Slashdot Mirror
Free Apps Eat Your Smartphone Battery
judgecorp writes "Here's a reason to pay for smartphone apps: the free versions can spend three times as much energy finding and serving ads as they do serving their actual purpose. Research from a Purdue University scientist found that as much as 75 percent of the energy used by free apps (PDF) goes on accessing location services, finding suitable advertisements and displaying them."
The custom firmware I use on my Android smartphone redirects all ad domains to 127.0.0.1, so no ads for me.
Ads Eat Your Smartphone Battery
Nothing is "Free" someone has to pay for the development, and any ongoing services... Anyone who thought "Free" apps were produced via goodwill (even Cydia apps serve ads) is just Naive.
There Can Be Only One...
Android + AdAway (free, in the market) on a rooted device == no ads. It also mitigates the security risks associated with third party ads.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
Between not watching TV, having AdBlock on computers and AdFree on my phone, I can't remember the last time I saw one.
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
You mean a extra program running to fetch ads over the internet takes more battery?!?
Oh my, it's such a big surprise!!!
Next you're going to tell me that turning up the brightness to max takes up more battery too!
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
App developers for iPhones and Android devices want to be paid for the work they do. Some of those developers release 2 versions of their apps: ones with ads for free, and another that costs money with no ads. Most people tend to vote for the "ads" version because it seems free to them.
If this article is right, it may be work paying for those $0.99 apps as it will save you money in electricity and time/announces.
Its not what it is, its something else.
Root it, use a ad blocker & block em.
Apps eat your smartphone battery.
And.. Who knew? We all thought it was the multicore faries.
Deleted
> "Here's a reason to pay for smartphone apps"
"Pay up or else!"
Not gonna happen.
As an app developer and heartless cynic, I'd say if the ads make up 3/4 of the power budget, that sounds like a really stupid and useless app. If it's not busy presenting content, calculating something, or entertaining the user, then it's a total waste of CPU not even worth the ad pennies.
There are so many moronic apps out there, designed with the sole purpose of duping the user and profiting the developer. Humanity is wasting countless man-millenia defrauding each other via these gadgets, thanks to undiscerning advertisers and the plague that is in-app purchasing. If you want to save energy, start by raising the standards for mobile apps a little higher than "paid the developer signup fee".
-Billco, Fnarg.com
All of the GPL'ed software I downloaded are finding and serving ads to me!
Oh, wait. No they're not.
You could just purchase ONE application that manages all of this for you. Besides, I don't generally make it a habit of using applications that request location services yet don't seem to have a reason to do so. Oh right, you use an iPhone and you can't see those permissions before you download. Sorry.
There are free apps without ads and there are paid for apps with ads. Title should be that ads eat up battery life, which is kind of a no brainer.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Why not run a daemon that buffers the ads in the background for all apps while there is a wifi connection?
Free Apps Eat Your Android Smartphone's Battery
Use free software, don't support them by "seeing ads", support them with direct donations.
That should really read "Adware drains your battery" which is not only more accurate, but makes the article both banal as well as un-surprising.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
adblocker does this for you - as long as you have root, no need for custom firmware
I rarely shill for a product but if you have an Android phone with a less-than-optimal battery (like me), JuiceDefender does wonders. It turns off your phone's wi-fi and data connections (except for situations you configure like a streaming radio app is open) when your screen is off, turning them back on every X minutes so apps like email an sync on a reasonable schedule while not killing your battery. This by itself can save a huge amount of battery life (though it can do a lot more).
By its own calculations (which I of course take with a grain of salt) it has more than doubled my effective battery life, and I would guess from practical use that it's nearly correct.
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
nt
If those apps are free, just write a patch and recompile. *ducks*
Ezekiel 23:20
At least not for me. My phone is an HTC HD2 running Windows Mobile 6.5. I can't find any apps for it. I was going to put Angry Birds on it because everyone keeps talking about it, but I don't think it's available. At least I couldn't find it in the two minutes I spent looking for it. Other than that, it already does everything I need it to.
For small smart phone apps that are easy to use you have a few business models to help pay for your time.
1. Charge for the app. Because it cost money a lot of people will not want to pay for it even though they wast more money a day on coffee, as there is a risk involved making the choice for the app... And for those early iPod owners they realize a dollar per song/app adds up overtime if you are not careful.
2. Free App with adds. Basically give the app for free as a something useful enough for them to tolerate getting adds.
3. Free App to Sell your Charge for App. You get the free version you like it. Then you can either get the Full paid version or pay for upgrades.
4. Free App to augment your existing app. You have an other product line (Say for PC/Cloud) and you get a free app to help sell/keep customers on your wider product.
Right now the idea of making an App and charge for support isn't viable. Because the apps need to be easy enough to use that you really don't need to charge for support, or they just wont get it. If they are that tough then they will probably be part of #4.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Use "AdAway" by Dominik Schurmann. Free in Google Market.
Also you could run "DroidWall" which allows you to white list what apps may connect to the web.
Since everyone else is mentioning their custom ROMs I'm running Blu Kuban on a Sumsung Galaxy S2 (Sprint Epic Touch version)
It talks over 3G and retrieves ads for display on the Homepage and screen saver. I never thought about how much battery power that would drain. (Of course it lasts over month so not really an issue I guess?)
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
And therein lies the reason why Techweek only studied WP7 and Android. Anyone with an i* would think "omg these ads have been blessed, so they take no power".
If you calculate the actual energy requirements of the ad serving functions on the average users phone over the lifespan of said phone, I'm reasonably, almost 53% sure that the cost of that energy probably doesn't add up to a single purchase of the I Am Rich app.
Hmm, is it just coincidence, that Microsoft servers provide the study or is it just another method to disguise the differences between different license and business models?
The solution here is to ensure that the app store shows the funding model of the app to the user before installation.
Personally, I *really* object to adverts on my phone: it's my personal space, my privacy, and screen/bandwidth/battery are far too limited to waste.
We should be able to filter the app funding model. For example, when given 50 different apps that do basically the same thing, I'd consider:
[Best] ; F0SS (GPL/BSD etc) ; Free beer, closed source without ads. ; Paid ; Advert funded ; Demo ; Broken ; [Worst]
I filed a bug on this with google, but it was wontfixed.
What's really annoying is that some decent apps only exist in a free version with ads, and don't even have an option to get a paid, ad-free version.
I chose to throw money at the problem. A new 3500 mAh battery solved all tedious "smartphone" battery problems. If you've got an iPhone.... ;( Yes, my phone is fat now, but it's also Phat
turn off Location Services. Plus, I don't like the my phone keeping tabs on my every movement giving that data to who-knows-who.
No sig for you! Come back one year!
Some apps are produced by spreading development costs across many organizations. Instead of maximizing profit, the business motivation is to reduce development costs. To ensure everyone's right to the final product, these programs exist under code "liberating" licenses. Open source software is truly free (as in freedom).
GPLed code is liberated from the shackles of corporations and individuals who want to incorporate it into their products, while preventing downstream users from enjoying the same freedom.
BSDed code conveys less freedom to the code in exchange for more freedom for the users. But it is still open source. There are many licensing schemes and paths that have led to the creation of very successful free software.
The problem lies with those that are looking for "free" (as in beer) software. This whole post is really referring to abandonware, adware, baitware, bloatware, censorware, demoware, donationware, malware, postcardware, shareware, and trialware. All of this software is proprietary, and as such does the bidding of the software author rather than the user.
Jailbroken and custom hosts file makes them not serve any ads. I did not agree to pay for airtime for the ad's, so Until they pay for my data plan, I'm doing what I can to block ad's on my phone.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
And they are not Free: merely gratis.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
if many of the paid apps didn't also serve up ads as well
you thing that is bad try roaming with them and your data bill can be X50-X100+ time the cost of buying the app.
As a developer of entirely free Android applications (free as in "beer" and in "free of ads"), I take offense at the overgeneralization of the article to "Free Applications". If you are not a careful reader, this may lead you to think that ALL free apps are full of ads AND power eaters.
A lot of "free" apps don't have ads and don't use more power than any other app. Many behave actually way better than paid ones.
Stupid article is stupid.
I refuse to use any app that turns my phone into a billboard. I don't care what the app is or how useful, how essential it might be to me. The very instance it shows an ad to me, I immediately delete it and never look back. I don't wanna bother with rooting the phone or installing some ad block app. If it makes use of ads, it's garbage...period. And I won't have garbage on my phone....not for any app, not for any reason.
First of all, not all free apps are adware. That's because some app developers (myself included) write apps for the fun of it. Also another factor: commercial apps tend to display lots of glitzy colors, graphics and animation. Turned-off (black) pixels don't drain the battery. Don't get me wrong, I've seen free apps that light up the entire display too. Free or not, what matters is whether the developer is conscious of saving the battery when designing the app. As an example, I use an app called Easy Battery Saver on my Galaxy Nexus to monitor batter usage...It reports that my display accounts for about 30% of my total battery consumption.
In iOS you can disable Location-Based iAds in the Settings > Location Services > System Services page. In fact, I disabled everything in that page in my system because these hidden Location Services were eating my battery away.
I'd think advertisers indirectly pay the company for the free versions of their apps. Advertisers pay continually where as if you buy it its a one time fee. So I'd bet the advertisers make more money for the company than the sum of all the people that pay for it. Just a guess. Personally I don't mind a few ads. My battery needs a work out anyways I'm hardly pulling 70% off of it and even at that it seems a waist to plug it in at night. If I leave it unplugged for the night its down to 10% which is too low so its always a guess on what I should do. Hopefully it uses some smart management to evenly where out the cells on the battery. Eat at Joe's
The $0.99 doesn't include the cost of moving to a country where Google Checkout is available, I assume.
I set juice defender to disable connectivity when those apps at open. Problem solved.
What's the difference between "applications" and "apps"? The term "apps" as a slang abbreviation for "applications" predates iOS 2.
[Best] ; F0SS (GPL/BSD etc) ; Free beer, closed source without ads. ; Paid ; Advert funded
So how would one fund the development of, say, a video game that is either FOSS or "Free beer, closed source without ads"? There are a bunch of countries where Google Checkout doesn't work. The only applications that show up in Google Play (formerly Android Market) in these countries are the free ones. So to make applications available to the widest audience, developers have had to make them ad-supported instead of paid. This glut of ad-supported "free" apps has established a customary price point, which has reduced the demand for on Google Play even in countries where Google Checkout works. Thus a lot of developers skip "paid" and head straight to "advert funded".
What's really annoying is that some decent apps only exist in a free version with ads, and don't even have an option to get a paid, ad-free version.
Depending on the developer's country of residence, a paid version may not be possible.
HOW TO INSTALL A CUSTOM HOSTS FILE ON AN ANDROID SMARTPHONE:
DO THE FOLLOWING (after obtaining a good reputable solid HOSTS file, like mvps' -> http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm )
---
1.) Get ahold of the "Android Debugging Bridge" (ADB) & install it
2.) Mount your system mountpoint as READ + WRITE (as powerful of priveleges as you need is this)
3.) Using the PULL command, copy the file over from your PC (or even on your ANDROID if its there already) using PULL & overwrite the etc. folder's copy of HOSTS
---
* DONE! Yes, it's THAT simple... &, it works!
Then again, you KNOW that too, don't you, erroneOus (or, should I say Jorge Bastida)? Sure you do... & no 3rd party apps required @ all/whatsoever + completely free also since folks already have one on ANDROID smartphones (& others, I simply note android because last I knew of, it even surpassed iphones out there in terms of marketshare).
APK
P.S.=> You MIGHT have to run a Dos-2-Unix program over your custom HOSTS file, IF you didn't import one built for *NIX, but that's about it (since ANDROID is a Linux & thus, yes, a *NIX variant essentially)... apk
Crapdroids? Fanroids?
Well you're uhhh... ummm... an iPhonebot?
I'm sorry I'm terrible with these teenager-level wordplays.
Free software can be actually non-free and harmful, harming the reputation of actual free software, if the two are lumped together.
The test were done with Android and WP7. iPhone sure has the same problem, but please name the subjects to be non-biased.
Get my e-mail after a captcha test in: http://tinymailt
If the apps truly were free then battery depletion due to activity unrelated to the user's intended functionality of the program wouldn't be a problem; you (or someone else) would quickly get into the source code and remove the offending routines. The problem described in the summary occurs only with proprietary apps, whether or not you have to pay for them.
What, praytell, is the difference between using a defined function() call, vs a goto :function in a language that otherwise lacks function declaration?
For one thing, the syntactic sugar of a while loop allows the compiler to help the programmer verify some basic assertions about a program's behavior. For another, a function might be called in more than one place. If a language supports subroutines, the function can return to each caller. Is there an idiom in Windows batch files of passing some sort of return address to each "subroutine"?
I read this last night, and got a laugh. Neat idea, and some of the results are none too surprising, BUT what's the point in comparing Windows Mobile 6 to Android? Yes, old Windows Mobile phones sits largely un-used, because there's 17 apps available for them (I'm exaggerating, I owned many winmo phones between '00 and 06-07).
Seriously though, this is partially written by a Microsoft employee, and the paper essentially tears apart Android, and fails to make any points about any other mobile operating systems. Why write a paper about battery usage of third party apps and completely skip any mention of platform with the most successful app marketplace (ahem, iOS).
This smells like ridonkulous FUD, even if there's truth in the numbers.
Yes, I'm an anonymous coward, so what?
There are a couple of free^2 apps I like that prevent that battery loss crap.
1. Cyanogen. I can disallow the location services permissions. :)
2. AdFree. Words with Friends shows me a nice black screen with no ad and only the "return to game" button
First: 0.0.0.0 (like its 'short form', 0) has no "time out" period to wait out, like 127.0.0.1 does (loopback adapter address).
Second: 0.0.0.0 is also faster to parse up/out from a custom hosts file, since it is 2 characters per line smaller than 127.0.0.1 (and 0 does so even moreso, since it is 8 characters per line smaller).
* Remember guys: hosts files are just text files, and are read in, line-by-line, until a 'terminating' CR+LF are hit (in Windows)... & every character IS PARSED as well, so "size DOES matter", & bigger? Is not always better, & this is a 'case thereof'... using 0/0.0.0.0 is doing MORE with less! That's good engineering...
NOW, that all "said & aside":
Which in a large hosts file, such as the one I use with nearly 1.77 MILLION KNOWN BAD HOSTS-DOMAINS & BANNER AD SERVERS BLOCKED OFF IN IT? Again, smaller is better, & matters...
It also makes for a SMALLER OVERALL FILESIZE IN HOSTS FILES TOO!
(Which anyone knows will read faster than a larger file (especially ones bearing the same data, but only using diff. blocking ip addresses as noted)).
NOTE ON 0: Won't work, VISTA onwards, after the 12/09/2008 hotfix "Patch Tuesday" by Microsoft did so and
# now VISTA &/or Windows Server 2008 will NOT work using 0, but can use 0.0.0.0 for example & Windows 2000 pre Service Pack #1 will do the same - it will not use anything but 127.0.0.1 by comparison)
APK
P.S.=> To measure this & PROVE IT to yourselves, if "common-sense" above doesn't do it per the above, as it did for myself vs. the head of Microsoft's Windows Performance Division here on /. no less in FOREDECKER (Mr. R. Russell) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1467692&cid=30384918
?
Try this:
Use hi-resolution multimedia timers registered in a procedure/subroutine/method (etc.) @ the start of the read of a hosts file using 0, then 0.0.0.0, and lastly 127.0.0.1 and at the termination of loading it...
(You'll see not only a size differential, almost 40% between 0 & 127.0.0.1, especially with larger hosts like I use into the millions of record entries, but, also a read speed difference as well...)
The hosts file, like any other file, mind you, will be cached (even largish ones like I use, into the millions of entries, but I depend on the local kernelmode caching subsystem in the Operating System rather than the faulty Windows local DNS ClientSide caching service - it has 'problems' with larger hosts files because it is built into a static sized structure, dumb... Linux, the 1 thing I will give it? Has no such issue with large hosts files @ least!)... apk
I use Windows 7 here, completely up-to-date service pack & hotfix patched as of last Tuesday 03/13/2012 (1 week ago) & I get a LOT different results than you did on pinging 0.0.0.0 (or even shortform 0):
E.G.:
----
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Windows\system32>ping 0.0.0.0
Pinging 0.0.0.0 with 32 bytes of data:
PING: transmit failed. General failure.
PING: transmit failed. General failure.
PING: transmit failed. General failure.
PING: transmit failed. General failure.
Ping statistics for 0.0.0.0:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),
C:\Windows\system32>ping 0
Pinging 0.0.0.0 with 32 bytes of data:
PING: transmit failed. General failure.
PING: transmit failed. General failure.
PING: transmit failed. General failure.
PING: transmit failed. General failure.
Ping statistics for 0.0.0.0:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),
C:\Windows\system32>
---
* In fact, I have always considered BOTH 0.0.0.0 &/or 0 its 'short form' to be analogous to 'blackhole routing', NOT "any address" as you stated... & the "loss" statements output results seem to "2nd my motion" here also per the above proofs...
APK
P.S.=> Per your statement I will requote now, see the above:
"Intuitively, 0.0.0.0 should be slower, because typically this means "any available interface" - not just the loopback interface (so more interfaces are potentially involved). Your feedback will be greatly appreciated." - by gr8dude (832945) on Tuesday March 20, @06:52PM (#39420467) Homepage
I covered this part here above, AND your "intution" that 0.0.0.0 is SLOWER THAN 127.0.0.1, here also in another reply of mine to you, again, with verifiable proof you can try IF you program, that is -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2734503&cid=39420971
AND, like you said?
Please respond!
Because your reply has me VERY curious now (do you use a custom HOSTS file also?)... apk
"I teach at a university, my course is about network protocols and IT security." - by gr8dude (832945) on Tuesday March 20, @06:52PM (#39420467) Homepage FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2665375&cid=39010101
Per my subject-line above, & that quote from you? Well... SINCE you're allegedly an instructor in network protocols & IT Security most especially?
Heh - I'd now REALLY like your 'feedback' + even a debate IF YOU LIKE, on 2 of your statements/assertions:
First of all: I did not post the reply you replied to, but I will "elaborate" for you, with proofs, why I *think* (and per my proofs, pretty much KNOW) you are "off" here.
Secondly: Especially vs. your intuitions (which imo, are 'faulty' in 1 small respect: Due to the difference of testing on CONNECTED systems vs. UNCONNECTED to a network you appear to be operating on)...
---
FIRST:
That of your initial 'intuitions' you posted here which I have responded to multiple times, in curiousity and by your request also -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2734503&cid=39420467
I posted here on 0.0.0.0 vs. 127.0.0.1:
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2734503&cid=39420971
(& the former 0 especially producing nearly 35% smaller, & THUS FASTER, hosts file data read into either Windows FAULTY local DNS clientside cache, OR, even the local diskcache kernelmode subsystem vs. using 127.0.0.1, the loopback adapter address (not necessarily to a loopback adapter though, that has to be installed in Windows @ least, manually, afaik).
Yes, I literally see around a 35% tinier file here... with 1.77 million hosts file record entries, by using 0 vs. 127.0.0.1 (due to 8 chars smaller per line, per record entry).
I'll list the size breakdown now (& can send you my files IF you wish to verify yourself):
APK using 127.0.0.1 hosts file = 52, 059 kb
APK using 0.0.0.0 hosts file = 48,615 kb
APK using 0 hosts file = 38, 285 kb
There is NO QUESTION that the smaller 0, and even 0.0.0.0 using hosts file will be parsed line by line AND in its entirety, FASTER than the larger 127.0.0.1 using hosts would be.
As to my use of 0.0.0.0, or 0 (on earlier than VISTA, see my posts, still works on Win2000/XP/Server 2003 though), which I must utilize on Windows due to my usage of a 1.77 million line custom HOSTS file here to keep it small as possible... this also holds true for ANDROID phones (because there isn't a TON of space like a PC has on disk there in its system folders where the hosts file is) to keep it tiny as is possible.
(I use 0, or 0.0.0.0, for the purposes of blocking out known bad hosts-domains, adbanners)
I also do a 'hardcoding' 250 of my favorite websites into it (which results in FAR faster resolution of IP addresses than calling out to a potentially downed OR DNS redirect poisoned DNS server)).
---
SECOND:
ALSO, as to your PING results, and you seeing pinging 0.0.0.0 returning 127.0.0.1 for you!
Man... I question that strongly, but? First, I need data on what OS you use, & IF you use a custom hosts file also -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2734503&cid=39421437
(Because I see a HELL OF A LOT DIFFERENT RESULT than you do... for sure!)
I have always felt that 0 &/or its Longer Form 0.0.0.0 are 'blackhole routes' (can't route outwards and cannot respond as a 127.0.0.1 localhost would fielding requests to it as a loopback adapter (again, has to be installed on Windows, not sure on *NIX variants & I don't have one he
Please, lol, talk about easily seen through! Is your favorite color "transparent", TheRaven64?
* You sure "talk big" trolling & harassing others TheRaven64, but when you are challenged to disprove my ponits? YOU RUN, or you try hiding them by moddown days later (today)... lol!
(Thank you for looking stupid, transparent, and utterly obvious as well as running from disproving my points on hosts files, TheRaven64!)
APK
P.S.=> Especially by using the 'effete mod down' that has NO valid technical justification behind it only shows you are LOSING, loser (that's you TheRaven64)... apk
Hosts files are more 'secure'? In the same way that my grocery list is 'secure'. It is up until the point that I use it. I do not delude myself into thinking my ISP can not figure out what I am doing.
For example my grocery list is secure if I do not use it. No one can see it no one knows I use it.
But when I go buy groceries there are at *LEAST* 5 entities that know my list now. One less if I buy with cash.
1) me
2) my wife
3) the teller ringing up my food
4) my credit card company/bank (can get around this one if I buy with cash)
5) the grocery store
It is not secure. If some third party knows what you went to your secret is no longer one. Do you think the websites that are out there do not log you? Many many many do. They log your IP, what you looked at, who you logged in as... If you think your ISP is not watching...? You better be using a VPN provider (then do you really trust them too?)
Now to your points...
Hosts files are good for 'quickness' *IF* and only *IF* your file is small. Host file look up is a linear scan meaning to find anything in the list, and it reads the file every time you do a read too.
I used to have a 200k entry 'blackout list'. I switched instead to a DNS based solution. Hosts file was noticeably degrading my internet (It was .25-2 seconds per lookup I measured it). The speed up was immediate (due to the way most systems reload the file on every lookup). BIND does a much better job at managing this data than a hosts file ever will. This also has a nice effect in that I can locally cache results for my whole network (more speed). I do not have to maintain a hosts file on 15 computers (they all get it thru MY DNS server). I also mentioned 'linear scan' in my prev paragraph. BIND can do a binary search for the right one.
I then gave up on that solution. Why? It was a pain in the ass to maintain. The guys making the 'bad' sites only use them for a small transient time. Then you are stuck with that site basically forever. I was spending all my time fixing the lists...
You know what I installed instead? adblock plus and no script, and uninstalled java, when html 5 gets bigger i will unload flash. Not 1 viri in 5 years and that was only because someone else was using it and had turned off my ad/script defenses. Oh and they need to be turned off once and awhile. I bet you have a script to rename the hosts file, dont you? I did. As you come across something you want to get it and it is on a 'shady' part of the web... Or editing adding more in.
Look at where 99% of your attack vector is coming from. It is coming from your browser. Spend your energy there you will make your life a lot easier.
If you are dead set on a blacklist I suggest some sort of BIND solution. You will notice the speedup. It will be like a whole new internet to you.
Also another thing you can do is setup a less privileged user to use for day to day. Sure you can fiddle something right when you want to (if your doing that log in as admin). But your normal 'going to play a game' or 'surf the web' just use your less privileged user. That cuts most viri off at the knees when they try to do things to the system only an admin can do... That person I mentioned that got a viri? They now run as a less privileged user. They rarely notice it.
You want defense in depth. But make sure it makes sense.
I am very disappointed in you. Perhaps I should have let your father drown you.
holy crap you're a sad cunt
Profanity + ad hominem attacks?? Pitiful, illogical, & weak.
APK
P.S.=> Also now trolling me as ac replies as well TheRaven64??? Talk about "the hubris of the defeated", lol! You only did this to yourself, in your GIANT "technical fail" here:
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2734503&cid=39497061
On hosts files!
AND
Where you're NOW attempting, lol, DAYS later to defend yourself & failing (albeit via AC replies now, lol), & only to fall FLAT on your face on every single "point" of yours I blew you completely away with...
Especially since you started up with me on hosts files there before that -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2734503&cid=39406223
That 1st link above shows the results of that... you FAILED! apk
TheRaven64's downmodding posts he blew it on hosts files vs apk from other registered accounts he has too. How transparently obvious can he get?
He did that here:
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2734503&cid=39497043
and
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2734503&cid=39497061
and
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2734503&cid=39497019
Too bad we can still read them and realize why TheRaven64 downmodded them using alternate registered accounts here.
It's obvious he is trying to hide them from others seeing where he blew it on hosts files versus apk.
Doing moddowns with no technical justification doesn't hide them, and the fact I blew away every "point" of yours TheRaven64!
(Even though you're posting as ac to try hide you blew it since nobody's stupid enough to believe it wasn't you doing that DAYS afterwards here (from the time of your original post trolling/harassing myself here where you started it -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2734503&cid=39406223 )
* The inevitable 'sign of defeat' is that you had to "mod it down" to try "hide it", instead of technically refuting & disputing that which I wrote to reply to you (even though you did it as ac? Again, that fools nobody... who else would try to 'defend you' so many days later after all, except you??)
APK
P.S.=> YOU FAILED TheRaven64, and hugely vs. myself on hosts files, the very thing you see fit to try to harass/troll me on, here -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2734503&cid=39497061 and, I know it, anyone reading it will know it, and YOU KNOW IT (hence your attempt to "hide it" via modding it down)... apk
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2734503&cid=39522981
?
APK
P.S.=> What's in the link above says it all - thanks for doing a hit & run downmod with no technical justification behind it TheRaven64 - that only shows how poor your technical skills are in computing on this front, and that I blew away each of your 'so-called points" with ease in front of anyone reading here.
I know it, readers know it, and YOU KNOW IT!
(Since modding a post down to try to 'hide it' isn't helping you @ all, when if you were correct you'd have responded and disproved my points, and you couldn't!)
You're only proving MY point on that here now - especially on hosts files, and especially since you 'started up' with me on them here -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2734503&cid=39406223 )... apk
From the security community along with others of "your kind" that give me a hard time on hosts files TheRaven64:
"I don't actually get time for many sites such as slashdot anymore, but certainly see my fair share of trolls on the MyWot (Web of Trust (I'm a moderator there, and MyWot includes hpHosts in their "ratings")) and Malwarebytes forums, and you're correct - it's always either users of malicious software/sites, or the owners of such, that are doing it." Mr. Steven Burn - services@it-mate.co.uk -> hpHOSTS/malwarebytes http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download
* So, that "all said & aside"? Do you *think* that others here aren't thinking the same of YOU (or anyone else) that tries to give me a hard time about hosts files usage for added security, speed, & even better "anonymity" vs. tracking online?
APK
P.S.=> Guess again IF you think they don't... & you FAILED hugely (even as ac posting to try to 'hide it was you' in this very exchange to attempt to do so)!
Especially where I disproved each of your 'so-called points' point-by-point in your ac reply failing, & I did so, with ease -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2734503&cid=39497061
For your trolling/harassing myself as you & your kind here usually do starting it up with me -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2734503&cid=39406223
... apk