Slashdot Mirror
Will Firefox Lose Google Funding?
SharkLaser writes "Mozilla's future looks uncertain. Last week Chrome overtook Firefox's position as the second most popular browser, the new versioning scheme is alienating some Firefox users, and now the advertising deal between Mozilla and Google, the one that almost fully funds Mozilla's operations, is coming to an end. One of Firefox's key managers, Mike Shaver, also left the company in September. 'In 2010, 84% of Mozilla's $123 million in revenue came directly from Google. That's roughly $100 million in funds that will vanish or be drastically cut if the deal is either not renewed or is renegotiated on terms that are less favorable to Mozilla. When the original three-year partnership deal was signed in 2008, Chrome was still on the drawing boards. Today, it is Google's most prominent software product, and it is rapidly replacing Firefox as the alternative browser on every platform.' Recently Mozilla has been trying to get closer with Microsoft by making a Firefox version that defaults to Bing. If Google is indeed cutting funding from Mozilla or tries to negotiate less favorable terms, it could mean Mozilla's future funding coming from Microsoft and Bing."
It's because Chrome is the better browser. It shouldn't matter that it comes from a mega company like Google. If a better product comes out, that should be king. Now why people are still using IE is beyond me.
Microsoft paying money to pay a competitor to use a Microsoft product?
Now where have I seen this pattern before?
Sad if this happens and Firefox has to beg money from Bing. Whatever happened with the 500k/yr Mozilla CEOs who were paid so much money to diversify the revenue sources? Sad really.
This space for rent.
Considering they have a browser of their own, would it really be beneficial to Microsoft to sign with Firefox?
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
IE slowly killed Netscape.. Chrome slowly killed Firefox.
Come on Big Blue! Show us your powers! We need you!
Some geek. Tools -> Options -> General -> Home page
"It's because Chrome is the better browser. It shouldn't matter that it comes from a mega company like Google. If a better product comes out, that should be king. Now why people are still using IE is beyond me." - by gameboyhippo (827141) on Monday December 05, @01:04PM (#38268436)
If that's purely the case as you state it, Opera should have won long ago then as "top most used browser". Opera was technically superior on many grounds:
---
1.) Speed (for years & on most all fronts tested/testable)
2.) Built in features natively without having to use addons
3.) Features other webbrowsers or addon makers literally copied from Opera's playbook (and integrated into their own webbrowsers).
---
* Will Mozilla/FireFox die? No, doubt it - too good of a codebase built up for decades to just "die"... it'll live on (if in anything, WaterFox (very fast, I'm impressed in fact by it)).
APK
P.S.=> No, I think it has to do a LOT with who's backing you in this world (not just programs, but that same goes for individuals also (ala "it's not what you know, but who you know", though I think that's speaking TOO much in "absolutes" also)... in the end? It's a mix of both... imo @ least!
... apk
This guy's gunning for Troll of the Year.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Don't you think $123 Million buys a better browser than Firefox... It's pretty good, but it could be so much better. I'm glad it has more competition.
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
Oracle to the rescue!
How many damn times do people need telling?
For the reverse look at this relationship, "How browsers make money, or why Google needs Firefox" - http://www.extremetech.com/internet/92558-how-browsers-make-money-or-why-google-needs-firefox
...or you could just permanently change the default search provider back to Google with three clicks. Firefox isn't going to take that ability away; they'd just change the DEFAULT search provider.
I'd rather not use a search engine that literally has to reward users to even get them to use it.
Just pointing out that Microsoft isn't actually losing money when they do that. It's just clever marketing and Microsoft is actually profiting by rewarding users. There are many such reward sites on the internet whose owners also get money by offering rewards to users. The catch is, advertisers want to sell something or offer a service. They pay the publisher (in this case Microsoft) for getting those users. But instead of taking the whole payment to themselves, they reward some percentage of it back to user. In the end, Microsoft actually profits from it and users want to use Bing because they get free/almost-free stuff. Very clever.
You mean version 87459.0 will be the last version of Firefox!?!
Unless Google comes out with a way to manage Chrome , it is the least favorable browser in a business environment specifically due to security issues. FF was once deemed the best thing since sliced bread FF's rapid releases that integrate security updates, is no longer sustainable with out adding more resources to the company to manage it. Most companies still design around IE for its end users since it still has the largest base of users. In the corporate world there no reason not to use IE since there is a large corporation behind it to fix security holes, unlike Google that may or may not fix a security hole based on how they feel that day about their beta software, or just decide to kill it off completely.
Finally Microsoft found a way to kill Firefox: pay it to use Bing!
While Google, as Firefox's sugar daddy and major technical competitor, could put the hurt on FF, I just don't see the logic behind their doing so:
FF still has a pretty significant chunk of marketshare, so being the default search engine is still valuable; plus they are likely a convenient PR antidote to Google's ongoing issues with venturing into being-accused-of-monopoly-abuse territory: they are an independent 3rd party, developing a competing product with competitive marketshare(Hey FCC, look at that, see that robust competition?); but(unlike say Microsoft) they have neither a search product worthy of note or a non HTML5/JS development environment worthy of note(I've seen a few XUL-based tech demos; but that ranks well behind Silverlight, much less Win32, as anything resembling a threat...)
They just seem more valuable alive than dead, to Google. Unlike some of the other competitors, even a sudden surge of unmitigated dominance, with the Gecko slaughtering all before it, would pretty much just require Google to switch from webkit to Gecko and feel absolutely no pain in the areas where it actually makes money. As it is, they have the convenient property of being 'independent and competitive'; but also sharing basically all of Google's goals for web-based applications and the general advancement of web stuff not tied to a specific platform. Why mess with such a convenient 3rd party?
because I don't trust Google. They pulled that stunt with Buzz. Their CEO came right out and announced that their real name policy on Google+ was about making the information of users more valuable to sell. Then there is that incident about censoring information about what really happened in Tianammen Square from the Chinese version of Google.
Using the Chrome browser would make me feel like I was using a smartphone equipped with Carrier IQ.
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Google-Wir-unterstuetzen-Firefox-weiter-1390401.html (google translate http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Fnewsticker%2Fmeldung%2FGoogle-Wir-unterstuetzen-Firefox-weiter-1390401.html)
Basically, Google denied all rumors.
For the very reason that Google wouldn't want to give Bing any sort of leg up on their own search engine. I think Mozilla could come out ahead if there happens to be any backroom bidding wars to keep that 3rd place browser out of the other big guy's hands.
Both revenue sources also have their own browser so neither of them is a real long-term solution. Maybe Mozilla needs to think outside the box.
I mean the reason this is a problem at all is that Mozilla is a non profit but still needs to cover operating costs. Since everything they make is free, they need to either monetize customer support (and who has ever heard of that with a browser or email reader) or have ad revenue.
The google deal was just a means to an end, that some fraction of the add revenue from google goes to mozilla because google was firefox default search. The reason its so dangerous for mozilla is because google has such monopolistic power over search they have no one else to turn to to get ad revenue from searching from, hence the inquiries at M$.
But do consider this - Google is paying 100 million a year, but in 2010 they had revune of 29 billion. In exchange, they go from having influence in a quarter of the browser market (Chrome) to half the market (Chrome + FF) and then they have majority influence. I imagine its something they want when pushing WebM video and standards compliance in browsers.
I use Firefox, and have tried Chrome, but as a developer, add on nerd, and moralist I can't give myself to the company whose adds are blocked by a plugin in their own browser. I have compared them, and run them against Sunspider, and the half a milisecond of delay in page loading doesn't make me want to ditch a fully open project for something Google has lordship over. Its the same thing with Android vs Ubuntu on tablets, I want to see Ubuntu succeed because it is an open development process, not just source wise. Google already close sourced Android 3 even though it was blatantly illegal to close source software built on Linux. So I'd rather stick with the open standard. Worst case scenario, I might find a few months to work on FF myself and try to fix some of the slowdowns if I really take issue with them. That's the benefit of open development.
I thought FireFox was such a positive force for open standards, in the days when IE was a monopoly.
But something happened. FireFox got to 20% market share, and they got a bunch of money (from Google) and fame. Then, Mozilla ceased to become an organization that was dedicated to an open web. It became, instead, an organization that knew better than the open web. It wasn't about implementing standards any more. It was about God's chosen web engineers determining what was best for the web.
The problem with Mozilla refusing to implement open standards that other browsers implement, is the same problem we had back when IE had disproportionate market share.
Chrome and Opera and Webkit don't suffer from this narcissism. They just get on with it and implement open standards.
Hooray for open standards!
If FF switches over to Bing it will hurt its market share.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Free market for the win
And text a little bit contradictory.
It's because Chrome is the better browser. It shouldn't matter that it comes from a mega company like Google. If a better product comes out, that should be king.
In my mind, the ideal functions of a free market are where N competing products vie for marketshare. The 'one browser to rule them all' mentality is, in my opinion, an antithesis to the free market concept. And what's more bizarre is that your post ends with an acknowledgment that IE has enjoyed an abnormally long run incorrectly as the leader. Don't you fear that if Firefox died tomorrow we would be one browser closer to the old system where IE stagnated and just got crappier and crappier with no competition in sight?
Products do die in a free market, I just haven't seen Firefox deserve this and given the barrier of entry into the browser market we should really cherish what we have for options.
I agree that chrome is the better browser -- though not in all categories. As such, I wish to see Firefox remain healthy and would enjoy them to improve upon areas that Chrome has gained on them. Not to 'fragment' the market (we grow closer to actual HTML standards everyday) but instead to keep these guys on their toes, moving forward and trying to win me over. When I saw Arcade Fire's music video in HTML5 on Chrome, that won me over. That was it. I don't want Firefox to die, I want Firefox to pull a similar move.
My work here is dung.
Does anyone know where the money they get from Google goes? Aren't they a non-profit that's freely distributing a community-developed piece of software? If so, why does this cost anything more than a couple million a year? That's what their financial statements from 2009 (latest available from their website) talk about: 10 people and ~ $1.5M in budget. That seems pretty reasonable to me to run a product with as broad a user base as Firefox.
But $100M??? Assuming an average salary of $100K, that's 1000 people. Are there really 1000 people working at Mozilla? If so, what are they doing?
Or are they really spending as much as Nike and Coke on marketing? Do they have a big pile of cash in bank? Can someone help me understand, cause right now I don't see how the math adds up...
If Firefox gets most of its funding from either Google or (potentially) Microsoft doesn't that make them just another software outlet beholden to one very large company? Seems like a long way from the idea of open source software being supported by the donated time of thousands of dedicated volunteers. Am I missing something?
That seems like an awful lot of money for a company that just makes a browser.
#DeleteChrome
In 2010, 84% of Mozilla's $123 million in revenue came directly from Google
Uki, Mozilla loosing funding is bad and all, but what the heck have they been spending 100M+ USD a year on? They must have some money stashed away somewhere ....
I use various desktop PCs, and I want to share my passwords and bookmarks between them... but I am not comfortable with this personal data in the cloud - even on Google's servers. This is exactly the same reason I use Thunderbird and Lightning with my own mail and calendar servers rather than Google Mail/Calendar... even while I'm disappointed with Thunderbird and Lightnig's progress in recent years. I don't want my (potentially sensitive) data lurking in the cloud.
With Firefox, I solved this using XMarks and a personal DAV server on my own hardware accessed over HTTPS.
With Chrome, while XMarks has been ported, it doesn't support personal DAV servers... which is a sticking point for me.
Chrome would probably win me over if it could synchronise bookmarks and passwords against my own server... in spite of my wider concerns about its integration with Google services.
Um, what about Android?
Or, google.com - you know that search engine some people use?
Seriously, they need to fall flat on their face. It would be ideal if they lost all people with narcissitc personality issues like Asa Dotzler in the same move.
not working
That is a bug filed in 2001 because Mozilla refuses to support XSL sufficiently.
You don't care about XSL? Well.. would you care about a CMS that is well documented, open and works in the browser instead on the server? XSL could have been that already... more than 10 years ago...
I hope Mozilla falls on its face and, then, will compete again.
Support other browsers until you put out your own and then crush the competition.
Chrome isn't even a decent browser.
... still have pretty crappy interfaces. Take delicious.com for example, no browser ever thought of tagging, saving, and organizing bookmarks in a database format (which was ingenious IMHO) and allowing other people to search look at/share their bookmarks. When you look at the browser market all you really see is incompetence. There's tonnes of cool firefox plugins and I keep firefox around for them. But it would be amazing if the more useful plugins were incorporated directly into the program. Like taking screenshots of webpages and saving them to a database with tagging (ala delicious). Many of us have tonnes of little clips/bits of information we need from the web but no way to organize it and basic bookmarks is a far cry from what is needed but things like delicious are headed in the right direction.
I find most of my problems with browsers in how to organize and manage the pages/websites/info I want to save. Browsers have really need more intelligent information management features for end users.
Does anyone know how Mozilla managed to spend $123m in 2010? That seems an awful lot to cover improvements to Firefox and Thunderbird that are not especially earth-shattering. My impression is that many other open-source projects generate more innovation with a lot less money.
I don't think /finding/ Google is his problem. Thanks for the shit post, though.
Evil or not, making a deal with the devil is a bad idea even if he it is called google. Google, even not intended to be acting evil (Don't be evil), is acting evil, as it's cause for funding Mozilla was not to help Mozilla and bring the users a good and free browser, but to bring down the internet explorer's dominance. Anyway if you combine charity with a benefit for yourself, except you feeling good and being altruistic.
And that way Google's actions are evil even if not inteded to be evil, but the cause of the charity is corrupt. And to be frank Mozilla got itself corrupted by the google money, if you ask yourself is Mozilla really worth 100 $M ? A feature less browser (yes some good plugins blablabla) which now accelrates it's version numbers like it want to compensate for falling back in market share. And it seems Mozilla now tries to get hocked on it's next suggar daddy. Mozilla needs a new management and a new perspective, because it lost it's main cause of existence, and even with reaching version 16 on January 1st next year there will no perspective just popping up.
Their biggest problem is that they are about to lose Google funding. It would make sense for Google to pay Firefox to put revenue into their search engine product, except they don't want to because they compete with their web browser product.
So Firefox's problem is that Google has a conflict of interest born of the fact that they have two products in two arenas. However, Mozilla cannot really seek a legal remedy to their problem, because the market has give Google access to far more lawyer man-hours than Mozilla can ever hope to have.
While Google has made a very nice browser, the title of this article is "Will Firefox Lose Google Funding?" So this is a story about free market abuses, not the beauty of the free market system. Indeed, if Google somehow decided to maintain their contract with Mozilla, Google (and all browser makers) would have a greater incentive to make a better browser.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
We all hate firing people and want be everyone's friend at work.
One bad apple such as Asa can surely ruin the whole batch. Talka bout a negative return. If Mozilla had some balls and threaten to fire Asa after Firefox 4.0 if he did the 6 week release or at least re-engineer the browser and add-ons to be designed for agile development like Chrome before making the leap.
You can design a system that can be agile like the flash trading computers at Wall Street where programmers make changes within the hour of a screaming trader without a crash. Chrome is it, but sadly Firefox was not.
The CEO of Mozilla needed to ahve more vision and that included the CIO who left for Facebook who probably kept Firefox stable before he quit. I no longer run Firefox but I hate to see it go. Many schools I worked at k-12 and individuals depend on Firefox because it is Mac and Windows friendly and so much more stable and secure than IE 6.
Lets hope Chrome does not monopolize the web as Google's actions make me nervous and remind me of IE 5 in many ways. Dart, custom Javascript, and their C++ api (forgot name) is very proprietary. I do not like it! Not Chrome per say but rather the proprietary add-ons.
http://saveie6.com/
I am seeing bugs in Chrome that has never been there. Some are pretty severe. So, I have switched back to firefox. Good solid browser.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I hope Google doesn't pull the plug on Firefox - that would result in less choice, and fewer people would be happy with their browsing experiences. The more browsers the merrier, I say.
I really like Firefox, and the last time I tried Chrome I couldn't find any way to customise it to suit my needs. Also, does Chrome, (or will it ever), have an add-on equivalent to Flashblock? (No, the recent addition of similar functionality to NoScript isn't a viable replacement). What about "Long URL please", "FontFinder", "Add 'n' Edit Cookies", "Tab Mix Plus", or "Video Download Helper"?
I generally don't like bloat, but Chrome is way too spartan for my needs. With Firefox, I gladly suffer a little bloat to get the ultimate in customisability. I have no confidence that Chrome will ever be as flexible.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
I do things like that via HOSTS files (they operate beneath usermode, & via filtering @ the TCP/IP stack level).
Also, You can deny out various hosts/domains via Firewall rules tables as well (and use IP addresses as well there in the latter) - I do both (mainly vs. adbanners &/or known malicious sites).
I do so, for "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth" online, & via methods that extend to ANY/ALL webbound programs I use is all.
APK
P.S.=> Lastly/per my subject-line above: Opera has "Addons" as well, & probably along the same types/functionality that FireFox variants as well as Chrome/Chromium variants use.
In fact, look here -> http://www.opera.com/addons/
(There, I've seen an AdBlock for Opera, perhaps there's tools like what you ask for there! I just do it in a different way (that extends to ALL of my webbound programs, not just a specific browser, though I do use Adblock & NoScript with WaterFox))... apk
Well aren't you the pinnacle of rational thought?
This is a perfect example of the hate for Mozilla I see on Slashdot these days, with a dash of anger and irrationality for spice.
Firefox' recent accelerated release cycle and Chrome's ludicrous version (it's out for 3 years now and already at version 15 or something, wtf?) show that frequently updating the entire browser is not a sustainable path into the future. You can't seriously ask from people to update their browser every couple of weeks to a new major version and if Chrome keeps up this pace, they will be at version 30 in 2014 and version 45 in 2017. That doesn't make any sense. Already nobody knows the difference between Chrome 6 and 7 or 11 and 12, let alone people will know the difference between Chrome 38 and 39. It's crazy.
But the corporate browser strategy of a more traditional life cycle doesn't make a lot of sense either. Safari 5 has been out for more than a year now, IE's latest stable release is 8 months old. That's just too much. The web changes rapidly and the only way developers can make use of that progress if browsers are updated frequently. Browsers need to keep up, it's in everybody's best interest.
So what I'm proposing is a new browser that separates updates to the rendering engine and the application itself. Not a lot of people really want frequent updates to the browser application. I think most people are perfectly happy with an address bar on top, some tabs and a space to show the actual web page. The code to produce that doesn't need to change very often. The browser application should provide a solid base framework for displaying web pages and hosting plugins. Nothing fancy, nothing cutting edge and certainly nothing rapidly changing all the time. The added benefit of a stable and slowly progressing browser application, is that plugins get a chance to really thrive. Instead of keeping up with the browser versions, plugin developers can focus on polishing their algorithms and user experience. Updates to the browser application should be released sparsely and users should only be able to update manually, so they can decide for themselves when they want to change their browsing experience and possibly break some of their plugins.
But the rendering engine however, that is where rapid updates are very much welcome. Web standards are constantly evolving and as new features are implemented, they should be released quickly to the world so developers can benefit from them. Javascript interpreters are also continuously improving and there's no reason why anyone should miss out on that. Updates to those kinds of "background" systems should be handed out frequently, because it will make everyones experience better. Ideally, this should be a automatic self updating thing, like how Chrome works, without of course ever breaking the browser application. That way, everybody is exposed to the best techniques the web has to offer all the time.
I would very much welcome a browser with such a philosophy. I wonder if there are projects out there like this.
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
Sponsorship has always been one way for open source software to operate. Donated time is another, but that's even rarer than sponsored contributions, which is how a lot of Linux is developed.
I finally gave up and switched to Chrome on Windows, and I may end up doing the same on Linux. I just got sick of the crashes and constantly breaking add-ons as a result of their Chrome-envious development model. It's been a shame to see. Firefox was the browser that freed me from IE6 and introduced me to the world of open-source software. Mozilla may have dropped the ball lately, but I salute them for reigniting the browser wars and spurring on next-gen web development. I only hope that if Firefox is doomed then another browser will rise up to take it's place and keep this healthy competition going.
The summary states as a fact that the Mozilla-Google deal is ending, based on a blog post that inferred that the deal was apparently ending based on Mozilla continuing to make the same kind of vague statements about deals with search engine providers that they have for most of the last several years without any specific updates on the Google deal, which is a pretty flimsy basis for the inferrence, but at least that source (unlike TFS) only stated that the deal had "apparently" ended, not stating that it was ending as a fact.
But, Google has since explicitly denied that their agreement with Mozilla has ended. (See, for instance, this CNET article.)
Firefox's new versioning scheme wouldn't be a problem at all if they had a stable API that didn't break a user's extensions on each update. Chrome has managed this, and they follow the same fast-paced version upgrades that Firefox is now doing. Chrome is just doing it right.
To be fair, I think Firefox has improved this quite a bit, because I've experience fewer breaks during upgrades recently.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
I think these lock in deals are going to fade away. Google is most happy when users have a choice, much like they get when Chrome is first installed. The reason is that most people given a choice will choose Google. I think the money Google saves not helping Firefox is worth any potential lost business to Bing even if Firefox makes them default. Of course, this will only alienate more Firefox users.
I8-D
Nothing to do with versioning. It just started performing poorly.
Firefox still has the advantage of a vast extension base. I wouldn't want to use a browser without the complete equivalents of:
- Ghostery
- NoScript
- Cookie Monster (fine-grained cookie control)
- DNS Flusher (useful for IP v4/v6 dual-stack testing)
- FlashVideoReplacer
- Greasemonkey
- RefControl
- Tree Style Tab
- Firebug
- Web Developer
Nevertheless, Chromium still has its place on my system, mostly serving as an efficient and therefore battery saving browser for local HTML documentation.
I'm using Firefox now... its pretty good, but it doesn't feel like I'm using a product that gets over $100 million a year in funding. I wonder how much goes into development and how much goes into web hosting.
The "hate", as you refer to it, is because people are p***ed off that things that used to work stop working, that firefox is apparently more devoted to copying Chromes' appearance than to actually fixing bugs, and the whole fast release version schedule thing is just stupid because more bugs get into releases instead of being weeded out.
I am very happy you are making peace with yourselves. I have known people that tragically suffer from mental illness and you stand as a beacon of hope. Thank you...whoever you are.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
I know all of the talk is on Firefox, but Thunderbird is part of Mozilla, too. How does this decision impact that?
I like Firefox, I think it's mostly a good program (never mind it's epic memory leak history). That being said the thing that absolutely killed them in the enterprise was the version stunt they pulled this summer.
They spent years trying to get into the enterprise and then shoot themselves in the foot. Enterprise admins cried foul and explained that would create hell for them logistically. Firefox said damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead and ignored them.
I would imagine that the versioning stunt probably cost Firefox a fourth of the enterprise that had either finally accepted them or was finally willing to put them into production. They desperately need someone who works in industry on the inside to explain to them how things are done.
What can I say, this is the result of the wrong focus. Software engineers made decisions about the direction this company went, and drove it into the ground.
It began as a beautiful thing, something that was needed in a world of terrible browsers. Netscape was over-bloated, IE was, well, IE. Firefox took it by storm because it provided what wasn't available. It was fast, slick, and most of all, capable. I remember being one of the first to compile Mozilla on Mac OS X as a mach-o binary, so I've been there and I remember watching it as it grew up, matured, and then began complaining about the neighbors.
These days, it's an enormous pig of an application. The folks running the show at FF continue to drive focus into stupid areas. There have been massive UI shifts that alienate users. The version number thing is just stupid, everyone knows that. Why did they do it? To compete with Chrome -- can you believe that? They thought Chrome's success was because of version numbers?! Oh wait, let's add bing as a default search engine. That ought to help. How about we get some more broken-UI themes while we're at it. Firefox, your browser, your way. How about we move the tabs over here, do this with the menu bar.. that should help us compete with Chrome. Right...
So I hope it dies. And I hope it dies fast, rather than dragging everyone down, kicking and screaming. "Waaa, competitors, we want your money." Good luck with that. Get real, Chrome has shown innovation far above and beyond the old Mozilla codebase. Firefox is practically windows in this sense -- old code, old technology, new "looks", stupid versioning (NT, 98, 2000 ME, XP, V, 7, 8... excuse me if I got it out of order as I really don't use windows any more than is necessary, which is essentially zero). And stupid management.
To the FF developers that wrote good awesome code, please find a project more deserving of your talent, and let this one die. Software has to evolve with the trends and overall fitness of the software to the environment. In this case, it's time to embrace the new species.
Is there a hosts file to block APK spam posts?
Honestly, the idea of a massive hosts file just to do what NoScript does by default seems... silly.
I avoid javascript online (or offline, ala Adobe pdf. etc.) WHEN & IF POSSIBLE for security-oriented reasons online... it's one of the "main harbingers of doom" that get abused that way (along with JAVA itself).
APK
P.S.=> Thus, what you see? Doesn't generally affect me because of the above (& then again by the same token, neither do maliciously coded sites OR adbanners usually either (those done via javascript specifically since we're speaking of it)).
HOWEVER:
I have seen what you have though when I left Opera using scripting indiscriminately. Some sites "broke" using it... but I *think* I know why:
Afaik, Opera meets EMCA script standards, but that doesn't necessarily mean JScript/Javascript & variations thereof, etc./et al...
In fact, I am pretty sure it's one of, if not THE MOST compatible with, EMCA scripting (the main coder of it, Haakum Lie, is on the std.'s board for "things web" etc. is why)... but, don't quote me on that, I haven't read up on its scripting functionality in ages, as I don't use it/avoid it WHEN possible, as I stated above...
... apk
Firefox isn't all that great (showing how not that great the competing and mostly inferior browsers are). What does Firefox do in a year that costs $100M? It seems that a company with $5M in revenue could have done what Firefox has done in the past year, and that includes 3 "major version numbers".
If you gave me $100M I could pay a team that not only wrote an HTML4 browser (and HTTP/FTP/whatever protocol) from scratch, but also HTML5, and probably a JVM, too.
--
make install -not war
Like what? I'm tired of vagaries used on the attack.
As if the two are mutually exclusive.
Do you have any sort of backup for your claim, or is this just another knee-jerk, irrational reaction with no factual basis?
What does a not-for-profit Free Software organization do with that much money?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Embrace.
Extend.
Extinguish.
"Honestly, the idea of a massive hosts file just to do what NoScript does by default seems... silly." - by The Askylist (2488908) on Monday December 05, @02:22PM (#38269716)
Answer these questions:
---
A.) Does NoScript work in Outlook Express/Full Outlook, or other email programs other than its own? No. HOSTS files do.
B.) Can NoScript ENTIRELY BLOCK OUT known malicious sites/servers as HOSTS files can?? No.
C.) Can NoScript speed you up via bypassing external DNS servers (many are getting compromised lately too no less along with CA's)??? No...
---
* Need I go on?
(There's more HOSTS files can do for you, that NoScript can't... & I use both HOSTS and NoScript (in WaterFox) , per my "Layered-Security"/"Defense-In-Depth" methods for online safety Nicest part is, those same methods yield not only better online safety, but noticeably better speed as well!)
APK
P.S.=>
"Is there a hosts file to block APK spam posts?" - by The Askylist (2488908) on Monday December 05, @02:22PM (#38269716)
With that comment from you, I realize you're trying to harass me here (and doubtless in the other AC offtopic illogical adhominem attack replies I've been getting here for months and in this very exchange itself), but that's your business: I can't help it if you have issues of some sort - but, answer those questions above... apk
Anyone who can read, use the web, and cares probably does, since they publish their audited financial statement on their website.
From the information in the report cited below, they are a non-profit "that exists to provide organizational, legal, and financial support for the Mozilla open-source software project", and whose "purpose is to develop open source, standards compliant, free Internet applications that will be useable free of charge to tens of millions of users" and "to develop foundational technologies that will be used by content and software developers to develop standards compliant online content and open source internet software."
The latest financial statement available on their website is the consoldiated report for 2010 on 2009. And it has, for 2010 (2009 in parens) $123M ($104M) in revenue and $87M ($61M) in expenses, $63M ($40M) of which is software development, $12M ($13M) of which is general and administrative expense, $10M ($7M) of which is branding and marketing, and $2M ($1M) of which is program services (all figures rounded to the nearest million.)
I have no idea where you got the $1.5M in 2009 budget from.
First, they don't have $100M in expenses, they have $123M in revenue and only $87M in expenses. Expenses include things besides just personnel costs, and personnel costs themselves include more than just salary (if you estimated personnel costs as twice salary, you'd be a lot closer than if you estimated, as you have, at the salary itself.)
Unless Nike and Coke spend $10M or less per year on marketing, no.
They ignore my update settings, hell, all of my settings when they feel it's convenient. They force new revisions upon me because, obviously if I'm using an older version I'm some old bitty and should be forced to upgrade.
And of course, if that somehow fails to work, they have to nag me day and night until they finally get around to forcing an update clandestinely.
Seems like a perfect fit for the classic MS ecosystem.
You have issues: Please at least try to stay "on topic", for others' sake @ least - Thank you.
APK
P.S.=> Don't you have better things to do with your time other than trolling others off topic via your illogical adhominem attacks? apk
you trust what you read on sensationalistic websites way too much
- if you download firefox today from Mozilla, you don't get bing as default, and you never did.
- version numbers are meaningless. the reason they release often is because otherwise they cannot support Google websites. Simple example, Google Docs implements new so called standard APIs that works only in Chrome. Firefox needs to support them, or Google Docs breaks or fallback to a lower level of functionality. if you can't release a new version fast enough, you're out of the game. That's Google monopoly for you.
- firefox does not include it's own flash and such things. it uses (way) less memory than Chrome. How is that a pig? they couldn't even port the true Chrome to Android because of ram issues. Yet, Firefox nightly is extremely fast and low footprint on Android. (as it Opera Mobile)
You have issues: Please at least try to stay "on topic", for others' sake @ least - Thank you.
APK
P.S.=> Man... oakgrove: What's your "malfunction"?
I.E.-> Don't you have better things to do with your time other than trolling others off topic via your illogical adhominem attacks?
Per my subject-line above:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2498664&cid=37870342
You've done this before, per that link above (saying I was mental etc.).
That's merely indicative of yourself having "issues", not myself, & you always seem to "gravitate" to "mental this & that"!
In fact, I'd go as far as it seems you're projecting about YOURSELF, as far as "mental problems", if anyone or anything since you choose tht line of illogical off topic adhominem attack attempt everytime ith myself...apk
6 good sources for "premade" HOSTS files from reputable & reliable sources online:
http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
http://hostsfile.org/hosts.html
http://www.malware.com.br/cgi/submit?action=list_hosts_win_0000
* There's others out there, around a dozen more I use, but they're not updated as often as those above... & some are lists for DNS server DNSBL lists, which I have written programs for converting those over to HOSTS format here over time (they aren't updated that often though).
However, those in my small list above are tiny (thus, they won't "hassle" w/ the DNS local clientside cache in Windows' deficiencies I noted in my other posts here), & those in the list above are kept up to date quite often, usually weekly (some daily)...
They're reputable & reliable in that list above, & can "get you started".
APK
P.S.=> I integrate them ALL (& many others from my now 20++ sources) into 1 large file here with a Python system (multiplatform) lately, that alphabetizes the entries, filters out exception sites I don't want blocked, & "normalizes/deduplicates" repeat entries (which bloat the file needlessly)...
... apk
I wonder if I missed a comment on the fact that Chrome pushes itself up by including itself in the installation of a lot of other software, sometimes even without an option to not install it, as I recently found out with F-Secure. Maybe that although I uninstalled immediately, I'm still counted as a user and maybe a default user. For these actions alone it should be severely punished by an uninstall by all who read this, regardless of the quality.
1. Spot competitor
2. Give competitor money
3. Competitor invests money in feature creep
4. Withdraw funding
5. Competitor dies since it cannot find the resources to maintain the feature creep
6. $profit!
0x or or snor perron?!
So he should just support whatever dumb move Firefox makes?
Right back at ya.
Very good swearing. All that swearing must mean that your point is valid.
I see that Mozilla.org has been enjoying a resounding success at trying hard to imitate Chrome as closely as possible. Why would anyone jump ship from a poorly-implemented Chrome clone when they could just have Chrome for the same price? It's only the users that were never going to use Chrome that Mozilla.org alienated. Even those users, myself included, are moving to Chrome because we might as well use what Firefox is imitating.
Use whatever suits you best on any grounds per your feelings/opinions etc.!
* Personally, I "use 'em all" myself, from "The Big 3" webbrowser makers - as they're all very good!
APK
P.S>=> Opera 11.60 RC2, WaterFox 8.01, Chromium 17.961 (the "latest/greatest" in those 3 browsers), & IE9 (with latest patches/updates etc.) user here - they all keep getting better & better with time, for the most part... apk
So in 2009 when it was clear that Google was building its own non-Gecko browser, why didn't the Mozilla Foundation start squirreling a lot of that money into an endowment to help pay for operations when Google inevitably pulled the plug?
Instead, they went full steam ahead, attempting to copy the Chrome look without copying the Chrome feel, and while ignoring a boatload of issues that have been problems in Firefox for years.
I'm so glad I can change the "theme" of my browser with just a mouseover. But is that really a substitute for better SSL certificate handling (a la Persepctives) or security improvements (a la HTTPS Everywhere and NoScript) or HTML5 compatibility (support for H.264)? No. No it isn't. What does that say about a browser when the best features are addons that come from outside the team that was being paid to develop it?
The management at Mozilla has a lot to answer for, pissing away nearly half a billion dollars of support. With a record like Firefox's, why should anyone donate personal or corporate funds to them in the future?
I'm not sold to Chrome 100%. It's a multi-process architecture and yet when I get serious freezes or bugs, I have to close everything. I haven't seen much more stability than Opera or Firefox using Chrome...
".emit "thgin-eithgin" ti ekam dna ylredro na teg em ekam t'noD .regit ,ereht nwod elttes woN" - by oakgrove (845019) ANOTHER "ne'er-do-well" /. OFF-TOPIC TROLLon Monday December 05, @02:56PM (#38270472)
"???"
Uhm... Could we get a translation of that off-topic "troll-speak/trolllanguage" of yours, please?
---
* And, you're an off-topic troll - no questions asked...SEE MY SUBJECT LINE ABOVE!
APK
P.S.=> Yes, it must have just have been another off-topic done nothing of significance with his life troll spewing his off-topic b.s. again & not contributing to the ongoing conversations. Oh well - No biggie!
("ReVeRsE-PsYcHoLoGy", for trolls - Courtesy of this code by "yours truly" in less than 1 second flat):
---
#TrollTalkComReversePsychologyKiller.py (Ver #2 by APK)
def reverse(s):
try:
trollstring = ""
for apksays in s:
trollstring = apksays + trollstring
except:
print("error/abend in reverse function")
return trollstring
s = ""
print reverse(s)
try:
s = "Insert whatever 'trollspeak/trolllanguage' gibberish occurs here..."
s = reverse(s)
print(s)
except Exception as e:
print(e)
---
... apk
Mozilla has gone insane in 2011. You only need to read comments on every Slashdot story to hear about the complaints about Firefox. The chance of it being defunded is a wake up call to the incompetent developers that have vandalized Firefox for the last 5(!) versions.
It's time to admit the Mozilla foundation needs to be disbanded and that the Firefox source code needs to be rewritten by better developers to be memory friendly, have a sane user interface (including status bar and http:// display), has a stable extension API and is enterprise friendly. Then it will be worthy of funding.
OpenOffice.org got forked into LibreOffice, Xfree86 into Xorg, GCC into EGCS and back to GCC, and GNOME into MATE. Now it's Firefox's turn.
Sorry about your autism.
Mike Shaver went to work for Facebook. He's an asshole.
On javascript (as far as I am PERSONALLY concerned? I said this earlier to others here & why) -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2559120&cid=38269726
As far as HTML 5 standards adherence in Opera??
You MAY wish to read this:
http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/
* I.E.-> Opera's undergoing MASSIVE changes to be ready for HTML 5 (better than what you're describing odds are)...
(That's where the "latest/greatest" builds of Opera, as well as their changelogs, are downloaded from & written about!)
APK
P.S.=> I've seen hassles in javascript using it in Opera, but that generally doesn't concern me (per my 1st link above & mainly for security purposes, but also for speed to a degree as well)...
... apk
Chrome is rolled into ANY and EVERY piece of every installation on the web. I have users at work who don't know what it is and how it got on their PC's. Although I know the intellect of users is lower then average around here, I can't imagine an install of a browser that takes over their Internet-related items went by without them wondering what is going on.
Chrome is what Firefox was in its beginning, a pretty small and basic web browser without all the cruft.
...plus the presence of the Borgle, watching your every move on the internet.
But hey, what are computers for except to create Big Brother, right? And who is the biggest brother? None other than Google: the company which sees all.
Additionally, Google and Mozilla have pretty much the same goals for the future direction of the web. Both want an open HTML5-based set of web standards, without any patent obstruction. Having two seats speaking essentially the same voice in the relevant circles (W3C, WHATWG, ...) makes a huge difference, and I'm sure Google is quite happy to invest a bit of change to keep Firefox around.
OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
I recently upgraded from 3.x to whatever FF release is current (6? 7? 8? 9?), and what FireFox did was randomly shuffle the user interface for no reason. Things have been in particular places for around A DECADE and after using the browser I have muscle memory and cognitive expectations of where things are. So why would anyone shuffle them? That's nonsensical. Surely the people at FF know they have long-term users? And new users don't know where anything is in the UI to begin with, so it doesn't matter. The only thing that makes sense is to KEEP THE USER INTERFACE CONSISTENT!
As a plus, though, at least I can put things back where they were with FireFox. Other browsers probably aren't that customizable.
I have received the news of Firefox leaning toward Bing as a betrayal of the worst kind.
I have to admit it I LOVE Google too, and hate Microsoft as much as the slashdotter next to me...
BUT, Defacto monopolies are bad. Google might just be the biggest threat to freedom today.
It's that what we learned from IE? (big is bad)
MS had marked dominance and fired the IE team, effectively stopping the development.
If there're no competitors to Google Search, do you think Google will continue developing and improving it's search engine. Let's face it the free market works when no company have extreme dominance.
As much as I hate to say it, maybe we should be cheering for Microsoft Bing in this case.
Keep in mind there's no free software search engine out there, that can stand up to Google or Microsoft Bing. So a reasonable division of market share, which implies competition, is all we can hope for.
Does anybody else remember when Mozilla was an OSS project and not a company? When it was just a bunch of volunteers replacing all the source code that used to be Netscape Communicator? Look how many other projects survive just fine without corporate backing. What has happened?
Mozilla's future funding coming from Microsoft and Bing
Since Firefox wasn't getting bad enough...
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
and opinions are available)
More to the point, if Firefox did switch to Bing, I presume a fair number of users would just switch it to back to google. Should Firefox fall, I'd suspect a large proportion of users would just simply switch to Chrome.
You might be Open Source, but when that much money comes from just one source, you're over a barrel as much as any other company. No money, worse product, less people, less money. If Mozilla had any sense, they'd get their arse in gear and make their product 'stickier'.
You may be uncomfortable with the dominance of Google search, but this does not make it a monopoly. Microsoft, on the other hand, is a convicted monopolist, who has used its monopoly on the OS to destroy Netscape and push its own browser. Microsoft and Google are two different beasts altogether, with ethical acumen at opposite ends, and trying to present them as equivalent with as weak an argument as "big is bad" (your words) is simplistic and negates everything we know about those two companies.
People have adopted Firefox with that in mind and going to Bing is simply a betrayal of trust on the part of Firefox, a suicidal betrayal of trust, I should add, make no mistake about it. I find it abject, after the support that Google has shown to the Firefox team, that they should turn around and threaten to use Bing. This is why I am saying that the board should wake up before the irreparable happens and let Dotzler offer his head over a mistake of such a magnitude, BEFORE the end of the negotiation of the Google deal. I mean, WTF is going on on the Firefox board!!!
Call me tinfoil hat, but I am decidedly opting out of services and features which are google enabled or supported. I used FF until it became unstable and then decided to give Opera a fair shake. In the last week it has proved every bit as agile and functional as Chrome/FF and does have the requisite adblock. Its been quite a few years since Ive loaded up Opera and I am very impressed with the browser. My only reservations are some of the libraries which are google-written and licensed. Still, very good browser and ecosystem. Give it another look if you havent passed by recently.
Until Chrome allows me to save passwords with a master password so every Tom, Dick and Harry who uses my computer when I am logged on can't go an write down my passwords from the cleartext in 3 clicks, I'm staying with Firefox. I've used Chromium and I like it very much (the HTML5 performance is lovely compared to FF), but forcing me to log in as a guest if I want to let someone use my computer for a moment without letting then see every password I own at a glance. I'm also not going to stop using a password manager, as I have far too many accounts with weird passwords to remember.
The other thing I get in FF is the ability to block adverts in the middle of TV program streams. I never knew 4oD and ITV player even had adverts until my friend complained about them!
If anyone has looked at the graphs they should notice that Firefox is not sinking, it is, instead, being adopted at a rate that is just now less than the rate Chrome is being adopted. The browser shedding users to both is IE.
First, it is not surprising that Firefox is growing slower than Chrome, Chrome is a new product in a popular tech field, where being new is gold.
Second, Firefox is presently doing serial updates, closing holes, tightening things up, keeping up with the present rapid advancing of internet intruding techniques and technology. Chrome, being new, may have most advances covered and not yet need serial patching and improving. Rapid serial updating requires users to rapidly serially upgrade, which is a bother, a small one, but still something needing done.
Third, Firefox is still an advertising platform for Google, even if Google has its own browser advertising platform now,, too. If Chrome has nine-million users and Firefox has eight-million, Google has the choice to reach nine-million or seventeen-million.
Fourth, what got IE in trouble was stomping all the competition and being complacent as browser king. IE became the target for everyone to shoot holes in and being the only game in Windows PCs, it had no incentive to bother with patching.Is Google likely to follow MS into that mistake? Also, MS came to be targeted for monopolizing. Google has experienced being targeted for monopolizing, in the search field. Is Google likely to go for a browser monopoly?
In free-markets competition improves all competitive competitors: All have to keep up with each other and all want to get ahead, so all add each other's newest features and try to invent new ones, themselves. Consider the East German West German example of some years ago: West Germany had Volkswagen, Audi and Mercedes cars. East Germany had the Trabant. In West Germany Mercedes added cigarette lighters, Volkswagen and Audi did, too. In East Germany where there was only the Trabant, to light your cigarette you had to reach a match through the floorboards to scrape it on the pavement. Google doesn't want Chrome to become a browser Trabant.
At the moment, "mozilla.org" is very slow or sometimes not responding at all. "addons.mozilla.org" is returning "Service Unavailable - The service is temporarily unavailable. Please try again later." if you try to do anything that involves the database.
Chrome is so bad at scrolling that Google's on image search is almost impossible to scroll in chrome.
But in firefox... its smooth.
Why is that? Because chrome is terrible at gpu acceleration and scrolling. There are some flags you can turn on in the hidden options to improve this, but its cant handle google image search well.
And all images will have the incorrect color/gamma etc when viewed in chrome because chrome simply does not have color management.
Firefox is faster, renders images correctly, AND you can actually use google image search with it :)
Good riddance.
If Firefox disappears from the scene it will be a sad day for the www. I suspect that Google doesn't want to see this happen yet its continual development priorities with Chrome and it's nefarious agenda are clearly at odds with Mozilla's direction for Firefox. Google will probably just throw Mozilla a bone and say "here, work with this amount of $xxx and don't infringe on our browser's functionality". Conceivably, Firefox could become a second tier browser for Google that helps to ensure their dominance in the browsing domain.
after version 4 i dropped it. is it past version ten yet?
Heise (German only) just reported that Google officially denied the rumors they were about to drop Firefox.
Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
I blocked out Opera's adbanners servers back when Opera wasn't FREE (it was a payware as you say) using HOSTS file entries to do it (was like 5-10 servers) & voila: I basically HAD Opera for free, using the "shareware/adware edition"...
APK
P.S.=> Certain people "rib on me" for using HOSTS & I suspect they to be either:
1.) Malware makers (who don't like that folks like myself block out millions of known malicious sites/servers/hosts-domains)
OR
2.) Webmasters (they don't like adbanners blocked but then again, I pay for my online time & don't want my bandwidth & speed "sucked up" by adbanners NOR do I wish to be infected by them when/if they bear malicious code, & yes, that happens too)
However, whether folks like it or not? A Hosts file's VERY "versatle" for speed, security, & other things (as you can see from this post)... apk
So, off goes linux, on goes FreeBSD.
+1 Funny! Spit my coffee all over the keyboard!
You can mod your friends, you can mod your nose, but you can't mod your friend's nose.
I wonder if Mozilla is trying to get as much done as possible before the risk of losing funding and being forced to fire paid evelopers and slow back down.
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
They don't care what I say. I can reason it out in a blog article, or kind email with backup data, or cuss at the fuckers.
They have already made up their mind what they want to do, and fuck everybody else.
Only a swift kick in the ass/wallet, will wake them up to the reality that people think their management and resulting direction of software are shit.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
convicted monopolist
Just for reference there beaver, its not a crime to be a monopoly. Its only a crime to abuse your position as a monopoly to hurt potential competition.
Microsoft is a downright disgusting bunch of fucks, but they didn't kill Netscape, Netscape killed itself by producing shitty software while MS produced what at the time was a superior browser. It was still shitty, but it was far better than the alternatives. It stagnated for years after Netscape fucked itself into the the ground and renamed itself to Mozilla.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
FF has issues - the long-standing printing problems being one (whole set).
But Chrome is worse - autostart nonsense, and uninstallers don't find it/all its pieces.
still I basically I actually go back to IE occasionally...
but need xmarks for the bookmark comments
(xmarks for IE is screwed up they cant fix the login issues)
opera is- actually better than before
- may have to ween myself from the Firefox Aurora Nightly triumvirate
-
I use chrome more than FF, but I do miss the Google Toolbar available in FF (and IE). You would think Google could find a way to include the Google toolbar in it own browser.!.?
Also I do have more compatibility problems with web pages in Chrome than FF.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
I fail to see how Mozilla and Google are competitors. For one, Google doesn't offer a stand-alone email client, they just use the browser. Another obvious note is Google Summer of Code regularly funds things that they have internal projects on, i.e. pidgin vs. gtalk. It's easy to assume that Google is a software company behaving like a software company since that's what we've seen before. But Google is a services company that deals in software that uses those services. A car analogy: Google built a highway that is so smooth that you don't have to care what tires you're using -- Google's radials or Mozilla's -- because Google just wants to collect the tolls.
The advantage of Google having Chrome is that people that haven't heard of Mozilla and are wary of software they don't have to pay for can see a big professional name that is occasionally on TV. In addition, it allows in-house projects to be tested on an in-house platform to prevent snafus on release.
Well, whatever others said.I will keep using the browser that suitable for me. I'm now using Avant browser. it's not a famous browsed but I have less problem when using it.
This could probably benefit Microsoft in term of search engine and advertising market. I think Microsoft could probably think of having Firefox as replacement to IE since with the low market of IE.
I still prefer Firefox over Chrome for many reasons, though I think the primary reason is Pentadactyl.
Hell is other people - Jean-Paul Sartre
Embrace and Destroy
See subject-line above: Below next proves my point on your "attacks" on myself (& yes, it was an attack this time also, period, AND it's not a "1st" from you).
Case in point/e.g. -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2510534&cid=37959026
(Especially your last line about "pre-teen styled rants" there)
Where I was showing folks how to remove DUQU (or other rootkits that use "blended threat tech" (combinations of drivers &/or bootsectors)) and all you had there by comparison? "Bragging on yourself", on how you've run NT since 3.1 betas (Big deal, so did I).
So please - DO NOT TRY TO COME OFF AS "INNOCENT" HERE...
---
"I never post as AC, so can disclaim responsibility for any of the other "attacks"" - by The Askylist (2488908) on Monday December 05, @11:08PM (#38276232)
I don't believe you, especially because of the above...
---
"but I notice that you have learned not to use all capitals" - by The Askylist (2488908) on Monday December 05, @11:08PM (#38276232)
I never use "all capitals" (but I do stress things using caps), so you're once again, FULL OF IT!
---
"I'm pretty sure that Outlook etc, don't have Noscript, but they do (last time I had to deal with them at least) have options to not display unwanted content." - by The Askylist (2488908) on Monday December 05, @11:08PM (#38276232)
---
"Mind you, the topic is Firefox" - by The Askylist (2488908) on Monday December 05, @11:08PM (#38276232)
I noted it in my initial replies (WaterFox especially)... did you in your 1st reply to me here?
(Once more - don't try to make ME appear off topic when in fact you are straying from it, noting NoScript (which I use myself with Waterfox & noted it in my replies here)).
---
"I'm pretty sure that Outlook etc, don't have Noscript, but they do (last time I had to deal with them at least) have options to not display unwanted content." - by The Askylist (2488908) on Monday December 05, @11:08PM (#38276232)
NoScript doesn't stop a user from clicking on or copy/pasting a link from an email to say, an KNOWN bogus malware/trojan serving site & downloading + installing said malware - HOSTS files can (protecting a user).
---
"NoScript does in fact block everything apart from what I choose to allow through, and allows finer-grained control than a simple black-holing of particular hosts / domains.." - by The Askylist (2488908) on Monday December 05, @11:08PM (#38276232)
NoScript doesn't block out ENTIRE domains that are known to be bogus, and on that very note, it doesn't stop a user from downloading & installing anything from it (ala a malware/trojan etc.).
NoScript doesn't speed up a user the same way HOSTS can via "hardcodes" of IP-Address-to-hosts/domain names.
NoScript doesn't work on email clients & other webbound programs, only the browser it's made for (HOSTS do).
---
* Better luck next time, you'll need it - you don't possess the intellect OR experience in this art & science of computing (or the accomplishments over time I have in it I strongly wager) to even ATTEMPT to "get the best of me".... period.
APK
P.S.=>
"You must admit that you come across as one who likes to blow his own trumpet, though, so don't be surprised when people come along and wind you up." - by The Askylist (2488908) on Monday December 05, @11:08PM (#38276232)
When I am attacked (as you have done to myself here now), especially off-topic & in illogical adhominem attacks? I merely defend myself, with facts!
(Sometimes those are facts of things I have done, which
"You know, people don't "rib on you" because you're a digital ninja warrior fighting the whole internet because they're all malware writers and ad revenue farming webmasters, they rib on you because you're wrong." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06, @05:46AM (#38277912)
See my subject-line above, & this link (my 1st reply here) -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2559120&cid=38268580
My init. post here was up to +5, that is, until this a.m. AFTER your ac replies!
(See, anyone can downrate via their reg'd account here, then logout to preserve cookie state, & then troll as "AC" as you are now - no big trick, but I wager you *think* you're "clever" doing it... I've caught others literally pulling it here, & later even admitting it no less!).
Lastly on this note per the quote from yourself above - I never thought of myself as a "digital ninja" (or whatever, lol), but it's odd you seem to be "projecting" that you DO think of myself that way... lol!
---
"The best ones though are where people are taking the piss out of you and you don't even notice it because you're actually that dumb. - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06, @05:46AM (#38277912)
Show us where ANYONE has gotten the best of myself on this website on technical information, ok? I'd like to see that which you speak of... lol, you'll NEVER find it, as it's never once happened in 7++ yrs. here!
Also - The day you can show you've done more than I have, earlier & more times, plus to better note in respected publications like Windows IT Pro magazine, tech trade shows like MS-TechEd 2000-2002 (where my work placed as a finalist in its hardest category, SQLServer Performance Enhancement), OR commercially sold software code to YOUR credit & more?
That's the day you can talk to me that way... until then? LMAO!
---
"Oh, and the way you reply to your detractors with random bold and capital letters stating your credentials from people no one has heard of or cares about - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06, @05:46AM (#38277912)
Again, things I've done that a "ne'er-do-well" ac troll like yourself never will, and yet you see fit to use your off topic illogical adhominem attacks, literally calling me DUMB as quoted above?
Once more - LMAO!
(Seeing as all you have is "off topic grammar/spelling/writing style" b.s.? That tops that which I said off perfectly as well!)
---
"and quotes from magazines that briefly mentioned you but are also about as worthless as a mouldy sock because the only people who read such magazines are inept monkeys who only just bought their first computer. - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06, @05:46AM (#38277912)
Once more, the things I've accomplished that you've obviously NEVER done, never have or will? Please... lol!
(Windows IT Pro magazine's not for "inept monkeys" by the by, & I've done well enough to be part of wares that made its pages & reviewed pretty well (& it's only a TINY FRACTION of what I could use as an example thereof!)
As-per-my-usual, I have to ask this: Have you done the same, or better, & earlier + more times over 15++ yrs. that I have?
No I strongly wager!
(Because I have YET to see credits given to "AC" on those grounds in such publications (books, magazines, newspapers, & more)).
---
"If you get really wound up you talk about people getting a degree which is even more amusing seeing as you got a non-degree from a non-university that again, no one cares about. Yeah, all that's pretty great too. - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06, @05:46AM (#38277912)
I received a degree from a HIGHLY ESTEEMED school, and ano
To change HOSTS' file content? Use notepad.exe (or other text editor), CTRL+F (find function usually in most of them) & then edit out what you don't want blocked... pretty simple!
ALSO & IMPORTANT:
Most sites do NOT serve up their own adbanner content - they'd be able to "cheat" or lie on hit counts too easily & advertisers KNOW that much, hence WHY adbanners are served from content servers hosted by said advertisers or their hosting sites servers they pay for...
"Here endeth the lesson"...
APK
P.S.=> Hosts files are not "hidden" & they're widely known (well, for anyone that has a decent amount of TCP/IP stack know-how that is on most any OS that uses a BSD derived IP stack, & most do)...
They're VERY versatile for speed, security, & even blowing past "ad sponsored" wares banners as well as I did with Opera in years past when it was NOT free (as I have just illustrated easily)...
... apk
In "the 'Big 3'" per my subject-line above: Pretty simple! All your offtopic illogical adhominem attack attempts here & in other trolling replies directed my way in this thread?
Useless & effete, as-per-your-usual, all through this thread trolling myself via AC posts (you have, NO balls, & your ac posts with no indicator of who you are, proves that much for me, easily, as well)...
* BETTER LUCK NEXT TIME, you'll need it
(I would have thought you would have known what's in my subject-line above, but alas? Apparently not... lol, I shouldn't expect so much from ac trolls like yourself, eh??)
APK
P.S.=> I, however, DO count Opera, Chrome & FireFox variants as in "the 'Big 3'", because they are excellent & yes, imo, overall BETTER than IE is in any of its currently widely used versions...
Yes - Marketshare-wise, IE may be "up there" but that's simply because most folks think of "the big blue E" icon as "the interenet" & because it comes with their OS in Windows (the most widely used OS on PC's &/or Servers combined there is on the biggest hardware platform used worldwide for the same: Windows) - it's going to have large usershare because of that alone...
... apk
Is there a hosts file to block APK spam posts?
I'm pretty sure there is a firefox extension for that by now
:
On the other hand we desperately tried to have him add
0.0.0.0 slashdot.org
to its hostfile, but to no effect until now
Keep up that Awesomeness of yours Peter !
--
On the Internet they call us "the ones that kicked APK's ass"
100$ millions, almost Nautilus grade on this shit.
"Actually it happens every time you make a post, but you're so incapable of seeing anyone elses opinion but your own that you don't even realise that you're wrong about nearly everything, and that the whole of Slashdot is laughing at you." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06, @08:27AM (#38278748)
FUNNY - YOU CANNOT PRODUCE ONE, lol, though!
So, as you can see, because of that? I am laughing @ you... easily.
(You "talk a big game" but you cannot produce squat to your credit, ala next below):
---
"Yes actually, I'm head of software development at a fortune 500 company and I'm not even 30 yet." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06, @08:27AM (#38278748)
LMAO - I was working in Fortune 500 companies @ the age of 25-26 DECADES AGO (doubtless while YOU were still in diapers I wager)...
So, your point is what here?
See, I could SAY what you do, but then unlike yourself? I tend to prove things with concrete, verifiable, & reputable information as to things I've done in computing...
Now - Were I to use "your methods"? LMAO - I could say I am President Obama or Bill Gates too, but I don't (unlike yourself, lol, unable to back up/prove ANYTHING you state about yourself).
---
"Yes, I graduated with a 1st class Honours in Computer Science at Cambridge, England." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06, @08:27AM (#38278748)
Yes, & I have SEEN what your "A levels" require over there in the UK, & what you're taught there too:
http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=%22A+levels%22+and+%22computing%22&btnG=Search&gbv=1&sei=Xh_eTvjBLeLd0QHBp-21Bw
OR
http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=%22A+levels%22+site:theregister.co.uk&gbv=1&sei=oyDeTonSHojq0gG_tKSTBw
LMAO (Word, Excel etc.) for Computer Science oriented education... truthfully?
THAT is truly, laughable.
Here in the states they call that "office tech"!
( & it's under BUSINESS related educational acumen course tracks by comparison usually).
---
"Sometimes APK, there are bigger fish in the sea." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06, @08:27AM (#38278748)
Of which, lmao, YOU are clearly not! Otherwise you could actually POST some proofs to the contrary to my statements in that regards about yourself.
Plus?
Well.. & I freely acknowledge that, & even CREDIT those that have done well in the art & sciences of computing, unlike yourself obviously (from this week no less, here):
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2556266&cid=38265686
Animats DESERVES it...
See, unlike YOU & "your kind online", Mr. AC "ne'er-do-well" troll?
He can "back up his bluster" with proofs (he's John Nagle, look that name up) - you, by way of comparison? LMAO, nothing/zero/nada/squat.
Again - You're a LOT OF TALK, no action (provable action that is): An "armchair QB" who talks a lot but cannot back up his b.s., especially when asked to!
---
"and trying to flaunt your claims of how amazing you are will only make you look more stupid, as you end up trying to flaunt them to someone who genuinely is just that much more accomplished than you. In this case, you have done exactly that." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesd
With you now posting as "AC" to try to "defend yourself" now & appear to have "supporters", Askylist?
"Keep up that Awesomeness of yours Peter !" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06, @08:46AM (#38278882)
Oh, vs. "your kind", mere "ne'er-do-well" off topic ac adhominem attack utilizing trolls on forums? Absolutely.
Yes - It's always EZ to "blow away" your kind, with facts... Especially ones you CANNOT disprove or defeat with contrary facts from reputable sources.
Please... lmao - who are you trying to fool? Yourself??
Clue/New NEWS/NewsFlash: You're not fooling anyone else with that "trollish tactic" ontop of all of your others... lol!
APK
P.S.=> You & your "kind" online? You only make it "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'" for me to get the better of you & your kind online, everytime, as-is-per-my-usual... lol!
... apk
"APK's monolithic hosts file is looking pretty good at the moment." - by Culture20 (968837) on Thursday November 17, @10:08AM (#38085666)
Sarcastic post modded "+1 Funny" ...
Funny I ask others to disprove facts I post on HOSTS files can't, every time, lol (same there too)!
Facts that show HOSTS files benefit users via better "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth" online, more "bang for their buck" in bandwidth + speed gains for websurfing, anonymity even, PLUS MORE...
* All you have, by way of comparison? Mere off-topic illogical attempts @ adhominem attacks on myself
Attempting to "discredit" or "mock me" to no avail (because it's illogical in debate), rather than you disproving facts I post which are backed by others of decent repute in this field, & documented facts (& even findings other /.'ers have found as good gains via HOSTS files usage).
APK
P.S.=> In fact, now? Heh: Now??
Well - Then, I'll ask YOU to do the same, vs. the documented, concrete, & verifiable facts I posted here in THIS thread regarding HOSTS files benefits for speed, security, & more (even anonymity to a degree) here:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2559120&cid=38269430
Via the post of mine you replied to, to which ALL YOU HAVE, laughably, is your further off topic b.s. here & in your other replies (done via AC trolling replies no less + off topic as usual, replete with adhominem attack attempts, vs. facts)... pitiful!
Thank you though - why?
Well, for making me LOOK GOOD!
(By proving all you have is your off-topic b.s. in effete "retaliation" (along with downmods that are technically unjustified & that do NOT DISPROVE that which I wrote either, most of all))!
... apk
LOL, doesn't mean I believe him: I want proof... he has zero to that effect. However, fact remains, even YOU know I work(ed) for Fortune 100's or I did contracting...
Still - all he says (it's you just posting again is all, you fool no one here)? HEY - he's got NO PROOF either as usual!
Especially to his 'statements' (see my subject-line above) bragging he's a "lead developer etc. @ a large company" etc./et al.
E.G./I.E.-> Again - I could say I am Bill Gates too, online, but I don't (unlike the ac trolls here, yourself included).
---
Now, as to your usual b.s. regarding Jeremy Reimer & Thor SCHMUCK, here is my std. reply disproving your b.s. troll:
"THOR SCHMUCK"? LMAO, he refused to answer my points there when I replied (on PING.EXE, SPYBOT SEARCH & DESTROY, which violate CA's 21 point test via ping of death or altering HOSTS files, & MORE) on his own website... made him look QUITE poorly, easily. With facts, as is my usual style.
Also, my single app (of 40 freeware/sharewares I did years ago, some ending up as commercially sold products or code in them) was lowered to ZERO THREAT LEVELS after I passed all 21 questions for that @ CA no less!
Heck - that SINGLE APP of 40 or so I have written online to date?
It's NOT EVEN SCRIPTABLE FOR ATTACK - whereas by way of comparison? Others are creating apps like it also, in 64 bit no less, per this example thereof:
http://www.start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2254:hidden-start-run-apps-in-the-background&catid=70:64bit-process-management&Itemid=136
That one is though...
Does CA list it? Oh, wait a second - CA had to SELL OFF THEIR PC TOOLS DIVISION (it sucked is why, lol):
http://www.updatapartners.com/news/151/Updata-Partners-to-Acquire-CA-Technologies-Internet-Security-Business-Unit-/
Thor SCHMUCK (degreeless wannabe that he is in the computer sciences) is, afaik, the one that submitted my app to CA as a malware!
(It was not intended by myself for that kind of use, I wrote it in good faith for a forums guy that wanted a way to launch OLD Apache server for Windows like a service, invisibly, & since that's only 1-2 lines of code to do? I did! It's not scriptable for attack though, period (no argc/argv code in it is why)).
CA, now there's a story. Ask Computer Associates about their being caught in a millions of dollars financial/accounting scam, here:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/215116/computer_associates_cofounder_led_22.html
Real reputable company, eh?
In fact, I passed every single one of the 21 questions for removal of my ware from their site, & all they ended up doing was lowering it down to a "zero threat level"...
I'm not too concerned about it, because they also do it to others (along with other Antivirus/Antispyware companies, and we all know how "effective" those are, especially lately vs. today's "blended threats").
In fact? I am actually in GOOD COMPANY on that account as others have had it happen to they as well!
Ask Dr. Mark Russinovich of Microsoft or Nir Softer of NIRSOFT if they've ever had their numerous apps libeled along with themselves in the same manner... (answer = they have, so I suppose I am in "good company" here, eh?)
Thor Schrock, lol, another "credible expert" (NOT): That guy doesn't even have a CSC degree or even a single A+ type certification to his name.
All I can say to and about Thor SCHMUCK, is this: GOD BLESS TY TYMKOVICH (LOL, run that by him, it ought
whoever ur u better stop impersonating me. I'm APK and I won't let wannabe troll like you ruin my reputation on the Internet as per your post above
... apk
APK
P.S.=> and stop saying that you send law enforcement to Jeremy, he and I are good buddy now and he's gonna thing I did it
You make me laugh & I can show you're attempting off topic attacks using illogical adhominem methods on myself, rather than points/facts I post?
Can't you even stay "on topic"? Apparently not!
* LOL, & please: TRY to stay "on topic", won't you, troll, for the sake of others here @ least?
(Have some manners @ least, & follow "std. etiquette online in forums" in that fashion... Thank you!)
Now on getting "wound up", lol? PLEASE... FAR from it here, more amused really!
Why/How? Well, because "winding up trolls", those CLEARLY like yourself here now, off topic & all, is just (ah, I just GOTTA say it, as-is-per-my-usual-style) "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'" as always...
Note, I don't start it (I never really do) - I just finish it!
I do so by showing that "your kind online" always resorts to off-topic illogical adhominem attacks, vs. disproving facts/points I post (which are typically unassailable because they're fact or backed by technical proofs).
APK
P.S.=> I don't troll others, but when I do "retroll" them (or rather ask my "naysayers" to disprove my points I post which are usually backed by reputable sources or facts)?
They, like yourself now, all are left with off topic illogical adhominem attacks - just as you seem to be
... apk
Sell the private jet. That should fund mozilla for awhile. The CEO actually bought a private jet.
I run an open source project on practically nothing... I don't see a problem here. Many developers work on it for free anyway. They just can't run new york times ads anymore. Then again, most people know what Firefox is now.
Is that more off topic b.s. I see from you once more? Absolutely!
APK
You're off topic, what is the point of answering a troll like you?
Anyhow I will disprove your bullshit easily:
"we have absolutely no proof that you actually are who you say you are, nothing, nuts, only hearsay (heck, we don't even have proof that the real-life APK did graduate college)" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06, @11:05AM (#38280644)
http://www.lemoynedolphins.com/sports/mlax/history/mlaxletterwinners
I graduated there in 1989 with a Bachelor's of Science degree (concentrating in MIS in fact)...
APK
P.S.=> Later you fool... apk
Mozilla's sites are still badly broken. See status here.
lol you just got so trolled... as I gotta say "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'"
APK
Chrome is good but in some ways still a joke. e.g. It still doesn't support resuming downloads. That's right. And the devs just make excuses, while they make important stuff work--you know, stuff like WebGL, or YetAnotherJavaScriptEngine, or ruining the preferences dialogs. They have their priorities messed up.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
From highschool in NY State (one of the best schools ispecifically in NY State too, where the best schools are, the Northeast USA) & also graduated Bachelors of Science MIS concentration in 1989 @ LeMoyne College per my last post (& was a letterwinner for Lacrosse in 1985 here http://www.lemoynedolphins.com/sports/mlax/history/mlaxletterwinners per my last post as well.. ) & I later earned another AAS for CSC too!
While also not only playing, but starting 1st string 2 yrs. in a row (before I was injured) in sports for an NCAA power in Lacrosse (brutal sport, one the NFL's great Jim Brown even preferred no less) as well WHILE doing it, & that team's been a national OR division champ for decades too!
APK
P.S.=> As the saying goes? U FAIL as per your usual, badly, vs. myself... apk
Like you impersonated me earlier here in this thread http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2559120&cid=38279918 ?
* Weak, troll, weak... you're not even good @ trolling!
APK
P.S.=> Utterly pitiful in you having to resort to trying to impersonate me, not just once, but twice... lol!
... apk
Nice trick, it's not funny
I bet you don't even have a DEGREE loser. lol... pathetic.
APK
P.S.=> People like you are just angry malware writers as usual adhominem attacks lol!
...apk
So let me get this straight, you graduated at a college that's not even in the top 500 world university rankings, yet just now you were slagging someone off because they got their degree from Cambridge, currently ranked as the number one university in the entire world?
All this time you've been talking about how awesome your degree is and how others aren't graduates yet your degree is from last ditch college that no one cares about?
You've basically just admitted you're a failure in life if the best you managed to attend was some down and out college most people have never even heard of.
Really, leave IT discussion to the MIT, Cambridge, Harvard, Berkely, etc. grads. There's no room for down and out losers like you whose achievements are something of a joke in this field.
lol, come back when you've regraduated from a proper university, one that matters and that people have actually heard of.
Let's see some proof about Cambridge and your attending it.
Let's also see proof of you accomplishing ANYTHING that was decently noted/good/great etc.- et al in publications around the field of computing as well AND that you did it more times, earlier, & better than I have (which is numerous).
APK
P.S.=> You'll never produce proofs of either, on either account, and we ALL know it, lol... apk
Grow up - Your attempts @ impersonating me only makes me laugh @ you all the more... & also realize you're a juvenile immature "ne'er-do-well" as well.
APK
P.S.=> Obviously, You're just another "anonymous coward troll" & nothing more - and you know it, because the rest of us reading here do (it must be terrible to be such a waste of life, as you are)...
... apk
When you're asked the same things you ask of others, you RUN (like the coward you truly are).
* Guess what your doing that does? ANSWER = It only proves you're full of it, & a blatant liar.
APK
P.S.=> You're PITIFULLY easy to "maneuver" into your "std. evasions" every damned time you try this crap on myself... simply because I know you're full of it (and even IF you went to said U, you've still just proved you're a waste of time & SOMEONE'S MONEY, because you haven't managed to do a DAMN THING with time spent there (which I severely doubt @ this point you have @ all))...
... apk
I know that Google and MS are worlds apart in terms of ethics. But no matter how good Google promises to be, having a single point of search/failure/innovation/you-name-it for the internet is not great. I doubt Firefox changes to Bing, but I understand why they are testing the waters, and why someone at Mozilla could think that maybe Google shouldn't be their default engine.
The best solution would obviously be an entirely free software search engine, but I'm not familiar with one, so looking at commercial alternatives to Google makes sense.
My Dearest Peter,
... must ... be ... kidding
... :-D
would you be kind enough to notice that there are (at the very least) 3 different ACs (+ yours truly) answering you in this very thread and that apparently you're confusing everyone (yourself posting AC doesn't help).
This said, I agree with the other, you barely graduated with a BSc in an unheard-of college and you're on a website that you know is full of Masters and PhD in Computer Science. And still you're claiming that we should all shut the fuck up ? you
I'm laughing so much now that it almost hurts
Now they'll be forced to trim the fat in the budget. They can start by firing anyone who even thinks about trying to muck with the UI.
Obviously You don't possess degrees or notable achievements in computing of any kind. You're obviously all the same anonymous coward in each reply stalking myself as well here, so who're you trying to fool? Yourself??
APK
P.S.=> It's always quite simple to just use reverse psychology on you, by asking you to prove what you have asked of myself (which I have on academia & achievements in computer sciences of which I have some, you do not): The same result is this, everytime you stalk me around /. & do this, & it always has you "running away" & evading answering questions you ask of myself - & it makes me laugh, everytime... lmao Thank-you!
... apk
Hi Oaktree, forget to take your meda AGAIN huh? well you know they say they won't work unless you take them every day! I hate to break the news to ya pal but I wouldn't know how to code in Delphi if you stuck a gun to my head, the last time i personally coded was when words like PEEK and POKE were still considered cutting edge programming skills.
Oh and I think its fricking hilarious that you think APK is me considering me and him still can't agree on shit as i STILL think a recursive DNS server is a better route than a HOSTS file. But once in a while he points me to one of your posts for shits and giggle so I can laugh and fart in your general direction.
Give it up dude, your OS is a corpse, its disco stu, its going on the cart whether it feels happy or not. hell even Asus that started the netbook craze with Linux won't even touch the shit anymore and you know why? because it sucks, its unstable, linus keeps going Goatse on the kernel, and finally too many frankly batshit users like you will take a cock slapping from the developers and come back and ask for more. if it were a company it would have been chapter 11 by now. MSFT sells more copies in a week than you get users in a year just because THEY LISTEN TO THE CUSTOMER while your kind jerks off to a bash script and wonders why the public can't see how "leet" a 70s terminal throwback is. Give it the fuck up and stay down, it isn't even enjoyable kicking you around anymore. Its like kicking a retard, it isn't even entertainment.
Now you be sure to rush to log out so you can write 'die you fat fucker" again like i give a flying fuck. I'm up to my ass in work, so much so that my GF who is coming down to rock my world (ever had one? Sex is great, especially with a girl that loves to play...of course you wouldn't know about that) is gonna be surprised with a brand new custom built quad by yours truly, sweet little machine if i do say so myself, the kids got more games than they can count (ever try them...no that's right all you have is tux racer...sorry) and even after buying everyone a nice Xmas this PC guy had enough left to talk Santa into bringing him a Thuban.
So please take your meds, eat some fiber, quit using dead OSes, and try getting laid occasionally. And allow me to say my crazy paranoid loser friend "I wish you a merry Thuban and a happy six coreee!". Man its so nice to be me, i just wake up in the morning smiling, of course the money and great sex might have something to do with it, but who am i to complain? But if you want to know who APK is he sure as hell ain't me, look up his history on CNet as he lurked there for years. From what i understand he's a programmer that has made a decent amount on the shareware, whereas the closest i got to writing a program with a GUI was a VB frontend to a DB back 10 years ago. I wouldn't exactly call that programming and I sure as hell didn't try selling it.
so guess again nutjob, who knows....maybe i'm in your area, maybe even on your street, do you know the guy behind you at the bank? might want to keep an eye on him, I'll be sure to smile at you to let you know its me...boo!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Don't you realize that? Here, take a read on that account http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=%22recursive+DNS%22+and+%22security%22&btnG=Search&gbv=1&sei=ZL3gTqbgB6n20gGPqt2tBw
* Take a few reads there from the link above - & "Read 'em & Weep"...
(So much for your "point-of-view", because it's been the bane of DNS for YEARS now... especially for security!)
APK
P.S.=> Your hand != GF either... lol!
... apk
IF it's oakgrove doing this? He's twisted, & tends not to stop! I replied to what I thought was oakgrove trolling myself as ac again here http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2559120&cid=38302124 & didn't realize it was you. Apologies in order from myself to you then.
APK
P.S.=> There I put down things about DNS in recursive mode that cause it problems security-wise, but, it wasn't to continue our differences on HOSTS vs. DNS, but, rather more to "get a rise" outta oakgrove (if it's he doing this) again (for his trolling myself here repeatedly/non-stop)!
Man - I didn't read that you put down YOUR name, as I haven't had my a.m. coffee yet, my bad, & I figured it was oakgrove again is all, posting ac/trolling more (sorry)...
... apk
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2559120&cid=38302286
1st: Sorry again man, lol... It's just that this ac troll really "gets me going" & you didn't post right off where I notified you of this (where ac troll *thinks* you & I are the same guy!) & I hadn't had my precious 2 cups of "a.m. coffee'" yet (taking day off before I go thru code inspection for new rental this week, having to finish off 220 wiring for a new electric stove I put in & getting tenants new fridge (the last tenant, yes another bogus set, but I caught & stopped them via eviction, yes, again, & within 3 months this time (judge evicted them 72 hours notice, very fast, because of "no pay = no stay" rules)).
ON DNS SERVERS:
Hey, I use them myself, see here (did a "big rundown" to Animats/John Nagle, a person of some "note" in things IP around this website, today -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2564512&cid=38306154 )
I just don't setup local ones (to me, especially me? I really should, for "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth" which I constantly "preach" here as you know)... I don't want to waste the electricity running a separate server for them primarily, OR, the extra CPU cycles/RAM/Other forms of I/O they use up is all (if done from my workstation here I use, only single PC here @ home now is why - mainly for POWER bill & keeping it down low as possible!).
Ok, quoting you point-bypoint:
"What those links describe is basically a "who watches the watchers?" problem and i think i've got that licked friend, i have the firewall set up so that me and ONLY me has access to the DNS and the server itself uses 3 different root zones and caches the links I use ONLY if they match. so basically to poison the DNS well they'd have to poison 3 root zones at the same time and if they do that? Well pretty much ALL DNS is royally fucked and nobody is gonna be going anywhere." - by hairyfeet (841228) on Thursday December 08, @02:29PM (#38306502)
Yes, THAT'd be the "way" to do it as right as possible (by validating in recursive mode vs. the root DNS servers), to beat any "redirect/poisoning" done to subordinate servers IF you set yourself up as "recursive mode" for a locally run DNS server inside your home OR work network/LAN/WAN.
(You know what you're doing, I'll give you that... but, don't fail to remember WHY I don't use a local DNS per the above, & if I had more ca$h for electricity? I'd set one up JUST as you have it, in addition to all of the other "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth" stuff I know that YOU KNOW I do here!)
---
"If I had the time to write custom HOSTS files for each client? hell it would probably work great" - by hairyfeet (841228) on Thursday December 08, @02:29PM (#38306502)
That's just it: I've stated this to you before, but you may have missed it - I've had this automated since 2002, 1st in a Delphi program for FULL automation, & currently I use a PyThon system for it, it's more "multiplatform" & 64-bit too if I wish, which is what I use in fact (I used Access to do deduplication/normalization of entries before that) for remote fetch of HOSTS file data from currently 20++ sources for it (some are DNSBL's I convert in fact)).
No time wasted here on it really, as it's working here "automagically", every 15 minutes, updating from those 20++ reputable sources, & from a PRISTINE temp/scratch copy of the original (& the original's protected via Read-Only & System ADMIN ACL only, until I alter it for updates) - that way, even IF an "interloper/invader" were to mess w/ my original copy of my HOSTS file (redirected from "stock oem location" too, via reghack of DataBasePath in TCP/IP Parms)? It'd just "set itself right again", on updates.
Very painless... lol, @ least at THIS point in time here (it wasn't circa 1997-2002, when more lists of their data started appearing & around 2004, it even became T