Slashdot Mirror
Google Chrome Now Has Resource-Blocking Adblock
MackieChan writes "It seems to have slipped under the radar, but Google Chrome now has resource-blocking abilities, and may have had the ability for some time. Using the 'beforeload' event on the document, an extension can now intercept resources from loading. Adblock for Chrome has already added it, and I expect the other 'ad-blocking' extensions have as well. Before you start praising Google, however, it's the WebKit team that deserves your credit; one Chromium developer responded to praise by stating '... thank Apple — they added it to WebKit, we just inherited it.' Firefox vs. Chrome just got a bit more exciting."
Well, you have to admire that the biggest online advertising corporation on the internet didn't pull out the ad blocking feature on it's own brand of webkit browser. Yes, Google is a corporation like any other, but at least they have a little respect for not pissing it's costumers off. I think a lot of companies in the same position would have made it so their browser ADDED ads.
Apart from not using all my memory, what can Chrome do that Firefox can't?
Take what ye can. Give nothing back!
The same people (person?) that make Adblock for Chrome also make Adblock for Safari (5.0+) Since the feature was ported from Webkit into Chrome, I wonder if Safari has the same ability.
-Ryan
AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
A Slashdot story with impeccable grammar? Something doesn't feel right.
Yes! Now I can consider swapping ... before, AdBlock didn't protect my woeful Australian 3G quota.
I still use Firefox because it's familiar to me and I haven't come across any features in Chrome that make me want to learn the idiosyncrasies of a new piece of software. Chrome is pretty slick, though.
Isn't enough that I ruined a pony, making a gift for you?
Incorrect. Chrome can't run NoScript.
And before you say, "Chrome lets you control JavaScript execution, blah blah blah," yes it does at a very coarse level. NoScript is much more fine-grained, and provides substitute scripts for sites that "need" to run crap from google-analytics et al.
It looks like this functionality may bring NoScript that much closer to Chrome.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
I still use Firefox. While Chrome is nice and fast on my laptop (which isn't being used lately), my desktop has lots of power so I don't notice it and it has addons that I couldn't find on Chrome last time I checked (like a month ago). Addons like YouTube video downloads (amoungst the rare other). So while certain addons are missing on Chrome, I'll keep using Firefox.
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
It doesn't catch every single resource -- ad blocking plugins for Chrome admit that it won't catch everything and still has to just hide some ads. And it's not nearly powerful enough for NoScript to work.
So there is still no Firefox vs. Chrome/Chromium. Firefox still leads, big time, because of this issue.
I'm rooting for Chrome/Chromium/Webkit to get proper blocking abilities, because it's great otherwise. But until they can do what's necessary to get true blocking, I won't use it.
This is a meta-comment: if Slashdot is going to have stories placed so randomly, then the whole category system is pointless and you could just as well junk it altogether.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Apple is closely involved with Webkit (it's the backend Safari uses), and this feature that made better ad-blocking possible was contributed by Apple. So it's not entirely random.
Plus who's to say that the next iteration of Firefox won't have the same blocking capabilities of Chrome? When browsers get into an arms race, the consumer wins.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Honestly, in this day an age, if using a little more memory to make your browser run faster is an issue to you, then I can see you running into quite a few more problems down the road... Memory is cheap. Time and aggravation are not. There are plenty of applications that use a TON of memory and DON'T run as fast as they should. Consider yourself fortunate that at least a few people still know how to program in a reasonably efficient manner.
Sorry, I misread your comment. I thought you said that Chrome was using all your memory. Chrome actually often does use more memory than Firefox (at least when Firefox isn't doing its memory leak thing it likes to do).
Firefox has *always* had that ability... it was the lack of it in Chrome that was keeping a lot of people, such as myself, from seriously considering it as an alternative browser.
RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
Exactly, even in Australia you can find a ram deal like at msy.com.au and get some cheap ram.
If your app is acting up, log it, report it. But low memory is really a thing of the past.
I like firefox for the addons. Safari/FF is my main browser, with chrome and icab as needed.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
well, if google could pull off an abduction of million of users not just by its general grasping hold on the internet, but by the main software tool used for navigating the web, then perhaps they could eventually just take hold of your behaviour, existence and essence?
Who have ALWAYS had a resource blocker rather than just an ad-blocker...
I migrated from Opera. I sorta miss the complexity, but Chrome starts simple, and lets you make it complex.
Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
There are some options for Youtube downloading on Chrome.
https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/bdokagampppgbnjfdlkfpphniapiiifn
The ______ Agenda
if you think everyone uses noscript for speed reasons, you're the moron.
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Really it isn't the complexity, but the small differences in what happens when I open new tabs, type things into the address bar, etc. Even in places where I like Chrome's UI better, I just can't get motivated to adjust to a new browser. I admit it's mostly just laziness on my part, like most people I am a creature of habit, and am loathe to change them without a pretty compelling reason.
Isn't enough that I ruined a pony, making a gift for you?
The same people (person?) that make Adblock for Chrome also make Adblock for Safari (5.0+) [safariadblock.com] Since the feature was ported from Webkit into Chrome, I wonder if Safari has the same ability. - by rritterson (588983) writes: on Tuesday July 20, @01:45AM (#32960614)
See subject-line above, because a custom HOSTS file will work on any browser that there is for blocking out content you do not want to see inclusive not only of ad banners but also of known bad sites or servers that serve up malicious content and across all of your web bound applications (like email for example, not just webbrowsers or worse yet as in the case of adblock alone, browser add ons which function for 1 or 2 webbrowsers only) and you can also speed up your requests for hosts/domains resolutions by hardcoding them into a HOSTS file rather than spending time + resources calling out to DNS servers (which could be downed or compromised per Dan Kaminsky's findings no less), speeding yourself up more and in a way that adblock cannot. Plus, by doing this hardcode of hostsnames/domainnames to IP address, you also avoid being on DNS requests logs from your isp/bsp (dual bonus). Fact is, any system out there that uses an IP stack based off the BSD reference design (I don't know of any currently that are not in fact that are of modern design at least) can use a HOSTS file this/these way(s).
Memory is not cheap when you're out -- my phone doesn't let me add RAM. But Webkit is of course nice on phones which is why it's ubiquitous now, whereas gecko is a nonstarter.
Looking here we can see that, for 2009, Google made 23,651 million in revenue. Considering that 22,889 of those millions were from advertising, you have to wonder how long google will tolerate ad blocking in their products. Sure, it is fine now as not many people use chrome, and even fewer of those people install an ad blocking plug-in, but what about if it becomes more popular? Will they still tolerate it then? One wonders what would happen to google if Microsoft decided to make ad blocking default in Internet Explorer.
You seem to be assuming that the user wants to run each and every script on the pages they encounter... this is not the case.
One of the main reasons to use Noscript is to avoid scripts that are not designed with your best interest in mind.
You can't take the sky from me.
A few reasons for Firefox:
- NoScript: mostly to block potentially malicious active elements like Flash and Java. Better safe than sorry, especially with Adobe products.
- CookieSafe: Fine grained control over cookies.
- RefControl: Blocks referrers for selected sites. I don't need to stuff tracking information down everyone's throat, especially not YouTube (embedded videos).
- Xmarks: Lets you synchronize your bookmarks using your own HTTPS protected WebDAV share.
- FoxyProxy Standard: Use different proxies for different sites
- Redirector: Rewrite http:/// links into https:/// links for selected sites that don't default to https.
- Web Developer: Dissect web pages.
Is all this available in Chrome* browsers already?
You are trolling, right? I'm WHOOSHING right now, right? I have to be, surely.
There's no way anyone could be so fucking stupid as to believe that people use NoScript due to javascript execution time. No-one...surely...
Whereas people using internet explorer as a rule won't probably care that much , I suspect firefox user in percentage (if not majorly) will care about noscript, adblock. I don't know many people without noscript and/or adblock. No granted , that could be a selection bias here, as I work in IT.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
My notebook is capped at 1GB of RAM, so no, memory is not cheap for me. To upgrade my RAM, I have to upgrade my computer.
That said, I use Chrome because it's still quite a bit faster (except for Flash.)
First, NoScript does much more than just block JavaScript.
Second, NoScript makes it possible to restrict JavaScript based on the originating domain; that means I can enable JavaScript for e.g. forums.bioware.com and deny for e.g. ea.com. When I visit forums.bioware.com it will not load scripts from ea.com and I can still have a snappy experience on forums.bioware.com. (Ea.com is, for some reason, a slow piece of shit.)
HAND.
No, but you haven't done your homework at all. Google Chrome comes with an integrated version similar (yes, it's got a long way to go, but it's still pretty good) to Web Developer. And then there's Switchy! instead of FoxyProxy. And I wrote my own version of Redirector for Chrome. Oh, Xmarks? What's that? Google Chrome has that integrated into it, logging you in to your Google account, storing yout bookmarks on Google, etc.
Thank you for trolling Slashdot, have a nice day!
Yes, it's sarcasm. Deal with it!
NoScript is much more fine-grained, and provides substitute scripts for sites that "need" to run crap from google-analytics et al.
There are sites that require Google Analytics? I've blocked it in my hosts file and never ran into issues.
Anyway, one add-on does not a Firefox competitor make. As you said NoScript is the number two reason I wouldn't even take a look at Chrome. Then there's Flashblock, Download Helper, various Bookmark management add-ons, proprietary plug-ins that are only developed for Firefox/IE due to market share, etc.
The thing is, Chrome can mimic Firefox's functionality all it wants. Even if it offers EVERYTHING I get with Firefox, it still has to add significant, useful features for me to invest time looking into it. A bit less memory or faster Javascript menus hardly make me get all excited.
And how much of that is memory is shared between each "chrome" process? I'll give you a hint: quite a lot.
cat:
That's actually the only thing I miss about Firefox; the NoScript add-on. Chrome has extensions of course, and now also resource blocking. But being able to control which foreign scripts your browser executes is very nifty and, of course, helps with security (NoScript really should bbe mandatory for Windows Firefox users ;-)).
I'd be surprised if, in a year or so, there isn't such an extension for Chrome, though.
cat:
Chrome also lacks a proper firebug.
I believe there is point for that, but the main reason actually is that every citizen has the rights to deny mailbox to be filled with ads just by taping to the mailbox "No advertisings, thank you". Every citizen has as well rights to deny phone sells by calling to national number and deny the number use. Every citizen has rights to deny all ads, even when ordered them first somewhere, in any point.
Okay, that at least in Finland.
AdBlock just does what is right by the moral for every Internet user, just to block all the ads.
Internet idea is to be source of real information, not place for marketing flyers. Ads are okay as long as they are everytime customized just for that specific site. That means really that there would not be one big ad company what would then sell all kind ads. And site owners could not control what ads there will be shown, just to select "IT, Women, Cars" or other classes and then site visitor gets all kind ads from those.
Site owner best choise is actually make own Ad server where she/he then gets ads directly from the other parties. Only works actually when having big company or wants to advertise smaller companies (1-2 people) or own products.
The problems can be seen easily in open source sites. You get ads from Microsoft saying how Windows Server is best, on the FOSS site what is offering own server software. Would Microsoft offer ads of competitors on their own site, I did not think so!
That's one reason not to use Chrome. I don't have a Google account, and I don't want a Google account.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Yeah, and there are certainly places where FF is better than chrome -- e.g., both have similar "awesome bar" things, but FF's is hugely faster and better at coming up with appropriate matches than chrome's. This is not a small issue for me -- I've come to rely on the AB instead of using bookmarks (chrome's "blank page menu" thing is more user-friendly, but vastly more limiting).
I use both browsers -- FF at home, where my machine has lots of memory, and chrome at work, where memory restrictions make the ability to reclaim memory by closing tabs hugely convenient (though, despite that convenience, chrome seem to actually use a fair bit more memory than FF for equivalent tasks) -- so I think I have a generally balanced view of the two.
I'd say that although chrome is a slick browser with some really nice features (process-per-tab being the obvious one), it's kind of over-hyped in general, and it's hardly unambiguously better than FF (as many comments in this thread seem to be suggesting). Both are great browsers, and both will get better in the future; google's made it clear that they've no problem with FF stealing chrome's best features, and indeed hopes they do.
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Last time I looked at Chrome, there wasn't even a way to get mouse gestures. And that was months after it debuted. What that told me was that I couldn't expect anywhere near the level of customizability and plugin options for a minimum of two years. Which just makes sense, really. I'd be surprised if Chrome was ever as customizable as Firefox. That's not Google's thing, and that's fine.
Gestures may not matter to you, but that's exactly my point. I don't give a rip about 99.9% of the Firefox plugins out there. No one does. But everyone sure does.
Xmarks lets you store bookmarks wherever you want instead of where Google wants. Plus, it's cross-browser.
Oh, and not everyone you disagree with is a troll.
HAND.
what can Chrome do that Firefox can't?
Not crash.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
Is everyone ever going to make an adblock-alike which, rather than "blocking" ads, just prioritizes them differently so I don't need to wait for fifty ads to load before I can view actual page content? I really don't mind ads. I'm okay with them. I don't want to block them, and I think people who do block them are assholes. But I don't want to wait for them.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
That's one reason not to use Chrome. I don't have a Google account, and I don't want a Google account.
Not only that but the choice of Chrome... made by a money making company that wants to know everything about your web surfing habits to "serve you better adverts", or Firefox... made by an open source company which is not interested in serving adverts etc. makes it simple to stay with Firefox
I mean what kind of sick fun is to watch a normal person run against a disabled and still win? Firefox has the base of the oldest web browser still alive. It had it all and the best results were in competition with something like Internet Explorer 4.0 or something. After a few change of names it is still the same dated design with some extra bloat and hacks for the Acid test. The firefox fork started promising with the lightest pack... but by version 1.0 it was already about screwing people and getting the google money. At this point it was more than obvious that at a certain point in the future Google will cut the middle man and do things right. Google Chrome has a not so long history and it is already waaay ahead of Firefox. And while Firefox is cheating the usage numbers by fetching pages ahead and other features like this: Chrome delivers. Some time ago there was no comparison between the two. Now Chrome has something more (the news is quite old) yet Firefox can't push the JS compiler yet. By the time Firefox will deliver their fixes Chrome would be further away with the usability. So... there is no competition/.
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
The developer tools for chrome has really caught up with firebug in the past year or so, it may even be the equivalent of firebug right now and it's built in.
i hate to sound like Kyle Reese, but this is how it happens:
July 2010, Apple adds ad-blocking to WebKit.
it makes its way slowly into most popular web browsers cutting off the revenue stream for content publishers on the internet.
those publishers make a move onto one of several closed platforms originally designed for mobile platforms.
after an initial intense fight, a single closed platform dominates. the others fade away.
internet use drops significantly. only free content is available on it, and the mainstream views it increasingly as a refuge for subversives. most households disconnect.
April 3rd, 2017: the internet backbone is shut down.
premium content and visiting traffic moves predominantly to the closed platform.
There is a difference between an application that uses memory as cache (when needed) and releases it afterwards, and something ike Firefox that just allocates and allocates even when you have closed 19 of your 20 tabs, and it's still holding on to half a gig or more, causing excessive swapping when you need to alt-tab to something else.
Chrome Smooth Gestures Extension: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/lfkgmnnajiljnolcgolmmgnecgldgeld
Do you still have to use some behind the curve hacked version to keep all your data from being sent to Google? Because Google's data mining and installing "updaters" that refuse to uninstall with the app made it a non starter for me. Does it have an easy way to allow some scripts but not others? A FEBE style backup? Imagezoom? Something like iMacros that makes automating the things I do trivial? A downloadhelper that will put videos in folder a and executables in folder b?
While Chrome has the buzz right now, too many things like data mining made me uncomfortable with it. And FF is simple enough with its extension framework that even my 67 year old clueless dad has his FF customized. I know everyone talks about its JavaScript engine, but seeing how many "malware o' the day" uses JavaScript I'd prefer NOT to load a bunch of unapproved JavaScript really fast, thanks anyway. And side by side I really can tell a difference anyway, as both load a page as fast as I can click. So while I wish anything that isn't IE the best of luck, for me and my customers it'll be FF for the foreseeable future.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Every reason people used to give in favor of Firefox now applies to Chrome, times ten.
What? Zotero is now available on Chrome? Ah, no, apparently not.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
I installed Privoxy. Doesn't matter which browser I use now.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
And for the rest, you can do this at the DNS level. In fact, analyzing the logs of a small local ISP I consluted for, 25 freaking percent of all http connections go to domains that absolutely don't deserve being resolved. Hijacking these not only makes you save bandwidth, but also is good for your customers' mental well-being.
Censoring "subversive sites", porn, etc is not only evil but also makes customers upset. Yet censoring doubleclick.com is something no free speech advocate is going to object to.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Chrome is much less stable than Firefox here. Even with loads of Firefox addins, no Chrome ones.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Read further down in the comments on this article: "With noscript enabled I reckon about 70% of the sites load without trouble and they load FAST."
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Xmarks has a Chrome version. I use it to stay synchronized between FireFox and Chrome.
A latent existence
Its not really a troll... He is putting forward reasons why he thinks Firefox is a better browser. Then you have put forward reasons why you think that isnt the case. Although wheras the OP has done it in a mature and reasonable way, youve resorted to sarcasm and direct attacks.
This isnt trolling, this is a discussion on the relative merits for two platforms. If you think thats what trolling is and respond in a similar way all the time your colleagues must have a fun time.
I personally use Firefox as my primary, but ill freely admit its got its problems, which is why I keep Chrome, Safari and Opera installed. Along with needing to ensure consistency across those platforms.
Chrome's squandering of my memory is why I don't use it except lightly to keep up with it. Don't know what you all see in that Playskool browser, but choice is good.
Thank you. If I hadn't just gotten rid of my mod points I'd mod you up. People are all about wanting 'free' web content, but they aren't willing to let the ads that pay for said content to load? That is indeed an assholish thing to do, or at the very least quite selfish.
Chrome has Xmarks, btw. I use it to sync my bookmarks between FF and Chrome.
And Web Developer is cool, but Chrome has pretty awesome Firebug style debugging built in.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Also, firebug.
there already exist pages that will not load the genuine content until the page actually responds with verification that the ad content has loaded in the browser
the ad content will say send a code via ajax back to the server: "i'm now alive in the browser, showing dancing mortgage seekers... ok send the article"
if enough people block ads, this will be the norm
i'm annoyed by intrusive ads and interstitials and articles broken out over 15 pages like everyone else, but the publisher needs to make cash to keep publishing the content you want, and they will feel the pressure to escalate the arms race. hopefully they will understand their ads shouldn't be too intrusive, but its been my experience that sites where the ads are too intrusive are sites without any content worth my time anyways
you don't really have to block ads, you just have to find quality sites
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
FWI, it's had gestures for quite a while. A quick extensions search pulls up 10 results that are all related to mouse gestures. I remember using gestures unofficially almost right when it came out, and officially soon after.
Almost, but not quite. There shouldn't be a comma before "and" in the first sentence. The remainder of the sentence, "may have had the ability for some time", isn't an independent clause.
I wait 2 years before my first slashdot post, proofread it multiple times, have my girlfriend proofread it, and then get an "impeccable grammar" praise.
Then you have to come along and take it all away.
Damn you I say, damn you Mr. 4 digit! ...I'm going back to my corner now...
What you're describing is exactly how this new adblocker (as Firefox's adblocker always has) works: it blocks the ads *before* the browser tries to fetch them. So no fetch, no DNS request.
And the HOSTS file is more insecure as a solution because it either:
1) Has no update mechanism
or
2) Has update mechanism that depends on a daemon that requires access to the internet *and* access to important files like HOSTS.
While this adblocker only requires access to browser profile files.
Dilbert RSS feed
I'd like to know if "Resource-blocking" applies to scripts as well.
eg. If Chrome can block both scripts and images from doubleclick.net then this feature could be 99% of what most people want from a junk-blocker.
(No, I can't be bothered to go and investigate for myself)
No sig today...
> Why would you want to use No Script?
To make web sites readable. I can't read text when there is stuff moving around the screen screaming for my attention.
AdBlock would do 95% of the same, but the ads pay for the content, so I don't like to block them.
> In fact a lot of sites would be crippled by it.
Permanently deblocking a trusted site is a one mouse click-and-drag operation. You can also temporarily deblock a site, or a single object.
> Really there's no benefit here besides feeding one's paranoia.
That's not my main reason, but I admit that it makes me feel safer clicking links on sites like reddit (/. has a better, if slower, screening process).
Every script loaded is a new IP connection.
On many sites that's ten or twenty new connections for each page...bound to slow you down.
(But yeah, 'speed' isn't why I disable scripts...)
No sig today...
More greedy than the creator of ads.
I still use Firefox for work; mainly for one reason:
TreeStyle Tabs.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Yeah, and that all "one tab doesn't affect the others" is bull: VLC plugin running on one tab, crashes, locks up not only all the tabs, as all the Chrome windows if you have more than one open.
Dilbert RSS feed
It doesn't even do that, I regularly see a 3-400MB chrome process. and that's just one tab
Until Chrome gets Find as You Type, they will have to pry Firefox from my cold dead hands
I wonder if the Chrome developers will get around to working on the huge memory leaks as noted in this report and Bug 5820.
I can't switch until Chrome duplicates the Firefox cookie controls. Say what you want about the speed but Chrome still has the worst cookie controls of any of the major browsers.
So, if Google makes a good ad blocking system that is included by default, many people will just use that. That means they can control what it does, and what defaults it has. Thus maybe by default it only blocks annoying ads. It stops interstitials, animated crap, popups/unders and so on. However it permits text ads and simple banner ads, which is what Google does. So people say "Ahh this is nice, the Internet isn't annoying," and don't go looking for anything else, or even adjusting the settings.
You have to remember many people don't hate ads, what they hate is ANNOYING ads. I personally don't mind ads, sometimes they are even interesting. I don't run ad block because I appreciate sites need to make money. However I do run Flashblock because I hate annoying ads and that's what they usually are. I hate ads that interrupt my browsing, or that put a heavy load on my system. So an adblock software that just blocks the annoying shit would be ok in my book.
If they include nothing, people have to look elsewhere. Maybe what they get is an app written by a "No ads at all ever," kind of zealot that just straight blocks everything, including Google. that hurts them, of course.
As such by being pragmatic about it, they can have a measure of control over it. If they just try to pretend it doesn't exist, they may get something they don't want.
Not really. The script debugger is so-so (I still prefer Firebug's, but Chrome's is ok), the resource tracker is nice, but Chrome's DOM inspector is terrible. The interface for modifying DOM properties is klunky, and on Firebug I can assign a shortcut to toggle the click-to-inspect feature, which I really miss on Chrome - it makes me click the button to toggle click-to-inspect, alt-tab to the webpage window, and the select the element to inspect. It's convoluted.
Behind the curve? I'm on Linux, which was always the poor cousin in the early days, and Chromium is ahead of the curve because it is the development version (I'm running 6.0.457.0 and saw a site that said I didn't have a "latest version" of Chrome or Firefox the other day because it said they didn't official support development builds).
If you don't want me to see your site for free, don't put it on the internet.
I find Chrome is faster in a multi-core environment. While that's most computers these days, I still have some systems where Firefox does tend to run faster... specifically, on my netbook which is capped at 2 cores, and on the PC I have to struggle with at work, where they're so cheap that they're still using CRT monitors. (one of these days I'm going to go to my eye doctor and get a note pointing out that the CRT is bad for my eyesight and that I have a medical requirement for something that was built within the last 10 years)
I use Chrome on my laptop, which is a quad-core hyperthreading Core i7 processor, because it's *significantly* faster than FF in that situation, especially when I have multiple tabs open.
Switchy! isn't a replacement for FoxyProxy, not because of the extension developers fault though. Chrome simply doesn't have its own proxy settings, it uses the system settings. Changing proxy settings in a Chrome extension, changes them globally. See this issue report.
I'm quite impressed that despite this horrible design decision by Chrome devs, Switchy manages to support per-URL proxy settings. I'm not sure how it was achieved, but the bottomline is that it has reliability problems and on top of that Chrome doesn't support some SOCKS features.
If you're a FoxyProxy power user, Chrome is definitely not for you.
A lot of netbooks (like mine) come with 1GB of RAM. I tried to use Chrome on that machine but it would always start swapping after a few hours of continous usage. Number of open tabs didn't matter - Chrome would happily eat 400MB and more of RAM with only ~5 tabs open. So I went back to FF and never had an issue since then. I would really like to use Chrome, but I can't.
Sorry, but that's exactly the behaviour I've never seen with FF but with Chrome. Maybe it's depended on architecture, I'm on 32-bit.
What settings are missing?
Chromium is also open source, so there is plenty of oversight into what is going on under the hood, just as with FF (funded mostly by Google anyway). Honestly I don't care for the silly debate, it makes no difference what browser you use, so long as its up to date, and not Internet Explorer.
Say what you want about the speed but Chrome still has the worst cookie controls of any of the major browsers.
This is certainly the biggest failure of Chrome for the power user today. I thought I had a Chrome problem last night but it was silverlight. (Netflix) But the lack of proper cookie control is mind-boggling. They don't even want to tell me what site failed to set a cookie so I can go edit my list in some sane way.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It may shock some people, but there was an Internet (and a web) before there were commercially supported websites.
It was smaller, but it worked just fine. In fact, it worked beautifully. Many of us want it back.
I love how you're accusing the parent of being a Troll when you have, at best, alternatives to only some of the parent's requirements (of which I'd argue the parent's are generally better, which you even admit).
You wouldn't steal a movie.
So why would you steal webpages?
Blocking ad content is stealing.
It's a weird program for Google to create considering they own the biggest Publisher and Advertiser ad serving system - DoubleClick. Also, is this soon to be the end of free website access as publishers are forced to start charging users to access their sites if the advertising is being blocked?
funny how the word noscript is nowhere to be found in your response.
With firefox I can set a default of "keep until: I close minefield" and then whitelist the cookies I want to keep. This is a lot different from just refusing cookies because all of the sites I use will still function correctly.
So that's a no for anything like NoScript, CookieSafe, RefControl, and even Redirector then, huh?
If you like Web Developer, you really should check out FireBug. It is truly an amazing tool available only for Firefox that allows you to debug JavaScript code, inspect elements, make changes on the fly -- basically Web Developer on steroids. The only limitation at this point is that it does not appear to work with the new Firefox yet. Hopefully it will be compatible before the new version comes out of beta.
This tool if for no other reason will ensure that Firefox is always on my machine even if I use Chrome for day-to-day browsing.
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
Excitement about browsers is 1990's.
I've had flash crashes make it so that any time I changed pages I got Aw Snap until restarting the entire browser.
But I'm using Chromium 5 on Linux 64-bit, so it's not exactly a high priority platform. And flash crashes always crash firefox, in Chromium it is only about 1/3 the time.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Thanks for the note! Having Xmarks available is a nice perspective. It looks like I will try Chrome or Chromium sooner than I expected.
And that's adblock's MAIN problem: It's limited to single browsers only, and doesn't cover other programs that are also potentially threatened by bad sites or scripts even such as email programs that use HTML, like Outlook etc.
Using daemons?? Not needed in HOSTS files. Where do you get your misinformation from???
Also, to update adblock???? You also need internet access also!
Oh my, is apk still around? Aren't you getting bored of spreading your hosts file nonsense?
(Disclaimer: Yes, I know who that guy is and that discussion is futile. I am bored. Let me poke the troll. Brightens up the day every time.)
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
Just installed the extension, since I was curious. There are options to allow Google Text Ads....since I don't mind them I left them enabled. I suspect if most people don't mind them, this doesn't affect Google's revenue stream.
An interesting bug I noticed.....the extension doesn't work in Incognito mode.
Do you still have to use some behind the curve hacked version to keep all your data from being sent to Google? Because Google's data mining and installing "updaters" that refuse to uninstall with the app made it a non starter for me.
Erm, it's called Chromium, and it's kinda more ahead of the curve than behind it, since it's what Chrome is based upon. (Google just adds its data-mining crap to the OSS Chromium code base in order to release Chrome.) So if you use Chromium, you get all of the good stuff and none of the Google rubbish. It's also worth remembering that Chromium's sandboxing of tabs provides some level of security against web malware exploits, even if it can't replace all that noscript offers.
But I've got no dispute with your other comments. And until Chromium makes --enable-vertical-tabs work under linux, it'll never replace Firefox for me in a million years. It's a viable browser alternative for the less computer-literate, though, and I often wish Firefox had the lithe memory footprint of Chromium, rather than one of a giant elephantine beast ...
Use chromium instead of chrome, anything unwanted like data mining you can hack out of the source...
I don't have the google updater because i installed chromium on linux using the package manager and the updater would be totally redundant in this situation.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Anybody who subjects themselves willingly to advertising has completed the program; they are now "Consumers" and not people.
Unsolicited advertising is evil. Period. It destroys cultures. It destroys societies.
Did you know that women who shave their armpit hair do so because one razor blade company realized that they could double their sales if they could get women the use their product along with men? So they began an ad campaign which explained that body hair was "dirty", people believed it, and now women in the West shave their armpits. We now, as a culture, because a razor blade company wanted money, have an entirely altered body image. The base programming of our minds is different because of advertising. This is just one of many, many cases. Advertising is a giant mind-fuck; it studies human herd behavior and taps into the worst automatic elements inside us all and punches those buttons mercilessly with one goal; to subvert human culture for profit.
Unsolicited advertising is anti-human, anti-life and it is NOT an acceptable or necessary evil.
If I want to know about your product, then I will seek out a forum where your items are listed. I have no problem with that. There are plenty of healthy ways to get the message out, of sharing NEWS of your efforts in the business world without having to attack the mind.
And the argument regarding revenue for web content is nonsense anyway; People who are willing to look at ads due to a sense of moral duty, (and that side of their behavior is wonderful, and I applaud it), are perfectly capable and generally quite willing to hit a "Donate" button every now and again, or of buying a product from their favorite content providers to help support their efforts. That's perfectly acceptable behavior. They give something back.
But unsolicited adverts are NOT cool. They are designed to take without asking, and they do messed up shit to the human brain as a result.
-FL
It doesn't Firefox's live bookmark RSS interface, which I prefer to every other way of doing RSS I've encountered.
Oh, and Firefox doesn't spy on you or interfere with anonymity (at least not that anyone knows about).
I guess if somebody put that feature into SRWare Iron I would switch (back, again) in an instant.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
In the mobile market, apps may become custom web browsers. A fully featured web browser is a burden to the mobile device. Otherwise, Google Chrome is somewhat interesting because of its multitreaded feature but to me the hidden GoogleUpdater is annoying so I uninstalled Chrome.
But not a lot, its still a pathetically primitive browse, way behind Firefox. Still can't increase font sizes but zooms the entire page like it was a picture, thereby discriminating against millions of people who don't have the eyes of a 20 year old.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Apart from not using all my memory, what can Chrome do that Firefox can't?
Load pages really, really, really fast.
If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
http://www.3outube.com/ works fine too, no extension needed. Granted, I download Youtube videos only very seldom.
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
i'll check it out
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
My problems were on Windows 7 32bit.
Dilbert RSS feed
The (open source) Chrome updater doesn't "refuse to install". Wait an hour or two after the last Google program using it has been uninstalled, it'll wake up to do an update check, discover it has nothing to do and remove itself.
You know, I really don't get the "FF is a memory piggy" meme. If we were talking about the 2.xx branch I'd agree with you, as it did have a memory leak, but I run FF for days on end on this little 1.8GHz Sempron I use as a netbox, and it only has 1.5Gb of RAM and FF isn't a piggy at all. I've got nearly a dozen extensions, plus half a dozen tabs open, and I'm using a whole 84Mb. Big whoop.
So I just don't get it. Are you using one of those really niche extensions like Firebug? Because last I heard that one still leaks, but you can't really blame FF because a third party extension leaks, anymore than you would blame Apple if someone wrote a bad app for OSX. You think as many developers that use Firebug they'd have fixed the thing by now, oh well. But here is the list of what I'm running on 84Mb of RAM-ABP,Dloadstatusbar,Dloadhelper,FEBE,Forecastfox,iMacros,Imagezoom,nightlytestertools,NoScript,Distrust . I'm running all that and only using 84Mb of RAM with a half dozen tabs. That is pretty dang good memory management in my book.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I just wish the widgets were as customizable in placement as Firefox is. I have only been able to place widgets in Chrome in the same region that address/search bar is, which I don't want to do, nor can have I found a way to move them their order around.
Lets put that onto real life, shall we :
Don't want to get mugged ?
Simple : Do not walk there (at that time/with that smile/without paying attention/while phoning someone/with that interesting looking bag/those flashy clothes/etc).
Your "suggestion" is nothing more than straw-man reasoning. If we would have adopted that "just stay away" method of yours we would have been stuck with the strongest people having all the rights.
I consider the action of a website constantly punching me in the face with their advertisements as an agressive deed. One I somehow have, according to them (and you!), no right to evade or even complain about.
And alas, as those websites do mostly not have *any* way of leaving a response al the feed-back they get is the sound of money being dropped in their bank-account.
In short : As long as someone does not bother to ask if I'm willing to accept material that has *no* connection to the websites actual content but simply assumes the right to try to brain-fuck me (which is all an advertisement actually is) I retain the right to do as I please too.
Book mark sync? Try deleting one.
Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
Yeah, no. It doesn't depend on architecture. You're a moron.
I don't suppose you have benchmarks to back up your claim that Opera "thrashes" Chrome? Because that hasn't been my experience. Also, I'm not familiar with the term "thrashes", what percent of improvement does that denote?
I have 1GB of RAM in my netbook as well and I regularly use Chrome with 10+ tabs open without any problem at all.
See subject line silanea. You may attempt attacking a man rather than his points but I find it very unimpressive and you are rather far behind despite your b.s. you use here in my estimation. I am not apk and iirc, neither is he because APK usually signs off his posts as "APK". I am actually from Europe where iirc APK is from the USA also and you can ask your moderators on this much where I am from if you wish in fact. I have seen these debates of yours and others with APK though and he always has you all running with your tails between your legs each time by his use of facts you cannot disprove.
Apart from not using all my memory, what can Chrome do that Firefox can't?
Load /. and let you click on another tab while it loads.
Built-in Javascript control on par with NoScript. And my computer doesn't freeze up for a few seconds when I'm manipulating several dozen bookmarks.
HOSTS files are messy, require admin to update, and can be a PITA to troubleshoot why X feature on Y website doesnt work, not to mention that they can severely impact network lookups. Theyre a really really kludgy hack.
Adblock Plus is available for Firefox, Thunderbird, SeaMonkey, Mozilla Mobile and even SongBird [adblockplus.org], so your mail client and media player are ad-free, too. It offers an extension to the Mozilla Sync service, allowing you to share filters across devices.- by silanea (1241518) writes: on Tuesday July 20, @10:07AM (#32963666)
Does Adblock cover email programs like Outlook or Outlook Express and others?
No. HOSTS files by way of comparison do.
That's in response reply to your first post point which is now "null and void" as well as easily disproven.
Requiring internet access to update Adblock is so much worse than obtaining and updating your hosts file from online sources as per your advice under 6. exactly how?- by silanea (1241518) writes: on Tuesday July 20, @10:07AM (#32963666)
I never said it was you illiterate dimwit. Please learn to read as well as gaining some technical understanding of this science at these levels (things "IP").
Oh my, is apk still around? Aren't you getting bored of spreading your hosts file nonsense? - by silanea (1241518) writes: on Tuesday July 20, @10:07AM (#32963666)
It seems that all 10 of his points here that others used to extoll the virtues of HOSTS files still stand strong versus your obviously uninformed and limited skillset illustrated by your technically weak replies silanea.
Worse yet is the dolts that moderated your technically weak and erroneous reply upwards (doubtless yourself under different alternate registered user logon credentials, which is an easily seen thru childish trick for the weak).
Disclaimer: Yes, I know who that guy is and that discussion is futile. I am bored. Let me poke the troll. Brightens up the day every time.) - by silanea (1241518) writes: on Tuesday July 20, @10:07AM (#32963666)
I do also. He happens to be an internationally published and featured freeware author who also happens to have commercial software to his credit and appearances at noted technical contest like MS TECH ED for years in a row as a finalist in its toughest category. Do you have the same? I also know that APK has multiple degrees in the art and sciences of computing to his name and credit as well. Again, do you?? No to all of the above as far as a nobody done nothing ne'er do well like yourself silanea. Not even a close contest when comparing what apk's done versus the "likes of you"(a nobody).
I would love to use Xmarks but it talks back to the mothership about where you've been. (Maybe a firewall rule could fix that...)
Also, what happens when you have 2 or more browsers open on different computer and 2 or browsers add a bookmark. Do they merge or does the last one to update "win"?
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
HOSTS files are messy
No more than the plain-text scheme that any ad-blocking random extension uses. In fact, it's probably better.
require admin to update
As it should; you're affecting all programs on the system(s), the whole purpose of using a hosts file.
and can be a PITA to troubleshoot why X feature on Y website doesnt work
I guess this would count if it were a more common occurrence. Google Analytics is the only service I know of that can cause this. And it's not usually blocked. Because it's not annoying.
not to mention that they can severely impact network lookups
Yes, if you mean making content blocking actually faster than the mess of content parsing that your favorite extension uses. By contrast, a hosts block is an instantaneous alternate action taken for an issued DNS request - it's not some clumsy additional layer stacked on top of your browser for every page element.
Run a Kill-a-Watt on one of the big monitors and an LCD. Show how the power savings would pay for the new monitors in X months. Show how after that, it's completely increased profits.
They don't care about your eyes. Forcing them to change something for you makes them resent you. However, if you can save them money, now you're an asset.
Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
I wouldn't say it thrashes it...
http://lifehacker.com/5352195/browser-speed-tests-chrome-40-and-opera-10-take-on-all-challengers
Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
and can be a PITA to troubleshoot why X feature on Y website doesnt work - by LordLimecat (1103839) writes: on Tuesday July 20, @02:51PM (#32968410)
easy fix is to "ping" the problematic site or page feature that doesn't works' source and if you get back a 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1, then you know that this needs amendment in your host file (it's usually that or you have the wrong hostname/domainname hardcoded into your HOSTS file, which is the other possible use of HOSTS files besides blocking sites/servers in that you can speedup access to sites this way even more by doing such hardcodes, but, sometimes sites change their hosting provider or IP address and this needs amending sometimes, albeit, usually only rarely)
You are completely full of shit.
I don't use an ad-blocker, or a popup "blocker" (an utterly retarded concept, it's not like popup ads happen via remotely taking over your computer. A browser either supports popups or it doesn't), and I have, in the last month, seen ONE intrusive ad (a floating div). I left the site because I didn't want to bother reading a poorly-designed website when, this being the internet, the same or similar content was likely just around the corner.
People who say "I have no choice!" obviously don't understand the concept of the internet.
Let's actually put this into real life:
Don't like huge flashing signs? Stay out of Times Square. This logic works for millions of people every day,
And who the fuck mentioned rights?
You have the right, as in an actual inalienable right which no one has any authority to ever take away from you, to mangle whatever content you recieve on the internet and re-format it however you wish.
I have a right to call you an asshole for doing so, because I'd prefer you just stayed off the site if you don't want to look at it.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
How did that dumb reply from silanea get modded up 3 informative when he was easily shown as wrong in his first post when it was stated by those he replied to erroneously that outlook and outlook express for example are not even covered by adblock along with other email client programs? Can't silanea even read?? Apparently not, because his next reply #2 was indicative of further illiteracy issues on his part also, because the person he replied to never said that adblock or hosts were any different about obtaining updates and that person silanea replied to only told those HE replied to that both need to have internet access to update either hosts or adblock. It is fairly obvious that those here who put down hosts files are only alternate registered accounts used by silanea here because each time they posted (Lord Limecat being one example thereof), they were easily shown as incorrect and erroneous in their statements just like silanea has been shown to be by his own errors. Who does silanea think he is fooling?
Half-a-dozen tabs is where you go wrong. Try with a hundred and then talk to me about piggies.
That said, FF is using 140Mb right now with only nine tabs open (I have about the same number of extensions as you do running, maybe a few more on one box, a few less on another; adblock, treestyletabs, neodiggler, livehttpheaders, personalmenu and noscript are the main ones). FF also has some very suspiciously memory-leak-esque issues in my hands -- open a hundred tabs, close them all, and the memory footprint is much larger than a fresh instance; keep the browser running for days and watch the memory grow. This could be due to extensions, but I'm a little concerned about this as FF spent more energy in its early days denying the existence of memory leaks (which turned out to be there nonetheless) than actually trying to find and fix them.
FWIW, my experience with Chromium -- which has been limited, admittedly -- is that Chromium has a smaller memory footprint than FF. That, and FF's extraordinarily buggy and laggy "awesome" bar, are the only reasons why I'd ever consider switching to Chromium.
I'm a big FF fan ... but I still remember the early, heady days of Phoenix 0.1, when the aim was to make the browser as sleek and as small as possible. Maybe they forgot to turn left at Albuquerque ...?
Alas, by 'resources' the article is referring to page elements. Still waiting for the extension that can throttle on a per-plugin basis (*cough*FLASH*cough*) to say, 10% CPU across all its running instances.
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
It still adds up to more than Firefox, last I tested it. That's more or less what I'd expect, and I still think it's well worth it.
It also does (or at least did, for awhile) a trick where it often opens related tabs in the same process, especially anything from middleclick+new tab is likely to. I would much rather actually have one process per tab, but I don't know how to do that.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I'm using Chrome 5 (stable) on Linux 64-bit. Occasionally a tab crashes or otherwise misbehaves, and I can kill it. Haven't seen "aw snap" in months, haven't seen the browser itself die since alpha.
Yes, I'm using Flash.
I hardly use other browsers long enough to really know, but back when I made the switch, Flash was crashing everything quite often. Konqueror was one process per window, so a crash would bring down that window and all the tabs in it. Firefox, well, one plugin acts up and the whole browser is down.
I also don't have the VLC plugin enabled, so maybe that's it. (I figure, why bother, it has a builtin player (html5), if that's not enough, I'll download the video and use mplayer.)
If you still have that switch pages = aw snap issue, I wonder if killing the Flash plugin helps? I know I do that occasionally -- though less often over time, maybe Adobe is trying to clean up their act.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Well I tried with 83 tabs, sorry but I wasn't gonna keep opening tabs. I went from 105Mb to...123Mb from a high of 429Mb with 86 (I already had three including this) open. Did you look at your cache settings? Because by default FF will cache closed tabs for awhile in case you want to undo. If you normally run 100+ for days, which admittedly isn't something the Moz developers test for since Joe and Sally maybe have a dozen tops, you might want to go into about.config and tweak a little.
So while I have no doubt your are having that problem, and I sympathize as I on occasion tend to push some of my software a little hard (I don't know how many times I've crashed Audacity with funky effects) you have to admit that 100+ tabs for days isn't something most folks will normally do, so the defaults probably don't take that behavior into account. So you might want to go in and tweak FF a little, so that behaves a little better with your style. Personally that is one of the things that have kept me on FF, is that between extensions and about.config you can pretty much do anything with it. Anyway here is a guide to get you started, and I personally use the trim on minimize tweak myself. But between that link and this one you should have plenty of settings to try. Have you posted talkback so the devs know? Can't fix what you don't know about, although I agree they should have come clean on FF 2.x. And you can turn off the awesome bar if it slows you down.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
And where's tabkit (vertical and tree tabs), sessionmanager, readability, skipscreens, imacros, greasemonkey (alright, Opera's got that too), firebug, and those are just the general-purpose useful extensions I happen to use. The Firefox addon world is simply tremendous; Chrome is a little kid's browser to a power user. Chrome is "ready" for all the folks who got by on IE and needed nothing more, but for anyone who needs to get more out of their browser (even if only occasionally) it's still way, way behind.
You his brother? You sure write exactly like him, sans the retarded misuse of special chars and punctuation. Does not matter anyway, one AC is as good as another.
Besides, you have yet to respond to my two points. I challenged two of your claims. So what is your reply to what I said previously? Especially the second point?
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
[...] It is fairly obvious that those here who put down hosts files are only alternate registered accounts used by silanea [...]
Interesting. The same old "they're out to get me" BS. On the other hand it is only ACs who rush to defend that crap. Show me one single post in all the recent apk resurrections where a non-AC backed up apk's position.
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
you have yet to respond to my two points. I challenged two of your claims. So what is your reply to what I said previously? Especially the second point? - by silanea (1241518) writes: on Wednesday July 21, @03:15AM (#32974728)
Per subject above, you are obviously illiterate, and you missed my reply here:
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1725068&cid=32960808
(which easily put your weak so called "points" in the grave rather easily, and you have yet to disprove the other 10 points in favor of HOSTS files also, which of course, you cannot disprove at all)
Per subject above, you not only had your 2 rather weak points put to shame here in my other reply, but you stated I did not answer and disprove them? You are either full of it, deluding yourself, or as I suspect, quite illiterate.
The same old "they're out to get me" BS. On the other hand it is only ACs who rush to defend that crap. - by silanea (1241518) writes: on Wednesday July 21, @03:15AM (#32974728)
You undereducated illiterate skimming trolls, you're all the same: Playing "smart" when you are anything but that.
Care to show us you have some sort of degree in forensics to make your paranoid delusional estimates per your foaming at the mouth rant above?
Oh, that's right! You don't have training there anymore than you have degrees or professional decades of experience in computing related fields.
I am only posting in reply to yourself as an ac because I don't need you, a known troll around here, trolling my registered account endlessly. So go away now trolling loser. Go get some education instead of burning your life away on a forums board trying to "play smart", because you surely show that you require it based on your weak replies on 2 points others here made, and the fact that you had to avoid all 8 others as well of the 10 made in favor of hosts files.
Besides, you have yet to respond to my two points. I challenged two of your claims. So what is your reply to what I said previously? Especially the second point? - by silanea (1241518) writes: on Wednesday July 21, @03:15AM (#32974728)
Open mouth and insert foot (that's silanea the illiterate skimming retard shooting his mouth off and skimming posts again as well as fucking up hugely on technical issues) moron, and see below where your "so-called points" were shot to hell with facts and with great ease:
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1725068&cid=32968572
On Win7 64bit, Firefox (latest release AND the beta candidate) does that every single time, but Chrome/ium (stable and dev) remains stable under the same scenario. That is the problem with anecdotal evidence.
I agree that the "one tab doesn't effect the others" thing is a load of crap, for the most part. Chrome can get VERY sluggish, and eventually not respond at all based on the misbehavior of a single process. I've had tabs, and extensions, kill all of Chrome.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
LMAO: silanea must be using "I Write Like" here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/17/i-write-like-website-goes_n_650037.html again. Give up already, you stupid troll silanea.
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1725068&cid=32962812
and anyone else like you silanea, which means undereducated ne'er do well trolls that inhabit forums all day along and attempt to misinform others as you clearly do. Good luck disproving those 10 points above, which are in favor of hosts files, silanea, because you never will be able to or you would have by now.
The first post on hosts files was modded up silanea despite your objections. Additionally your attempts to put it down was immediately torn apart. You are stupid and boringly so silanea you troll.
silanea, the fact remains you got blown away here http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1725068&cid=32968572 by your own illiteracy and your own stupidity plus lack of technical acumen on the subject at hand here, no matter what dumb spin you try to use.
So, tell me, which system has a hosts file that matches the entire URL rather than just a hostname? Regex filtering? CSS selectors? Many, MANY, MANY web sites host content on same server as ads, specifically to bypass this sort of primitive adblocking. Yes, hosts file was pretty nice back in the 90's. They don't cut the mustard any more.
Yes, hosts file was pretty nice back in the 90's. They don't cut the mustard any more. - by Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 22, @11:31AM (#32990698)
Per subject line above, see this data:
RESURRECTING THE KILLFILE:
(by Mr. Oliver Day)
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491
PERTINENT EXCERPTS/QUOTES:
"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet particularly browsing the Web is actually faster now."
"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."
---
In addition to Mr. Day above? Tell what you said to the many 1,000's of folks from these websites that use and produce daily or nearly daily updated current HOSTS files also:
http://www.mvps.org/
http://someonewhocares.org/
http://hostsfile.mine.nu/hosts0
http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download
---
Many, MANY, MANY web sites host content on same server as ads, specifically to bypass this sort of primitive adblocking. - by Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 22, @11:31AM (#32990698)
Care to produce your list of "MANY, MANY" websites?
Otherwise, you've nothing but mere "anecdotal evidence" & for all we know, you are adblock's coder after all merely attempting to promote your product with misinformation!
However, the poster of the 10 points in favor of HOSTS files above here http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1725068&cid=32962812 (especially over adblock alone) did note that using both adblock and hosts is the ideal world for the concept of layered security!
(Which makes some sense, because HOSTS files can do many things (see list of 10 above) that adblock or dns servers cannot do or do as efficiently as HOSTS files can, and the opposite may be possible per your example also, but per that list of 10 things in favor of HOSTS files, it seems HOSTS files do more alone and for more apps at a lower faster level of operation than adblock ever will...).
See subject-line above, and this article about how arstechnica actually detected for, and blocked, adblock users:
---
ArsTechnica blocking Adblock?
https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5266
---
So, so much for this "choice quote" (uninformed misinforming DRIVEL on your part is more like it) from you:
hosts file was pretty nice back in the 90's. They don't cut the mustard any more.
Oh, really? Well, lol, at least HOSTS files are not so easily detected for, and made USELESS no less, as adblock apparently can be, per the above proof that to effect no less!
(You people think you're going to "out think" the likes of me? Yea, lol... "right" (not))
On that note? Well - See above and in my other replies to you all here (too, Too, TOO EASY, just too easy), especially this one -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1725068&cid=32991602 directed to YOU specifically, and this one -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1725068&cid=32962812 directed to all my naysayers here).
I.E.? You're all mere ants attacking a mastodon, and failing badly due to lack of information to back you all, as well as lack of skills gained by experience and education in this art & science vs. myself with decades of BOTH to my credit vs. yourselves (amateurs).
10 ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER BROWSER ADDONS ALONE, & EVEN DNS SERVERS:
Taken from -> http://forums.windowsforum.org/index.php?s=35faafcfc2596ff0fdd2a54a2717153b&showtopic=33716&st=60
1.) HOSTS files eat A LOT LESS CPU cycles than browser addons do no less (since browser addons have to parse each HTML page & tag content in them)!
2.) 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).
3.) 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)).
4.) 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 (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).
5.) 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).
6.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, updated and obtained (for reliable ones -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file[/url] OR see lists below ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)
7.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, OR even DNS servers, as they are NOT code, & because of what's next too
8.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even.
9.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE - NOt just a single webbrowser type (e.g. FireFox/Mozilla & its addons exemplify this, such as ADBLOCK)
10.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - You might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own, & this? This stops that cold, too! Bonus...
Still, it's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock, &/or NoScript (especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security".
---
To keep "ontop of the latest known malicious sites" online? See these sites:
START OF WEBSITES & SOURCES + TOOLS I USED TO POPULATE THIS LIST + MY ORIGINAL LIST OF BLOCKED ADBANNERS SERVERS
http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/
http://www.malwareur...isting-urls.php
https://zeustracker....p?filter=online
http://www.malware.com.br/lists.shtml
http://securitylabs....ent/alerts.aspx
http://www.stopbadware.org
http://blog.fireeye.com/
http://mtc.sri.com/
http://www.scansafe....r/threat_alerts
http://news.netcraft.com
http://www.shadowserver.org/
http://www.mvps.org/
http://someonewhocares.org/
http://hostsfile.mine.nu/hosts0
http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download
http://www.stopbadware.org/home
Between they, & SpyBot "Search & Destroy"? You have most of, if not ALL of what a "body needs" for these purposes.
I find the Firebug extension far more useful than Web Developer. Chrome has something a little similar to Firebug, but it's not as powerful or far-reaching. There are also some extensions for Firebug, like one that lets you twiddle with cookies.
one AC is as good as another. - by silanea (1241518) on Wednesday July 21, @3:15 AM (#32974728)
BRUCE PERENS ON SCUMBAGS LIKE SILANEA AND ENMASSE 100's of ACCOUNTS FOR DOWNMODDING OTHERS(some of these slime are also paid to do so as well, can you believe it?):
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1738364&cid=33089192
A direct quote is below, from the URL above by Bruce Perens, and it's directly in regards to scum like silanea and my subject line above:
It just takes one Ubuntu sympathizer or PR flack to minus-moderate any comment. Unfortunately, once PR agencies and so on started paying people to moderate online communities, and to have hundreds of accounts each, things changed. by Bruce Perens (3872) on Friday July 30, @04:55PM (#33089192) Homepage Journal
So much for your bullshit silanea - people are wise to your trolling scumbag kind on forums.
The same old "they're out to get me" BS. On the other hand it is only ACs who rush to defend that crap. - by silanea (1241518) on Wednesday July 21, @03:20AM (#32974748)
BRUCE PERENS ON SCUMBAGS LIKE SILANEA AND ENMASSE 100's of ACCOUNTS FOR DOWNMODDING OTHERS(some of these slime are also paid to do so as well, can you believe it?):
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1738364&cid=33089192
A direct quote is below, from the URL above by Bruce Perens, and it's directly in regards to scum like silanea and my subject line above:
It just takes one Ubuntu sympathizer or PR flack to minus-moderate any comment. Unfortunately, once PR agencies and so on started paying people to moderate online communities, and to have hundreds of accounts each, things changed. by Bruce Perens (3872) on Friday July 30, @04:55PM (#33089192) Homepage Journal
So much for your bullshit silanea - people are wise to your trolling scumbag kind on forums.