts loaded on my machine (~2059 families).
Do you have a color profile installed in your Firefox?
If so -- uninstall it.
png's are not color-managed. So no matter what profile you have installed, if the svg profiles read as color managed, they will look different from the png's.
Second, do you have a generic profile installed in FF or have you profiled and calibrated your monitor and have a specific monitor profile for your monitor installed in FF (which is what you probably should have if you have any). sRGB and sRGBv4 don't appear suitable, *to my eyes*, for web images designed for display on good monitors -- especially not LCD's. LCD's have considerably more color range than what sRGBv4 was designed for (not to mention FF doesn't grok v4 color profiles). Applying sRGB to an image, vs. say the one for my monitor, dims out the colors and reduces the gamut size -- perfect for lower quality monitors and, perhaps printing to home printers, that have smaller color-range capacities (gamuts), but for looking at them on monitor, you'll be ripping off the color you could be experiencing with a profile suited to your monitor.
So before you complain about FF's SVG being screwed up, make sure your system is ready to display accurate ouput -- have your DPI set correctly for your monitor and get your monitor profiled (and calibrated if you can). The Win7 built-in util is adequate for generating a reasonable color profile. You can use that to install in FF (because FF doesn't use the system's profile, it will default to sRGBv2 if unconfigured (at least that's what it's documented to do...) which will usually be wrong if you've profiled your monitor.
Sorry if I snarked, must have been something in my throat. *cough*... SVG isn't super trivial -- learning it could take between now and when Mozilla gets a perfect implementation. :-) Check out the 'inkscape.org' website -- it's a free downloadable creator/editor for SVG -- and the focus is more on artwork than text. You can see lots of examples there, and it's amazing how many already work -- there's an entire website of clip art examples at www.openclipart.org. Also, if you google up SVG clipart, you'll find a bunch of stuff that already works in FF. So it's not a matter of 'when FF will be ready to display and use SVG', there are websites based on it already.
1.) HOSTS files eat no CPU cycles like browser addons do no less!
2.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file [wikipedia.org] ) & edited too.
3.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, OR even DNS servers.
4.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE
5.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's eve
6.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).
7.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).
8.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR.
9.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).
10.) ADBLOCK DOES NOT ALLOW A USER DIRECT EDITABLE CONTROL OVER WHAT IT BLOCKS (afaik, @ least - feel free to correct me IF I am in error here (thanks)).
---
"So to overcome the resources Adblock wastes..." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday January 16, @12:47AM (#30788134)
Absolutely, & much more (per those 10 points above)... how many are in YOUR favor? You THOUGHT 1 below in my p.s., but that's nullified easily as well, keep reading...
----
"you build a full clients server stack that's always running. And with a server that needs access to both the Internet *and* system files, so you're exposed to external attacks." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday January 16, @12:47AM (#30788134)
And, you're not? Are you trying to tell us that FireFox/Mozilla browser addons don't expose users to vulnerabilities in them?? GreaseMonkey had a BIG problem that way, iirc... & others as well.
(And, by "client-server", you don't always have to have it up & running, accessing the IP stack, & you can set them to LOW CPU usage easily (that's very simple to do in code by the by) & keep the interface as simple as possible too, to keep resources usage low (say, via a popup menu only & a trayicon))
BUT, that's just an idea I was going to build into my "APK HOSTS File Grinder 4.0++" is all... I don't HAVE to do that @ all, period. Folks can easily obtain a good, & reliable HOSTS file from mvps.org, or the WIKIPEDIA site URL I posted earlier for them (or just use SpyBot S&D to update their HOSTS file too in combination with all of the above, plus the sites I noted for updating it as well which are VERY current, usually/always).
APK
P.S.=> So, again - How many points in favor of HOSTS files do I have, & how many in favor of ADBLOCK do you have (especially vs. those 10 above)?
Let's see @ this point: None I can see (because you *THINK* you have 1, & I'll get around it seconds too):
"How can you block only the banner with the HOSTS, and still access the content? (hint: you can't)." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday January 16, @12:47AM (#30788134)
HINT: WRONG - I can, & here is how, easily:
You TEMPORARILY RENAME your HOSTS file!
(Which in effect, "turns it off" temporarily, &, then surf that site... pretty easy!)
After all: It only takes only a second to do! Then, when you're done?
Well - "Turn it back on" by naming it "HOSTS" again (minus the quotes, of course, lol)... apk
"Oh, I'm sure, I didn't realize this was a competition. Next time I'll bring my jogging shoes." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday January 16, @12:39AM (#30788096)
Don't bother, because per my subject-line above? Well - It would appear that I've got you SOUNDLY outpaced, & by a LONG SHOT (here is EXACTLY how/what/when/why/where by who? Me... lol!)
Here goes:
POINTS IN FAVOR OF HOSTS FILES (vs. ADBLOCK):
----
1.) HOSTS files eat no CPU cycles like browser addons do no less!
2.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file [wikipedia.org] ) & edited too.
3.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, OR even DNS servers.
4.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE
5.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's eve
6.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).
7.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).
8.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR.
9.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).
10.) ADBLOCK DOES NOT ALLOW A USER DIRECT EDITABLE CONTROL OVER WHAT IT BLOCKS (afaik, @ least - feel free to correct me IF I am in error here (thanks)).
----
"If I say a "computer where you don't have admin privileges" it doesn't mean a PC where you don't run as Root or Admin all the time, obvisouly. It means a computer where you *don't* have the admin password in any way." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday January 16, @12:39AM (#30788096)
Well, again - Personally? I don't have THAT problem, myself, ever... & that's due to the nature of work I perform, I run as ADMINISTRATOR class users typically!
(Just due to job titles I usually hold (which would be Network Administrator, Programmer or Programmer/Analyst, or Software Engineer typically, in the past 16++ yrs. or so I have been around this art & science)...
APK
"Actually, you're wrong. My DNS request wouldn't be logged, but my request to Slashdot's IP would, so it doesn't matter." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday January 16, @12:34AM (#30788070)
No, that's EXACTLY what I have been saying...
E.G. (again) - IF you don't "hardcode" in /. (slashdot) here as a "FAVORITE SITE" into your HOSTS file? You are making DNS requests @ some point (until your local system's DNS caching client caches the request @ least once).
Whereas, by way of comparison, to someone like myself that has SLASHDOT's IP-to-HOSTNAME/DOMAINNAME locally "hardcoded" into his HOSTS file, as I do?
I never make that DNS request... period.
(Therefore, I never get put into a DNS request log!)
YOU CAN'T DO THAT WITH ADBLOCK, period...
----
"As you see, the HOSTS file doesn't guarantee privacy in any way." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday January 16, @12:34AM (#30788070)
IF I never make a request to a DNS server, since I actually DO "hardcode in" all of my favorite websites into my HOSTS file (ones I regularly visit, around 250++ or thereabouts here typically)? I'd NEVER be shown as making a DNS request to them, because the FIRST THING YOUR SYSTEM REFERENCES IN THE IP STACK FOR NAME RESOLUTION?? YOU GUESSED IT:
THE HOSTS FILE!
APK
P.S.=> Let's see, you have 1 thing that only SOMETIMES "gets in your face" with a HOSTS file (& that was if you do not run as administrator on a system, so you cannot install the HOSTS file (& that is only sometimes)):
I have these in FAVOR of HOSTS file, by far, vs. ADBLOCK though:
1.) HOSTS files eat no CPU cycles like browser addons do no less!
2.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file [wikipedia.org] ) & edited too.
3.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, OR even DNS servers.
4.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE
5.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's eve
6.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).
7.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).
8.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR.
9.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).
10.) ADBLOCK DOES NOT ALLOW A USER DIRECT EDITABLE CONTROL OVER WHAT IT BLOCKS (afaik, @ least - feel free to correct me IF I am in error here (thanks)). ... apk
"Pray tell, dear linguist, is there a style of writing, of syntax, grammar, and of vocabulary that defines a programmer as being "MS"? Thousands of ears are curious. I await your reply." - by Achromatic1978 (916097) on Friday January 15, @05:11PM (#30784756)
He won't answer, Achromatic... trolls NEVER usually do (especially "writing critique slinging trolls", which is HILARIOUSLY "off topic" here, considering the subject is NOT "english grammar" here first of all, & secondly considering they don't have PHD's in English to their names either)... want a laugh @ an example of THAT VERY THING? See this URL -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1505462&cid=30729986
Also?
Well, IF you see the PARENT post to that I replied to (from where I took the quote of that "alleged professional writer" (not))??
Well...
First of all:
He wouldn't say what he's published, or his real name either mind you (so I could verify it all)
Secondly, lol:
Well, that "professional writer" troll (not)???
He started a SENTENCE WITH A CONJUNCTION, in the word "AND" & that?
That is a HUGE "no-no" in English grammar (& of the level of error a grade schooler makes no less, lmao...)
----
"I doubt it will have merit, though..." - by Achromatic1978 (916097) on Friday January 15, @05:11PM (#30784756)
I agree, 110%...
Especially considering I have EXACTLY what puts these "writing critique trolls" & their BLATANTLY "Off-Topic" b.s. replies right to bed easily, everytime!
(Especially considering not a single one of them has a PHD in English to say they are somekind of "expert" in writing - which again, would be all "fine & good" except for that it makes them OFF TOPIC & there IS NO "ENGLISH GRAMMAR SECTION" here @ /., period... lmao!)
APK
P.S.=> "too, Too, TOO EASY"... everytime! apk
Firefox doesn't need access to system files, it can be Sandboxed for safety. Your "server" can't.
So you either lose your security, or the auto-update functionality. Hey, great improvement!
Then you don't block the damn banner.
Show me how you can block a banner and still access the rest of the content from the same domain, using the Hosts file.
Dilbert RSS feed
"I should know better than to start discussions with shills." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday January 16, @09:08AM (#30790030)
Well, the VERY SECOND you have to start "name tossing adhominem attacks"?
My man - lol, that's when you "tip your hand" & frustration, @ being unable to overcome EVERY POINT I post in my "p.s." below & by THIS POINT (see below)?
Well - You are SO FAR BEHIND @ this point? It's not even funny...
I.E.-> You have only 1 partial point I cannot FULLY overcome (administrative priveleges on SOME boxes & in only SOME situations), the rest of what you had? I blew it away, WITH EASE, period... & you KNOW it.
NOW - I could say the same about browser addons (especially toolbars) but we'll keep to FF addons!
I could see admins possibly disallowing the use of FireFox period, OR, addons for it (because they have shown security vulnerabilities in them, ala Greasemonkey having them & that is JUST A SINGLE EXAMPLE THEREOF, there are more you know)...
STILL:
Disprove each of what's in my p.s. below (I surely did that to YOUR replies, each time, whereas by way of comparison? You still have not, period).
----
"I say your http requests are still logged, and you can be traced via http headers or reverse dns. You reply with DNS again. Nice." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday January 16, @09:08AM (#30790030)
Ahem: YOU ARE SKIMMING! I say that, because I already noted REVERSE DNS tracking methods though... see here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1512306&cid=30784912 in my bottom most paragraphs!
You've only 1 leg to stand on @ this point really, & that's your point on ADMIN priveleges (which doesn't hold up in many cases anyhow)...
Doing the tracking I noted above, by IP addresses tied to your MAC address of your modem? That is MUCH HARDER TO DO, than merely looking thru a DNS request log is all (especially one filtered by YOUR MAC ADDRESS of your modem!)
When you "hardcode in" your favorite sites (or ones you don't WANT to show up on a DNS request log)? You omit the need to query a DNS server, period... a fact, is a fact.
APK
P.S.=> 10 POINTS IN FAVOR OF HOSTS FILES, vs. ADBLOCK:
1.) HOSTS files eat no CPU cycles like browser addons do no less!
2.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file [wikipedia.org] ) & edited too.
3.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, OR even DNS servers.
4.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE
5.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's eve
6.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).
7.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).
8.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR.
9.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).
10.) ADBLOCK DOES NOT ALLOW A USER DIRECT EDITABLE CONTROL OVER WHAT IT BLOCKS (afaik, @ least - feel free to correct me IF I am in error here (thanks))... apk
"But are you discussing if *you* should use it? I was discussing the pro's and con's for all PC users, and requirement of admin privileges is a valid point." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday January 16, @08:47AM (#30789948)
Ok, I addressed that, but I'll do it again: I could see network administrators banning the use of FireFox entirely, or only its usage with its browser addons, because they've been found to have SECURITY VULNERABILITIES themselves... ala Greasemonkey being a single example thereof, for example...
So, "that sword of yours" cuts BOTH ways, & by my rearranging your 'attack point'? Well, just like the word SWORD, now, your point?? Is only WORDS (an anagram of sword).
That's the "last leg" you have to stand on @ this point, & I know it - I say that, because you start "name tossing" on YOUR PART, DIRECTED MY WAY (ala adhominem style usually used by FRUSTRATED TROLLS mostly/actually, in my experience here & elsewhere online actually) here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1512306&cid=30790162
YOU HAVE ONLY SHOWN ME THAT YOU ARE "ALL OUT OF ACES", in THIS "poker game", my friend...
AND, ABOVE ALL ELSE?
YOU also have NOT disproved these 10 points of mine, in favor of HOSTS files, vs. ADBLOCK!
(However, by way of comparison? Well - I surely took yours out totally for the most part, point-by-point, with relative ease mind you as well & to the point of where you began name tossing etc. et al no less as shown above in the URL above)
APK
P.S.=> 10 POINTS IN FAVOR OF HOSTS FILES vs. ADBLOCK:
----
1.) HOSTS files eat no CPU cycles like browser addons do no less!
2.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file [wikipedia.org] ) & edited too.
3.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, OR even DNS servers.
4.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE
5.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's eve
6.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).
7.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).
8.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR.
9.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).
10.) ADBLOCK DOES NOT ALLOW A USER DIRECT EDITABLE CONTROL OVER WHAT IT BLOCKS (afaik, @ least - feel free to correct me IF I am in error here (thanks)).
----
"too, Too, TOO EASY" - Just too easy... apk
"Firefox doesn't need access to system files, it can be Sandboxed for safety. Your "server" can't." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday January 16, @09:19AM (#30790088)
Ever heard of "Sandboxie" -> http://www.sandboxie.com/
?
(It can EFFECTIVELY "sandbox" ANY application in Win32 (as it's more-or-less a CHROOT JAIL for Win32, albeit in GUI form & easy to use, on ANY app))...
Heck, that's a GOOD IDEA actually, & one I could do myself for this app, should I elect to include an updater in it for users, so they could "automagically" update their HOSTS files (since mine is updated, nearly daily, in fact).
I.E.-> I could even IMPLEMENT something like it easily too (thanks for the idea) by using a FILTERING DRIVER to do so (which is pretty much what SANDBOXIE actually does)...
HOWEVER, again - I don't have to build in that feature into my app either.
I can just let folks obtain it on a website (like when GOOGLE DOCS finalizes) easily, or just use the HOSTS files which are reputable & kept up regularly like mvps.org or the ones on WIKIPEDIA I noted (& for upkeep, use sites like Dancho Danchev of ZDNet & other I noted, or just use Spybot S&D to keep you HOSTS "up to date" etc. et al).
Too easy!
----
"Then you don't block the damn banner." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday January 16, @09:19AM (#30790088)
No, you don't, for THAT site (question is though, HOW MANY SITES HOST THEIR OWN BANNERS? Not many... most are served up by adbanner hosting servers, period)...
----
"Show me how you can block a banner and still access the rest of the content from the same domain, using the Hosts file. - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday January 16, @09:19AM (#30790088)
How many sites HOST their own ad banners? NOT MANY (fact is, the majority don't)... & I only showed you a way to TEMPORARILY & EASILY + QUICKLY "deactivate" the HOSTS file so you can see sites of that RARE nature (super rare too, mind you, & certainly NOT the majority).
So, you feel you have "this 1 last leg to stand on" after I knocked ALL of your others down quickly... can you disprove THESE 10 points in favor of HOSTS files vs. ADBLOCK?
Answer = NOT SO FAR YOU HAVEN'T... see my p.s. below again, for your reference, & "good luck" (you'll NEED it)
APK
P.S.=> 10 POINTS IN FAVOR OF HOSTS FILES vs. ADBLOCK:
1.) HOSTS files eat no CPU cycles like browser addons do no less!
2.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file [wikipedia.org] ) & edited too.
3.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, OR even DNS servers.
4.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE
5.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's eve
6.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).
7.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).
8.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR.
9.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to site
Firefux and all of Mozilla's products became irrelevant when Mozilla decided to follow M$ lead in software design. Mozilla, like M$, is making products that are unsecure, bloated, and unstable. Remember when the M$ Intarweb Exploder team sent a cake to the Mozilla team? That was the first sign M$ and Mozilla were sleeping together. Mozilla and M$'s other tactics include astroturfers like you. Other than that GUIs are unnessecary for web browsing. Lynx is sufficient for any web browsing "with the exception of M$ addicts like you."
--
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Friends do assist M$ addicted friends in committing suicide.
You're a shill because you start a technical discussion to surreptitiously promote your own application. It's not an argument, it's a fact.
Secondly, I have never tried to make Adblock a superior alternative to Hosts. I refered some advantages it has over the Hosts files, to add to your post.
Unlike you, I don't have any personal interest in trying to show what's the "best". I don't even use Adblock.
But I'll reply:
1) Sure, if you don't run any auto-updater, especially a daemon like yours. :)
2) Good Adblock lists are also available; their equivalent.
3) Right. But the auto-updater might be. Again, you can sandbox Firefox. You can't sandbox the updater (Yes, you *could* IF you wrote the driver, which you didn't)
4) Sure, I've used it in multiple occasions.
5) Yes, but if you want to auto-update, you have to allow writes to it.
6) Again, that's completely true. In the times of CoD1 you could use it to fake the key server
7) If "they" can log DNS, they can log HTTP requests. If you're worried about privacy you should use Tor, at least
8) Again, that's completely true.
9) Well, you can also use multiple DNS servers (I use my ISP and OpenDNS), which will give you access to all the sites, not the few you have hardcoded
10) Sure it does, you get nice GUIs, right-click context for images and it even overlays little buttons over Flash content to block it.
Again, Adblock and Hosts, both have their advantages, and they're best used together. But Firefox supports them both, and Chrome doesn't.
Dilbert RSS feed
"You're a shill because you start a technical discussion to surreptitiously promote your own application. It's not an argument, it's a fact." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday January 16, @11:22AM (#30790832)
Well, I'm not "shilling my app", because I don't PUT IT OUT PUBLICLY (first of all).
Secondly/Additionally, as to my app?
Well - It's still in testing & to be honest about it (shareware/freeware creation & such)? I've been there & done that, it's a LOT OF WORK, you wouldn't think it, but... it IS.
I only work on it "here & there", when I have time, because, for my PERSONAL purposes? It more than "does the job" here in:
----
1.) Making a smaller + faster blocking address using 0 (vs. 0.0.0.0 or the worst one, the default "loopback adapter" of 127.0.0.1)
2.) Removing duplicated entries in HOSTS files (for when you "merge in" other HOSTS files into it)
3.) Alphabetizing ALL entries (for easier mgt. via say, notepad)
4.) Lastly, for PINGING my 250 fav. sites (via a file a user can create for that called SITES.TXT) to make resolving them MUCH FASTER off a local HDD than it is calling out to a remote & possibly BUGGY or COMPROMISED (or even downed) DNS server (plenty of that going on, I can assure you, but check Dan Kaminsky online on THAT note).
----
However:
I have considered "Open Sores"'ing it, lol (note my spelling)!
Mainly, because it's built in Delphi!
(Which, in turn, makes it an EASY PORT to Linux (because of KYLIX, which is in essence, "Delphi for Linux" really... ports are EASY too, provided you avoid 2 things - 1 being drive letters (MS stuff) vs. Devices mounted (*NIX), & the other being diff.'s in WinSock/WinSock2 vs. sockets used for things IP on other platforms, like *NIX variants)).
AND, all the "adhominem style name tossing" doesn't overcome my 10 points in favor of HOSTS files vs. ADBLOCK, period...
----
"Secondly, I have never tried to make Adblock a superior alternative to Hosts." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday January 16, @11:22AM (#30790832)
This I have to disagree on, you DID take "pot shots" @ me personally with name tossing ala the "adhominem" attack you did, above again also... & we shouldn't BE arguing here: Why?
BECAUSE HOSTS FILES & ADBLOCK WORK TOGETHER & EXTREMELY WELL, FOR THE BEST POSSIBLE SECURITY ONLINE THERE IS IN THE CONCEPT OF "LAYERED SECURITY"...
(However, I have that list of 10 points that are STILL HEAVILY IN FAVOR OF HOSTS FILES, vs. ADBLOCK, & some of its points you cannot even contest nor do you... others? YOU only have PARTIAL & CIRCUMSTANTIAL points for (userrights/acls/group policies stuff))
I am, however, showing you how/what/when/where/why & how HOSTS are superior on 10 grounds, vs. ADBLOCK alone though!
----
"I refered some advantages it has over the Hosts files, to add to your post." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday January 16, @11:22AM (#30790832)
What are those? You have 1 partial one, in user rights restricting users installing it (which fails even on VISTA/Windows Server 2008/Windows 7, because a LIMITED CLASS USER can still do "Run as Administrator" when they have the password for ADMINISTRATOR, & most folks DO, on their OWN SYSTEMS @ least!)...
I admit though, that in corporate environs? MOST FOLKS won't have local machine admin priveleges... I however, personally, ALWAYS DO, while functioning as a combined FULL Network Administrator & Software Engineer/Programmer-Analyst 9/10 times on MOST jobs & titles I've held in this field professionally since 1994 in fact.
----
"Unlike you, I don't have any personal interest in trying to show what's the "best". I don't even use Adblock." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday January 16, @11:22AM (#30790832)
Well, 10:1 ratios in favo
Well, that was a useless 12000 character post. All you have done is failing to rebut my rebuttals, and saying "AHAH!!1!" when I agree with you that the HOSTS file approach has advantages, as I ever said it did.
I'm glad you "won", not sure what, but ok.
But it's not hard to find your email to "request" you app, is it?
Suffice is to say, if you weren't shilling, you would post the app name.
Oh, and by the way, just a heads up: Kylix has been discontinued for quite a while now. The last version doesn't even work with the latest glibc version.
Dilbert RSS feed
Ok then, let's be PRECISE:
"Well, that was a useless 12000 character post. All you have done is failing to rebut my rebuttals" - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday January 16, @04:49PM (#30793396)
What EXACTLY did I fail to disprove from YOUR end? I addressed each of your points, & it still appears I have MORE IN HOSTS FILE'S FAVOR, vs. ADBLOCK, by far... so, let's look @ your list again:
"Good luck using the Hosts file in a computer where you don't have admin privileges.
Also, the Hosts file can't be auto-updated, like adblock [adblockplus.org].
And Hosts file block all the domain - good luck blocking that big annoying image or flash animation that's served from the same domain as the content.
And as far as I know Adblock removes the ad *before* Firefox tries to load it, so I doubt it even sends a DNS request. But with Firefox you can use both Adblock and Hosts, and get the advantages of the two. Chrome can't." - by icebraining (1313345) on Friday January 15, @04:18PM (#30784074)
OK, then, here we go, vs. YOUR "POINTS" on HOSTS being 'inferior to' ADBLOCK:
----
1.) Easily overturned, even on VISTA/Windows Server 2008/Windows 7 via "Run as Administrator" type priveleges, or, just resetting file/folder ACL's (easy to do no less on all accounts)
2.) AutoUpdating HOSTS files is as simple as going to mvps.org or here -> http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm since it is REGULARLY updated there (or, just by using SPYBOT S&D, or others of the numerous sources I noted here for that)
3.) Blocking out ENTIRE DOMAINS is necessary & useful for security (Especially when they're KNOWN as malware purveyors, or botnet "C&C servers", &/or maliciously coded site pages or adbanners even (yes, they too have been shown to harbor malicious code too many times now the past 4-5 yrs.)... & "turning off" a HOSTS file is just RENAMING it temporarily, OR, just "editing out" the potentially 'offending' record from your HOSTS file, using a text editor like notepad.exe!
4.) NOT FOR HARDCODED WEBSITES (like favs. your regularly visit), because a HOSTS file is the FIRST THING your IP stack looks to for HOSTNAME/DOMAINNAMES in URL's resolution to their correct IP address (before DNS servers are queried mind you)? You get that correct resolution, FAR FASTER (& safer actually, per my next point -> ) & SAFER than from more than POTENTIALLY EXPLOITED (see Dan Kaminsky online for PLENTY of evidence to this) OR EVEN DOWNED or "DNS POISONED" DNS Servers (you will STILL reach those favs. even if a DNS server is down, & safely, IF POISONED).
----
(Those ARE my "rebuttals" to each of your points from your original list above (& they're solid enough on MY part!))
APK
P.S.=> Once more - Here is my list, in FAVOR of HOSTS FILES, vs. ADBLOCK (amended per the 1 point you did make I can't overcome for ALL circumstances (just most though, lol)):
(Again, disprove EACH POINT I MAKE, CONCLUSIVELY (not just in certain circumstances ONLY))
10 POINTS IN FAVOR OF HOSTS FILES vs. ADBLOCK:
----
1.) HOSTS files eat no CPU cycles like browser addons do no less!
2.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org] ) & edited too (as is adblock) via any text editor (which every system has).
3.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are (OR, even DNS servers).
4.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE
5.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even
6.) HOSTS files are also NOT se
"Oh, and by the way, just a heads up: Kylix has been discontinued for quite a while now. The last version doesn't even work with the latest glibc version." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday January 16, @04:49PM (#30793396)
I've "heard tell" of that myself, but... I had also heard of a "work-around" that others use, & that's noted here:
http://crosskylix.untergrund.net/execshield.shtml
PERTINENT EXCEPT:
---
There are three different ways to fix this:
Change the protection flags of the created ELF file after compilation.
Fix this in the RTL (or provide a unit to include as first unit in the use clause) so that the memory block is marked for execution before anything else is happening.
Fix the compiler/linker to either emit the correct flags for the segment, or move the interface stub into a different segment. We'll have to wait for a Kylix update from Borland for that.
I'm providing two different solutions to the problem. The first solution is a unit that fixes the problem at runtime, during program initialization. The second one is a tool that allows you to patch the ELF header of an already compiled (and possibly deployed) application.
The runtime fix
Download my runtime fix (1.5KB, ZIP). In the ZIP file you'll find the execshieldfix.pas Unit. Copy this to somewhere in your Kylix unit search path. Now, include the execshieldfix Unit as very first Unit in your projects use clause. Like this:
program hello;
uses
execshieldfix, SysUtils, Classes;
Remember, it needs to be the first unit so it is able to mark the memory segment as executable before the RTL/CLX initialization happens (which will crash without the fix).
The binary fix for already compiled applications
I have written a small command line tool that is able to add the missing execution flag to the sections affected. Using this you can fix your Kylix compiled executables. You may also pass this tool to your customers to fix already deployed Kylix applications.
The tool is called "patchelf". The archive includes both a Linux and a Windows version of the tool, so you can also do the patching on a Windows machine. Source also is included.
Usage:
patchelf [-q] filename
-q Quiet mode (no output)
Download patchelf (160KB, Linux+Windows executables, Source)
---
(Does THAT still "hold true"? Not sure, I haven't used LINUX that much lately, or @ least in development purposes)
APK
P.S.=> I also *THINK* (iirc) there are yet MORE "work-arounds" but, that was a while ago & things DO change in this art & science unfortunately (Borland should NEVER have "dropped" LINUX support, or, that's what I heard from various sources online @ least - too bad, it's a GREAT tool!)... apk
"Oh, and by the way, just a heads up: Kylix has been discontinued for quite a while now. The last version doesn't even work with the latest glibc version." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday January 16, @04:49PM (#30793396)
When I referred to "other fixes" in my LAST post (about Kylix/Delphi & LINUX) here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1512306&cid=30793940
Where I quoted your statement next below:
"Oh, and by the way, just a heads up: Kylix has been discontinued for quite a while now. The last version doesn't even work with the latest glibc version." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday January 16, @04:49PM (#30793396)
This IS "the one" to use I had heard (as to other "work-arounds" for KYLIX continuing being able to make code on the "latest/greatest" Linux models, OR, @ least it was not TOO long ago that is):
http://www.sourcecodeonline.com/details/convertfiles_version.html
APK
P.S.=> Just another "work-around" for your point about Kylix no longer working on LINUX... apk