Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 32 Arrives With New HTTP Cache, Public Key Pinning Support
An anonymous reader writes: Mozilla today officially launched Firefox 32 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. Additions include a new HTTP cache for improved performance, public key pinning support, and easy language switching on Android. The Android version is trickling out slowly on Google Play. Changelogs are here: desktop and mobile.
Firefox, bagel and lox
Breakfast of champions handy
And aftershave that makes men brave
When over Macho Grande
Burma Shave
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
This ran a day or two ago, yesterday, or day before.
Will the next version be Firefox64 ?
When will we go back to Firefox ONE ?
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Just installed the latest Firefox and did a bit of random surfing. First impression: noticeably faster than before, probably even on par with Chrome.
about cruddy old FireFox weekly reports?
PlanetVulkan.com
Autoupdated this am.
Seems to work fine.
Memory use seems about the same. (I have 10 tabs open now... lots of "complex/rich" sites... 536 MB)
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
I don't know what you're talking about. Multiple tabs open and I have less than 500MB of used memory.
What do you expect? It's open sewers!
Firefox memory usage is the worst of any browser. I use it as my secondary browser, when I have to, and then I close it out.
Assuming Google hasn't taken up astro-turfing and you're being honest here— you need to wipe out your preferences or something... because something is weird there I have several windows with a good hundred tabs open across them and are currently using 690MB RSS.
This stuff looks interesting. I can't wait until they fold it into Palemoon.
Because coolness of the technology aside, everything else about Firefox is increasingly pissing me off.
Now that postion:sticky has come out from hiding behind a pref in Firefox 32, it's a "nice to have" CSS feature on webpages that scroll a lot so you can still see the heading of what you're looking at. Safari supports it behind a -webkit- prefix but for some reason Chrome and Opera have no support for it in Blink yet.
I have 3 tabs open one with flash and its only 196 megs (and some change), dunno what your fucking problem is
Good luck with that.
Might as well chime in:
Two tabs, 264mb
Required reading for internet skeptics
16) Work with IPv6
uh-oh
I post in EVERY Slashdot firefox article, whining for the same thing.
LESS focus on UI / features, MORE focus on stability / performance.
I've been using FireFox since the name it had before FireFox (I've forgotten it) - I think I used it since version 1 or god knows what.
For about the last 12 months, maybe 18, Firefox has become completely unstable for "extreme" browsers like me. I run anywhere from 30 to 150 tabs open at a time. I'd say a nice average would be around 60 tabs. When I'm researching something (often multiple things) I like to google what I'm reading, middle click open in the background the first 5 results. Then when on a forum, I'll middle click open 5 more results and so on. I like having those tabs queued up in the background for me to read.
You might think "well there's the cause of your stability problem!!" except this never used to happen. 18 months ago you could hit 200 tabs without FF crashing. Now, I'm scared to open more than 60. This is across multiple machines too.
I've even tried switching to WaterFox, no dice - I'm still able to crash FF regularly and I run very few addons either.
It's good to see the http cache changes, so they are working on performance but stability should be the #1 focus.
Oddly enough, I get exactly the same symptoms in Firefox for Android as I do Windows for fucks sake. If I hit enough tabs (about 8 on my Galaxy S3) - FF for Android shits the bed, presumably because it's out of ram and can't page well or something. Worst part is FF for Android doesn't remember my open tabs either. Miserable.
They've fiddled and fucked with the UI, replicating Chrome as much as they can (ugh!) for years, now can they stop? If I wanted ugly goddamn chrome I'd install it.
PLEASE fix the stability, PLEASE make it faster. I don't care how much ram it uses, I just want a modern experience with my browser.
Since these updates became more about upping the version number than adding anything really useful and substantive, they should seize this golden opportunity to call it Firefox 100000. Then as the updates roll on from here ...Firefox 100001, Firefox 100010, Firefox 100011, etc.
Bad day at school?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Firefox mobile: Android 2.2 and ARMv6 processor chipset no longer supported
Youtube Videos still continue to play even when the tab is closed. The video stops rendering sometimes yet the audio continues. The browser itself freezes a lot. I get 'firefox is running but not responding' messages all the time. I don't see the fuss. It's bloated crap IMO
You're an idiot. AdBlock is about easy choice, and your precious hosts file isn't able to do some of the fancier testing and filtering that better filtering solutions can.
Palant might have rubbed us all the wrong way with his "acceptable ads" thing, but what's really embarrassing is that he and Firefox haven't been able to come up with a less inefficient means of accomplishing that fancy ad blocking yet.
I honestly tire of you misinformants constantly telling the world YOU WERE RIGHT when clearly you were not. If you were then everyone would be using hosts files for this, because the only people who run ad blockers generally try out multiple solutions and settle on the best for their purposes.
You want a really superior solution? Try NoScript. After a few days of customizing, 99% of the web will run like a dream, and for the rest you can easily just allow them through your whitelist. No ads, better security, better all-around performance. But no, that's too much work isn't it? Far easier to just pretend your hosts file is better when it clearly isn't.
Why would I ever need any of this? If anything ever happened, I would just bring up MyCleanPC and fix the problem.
I'll trust a respected companies solution over some guy-in-a-basement's free hosts program who is probably just out to scam me. At least MyCleanPC lets me hold someone responsible if I have a problem! What guarantee do I have that some "Anonymous Coward" will respond if I need support?
You guys could learn a lot from the old school Linux Advocacy FAQ. You can find it yourself.
It's all about how to advocate something without hurting the cause you are trying to advocate. Protip: spamming forums and generally acting like a religious zealot hurts your cause and makes people not give a shit about your pet cause.
The "new" DownloadStatusBar addon which worked around the changes in (I think) FF29... well, it's broken again. Probably I can go Googling and find an update somewhere.
"Oh no... he found the
From release notes:
"NEW - Easier back, forward, reload, and bookmarking through the context menu"
http://msujaws.wordpress.com/2014/05/27/experimenting-with-context-menus/
If only Mozilla Firefox guys could just stop endlessly fucking around with all the little things that work fine! You guys want to fix broken shit? Okay great! More of that is needed. You want to add stupid new (typically broken) features/API/kitchen sink to the browser?? Okay, not really great, but it's to be expected, and there is typically a way to disable the new shit (if there is no way to disable new stuff at all, then that's another entire rant). Those types of updates are all well and good but here's an example of just plain completely retarded! Right click popup menu for web browsers has been a solved problem for how many years now, yet here goes UI guys going to fuck around with it to justify their jobs.
What is the point of this kind of shit? These guys need to be pulled off the core Firefox team and put into the mobile Firefox OS design team or some shit where they might be relevant. I'm so sick and tired of mobile/smartphone/tablet UI trends infesting everything and anything. Oh yeah, I refuse to seriously use the term "UX". Outside of Apple cultists and design freaks, most people just consider the OS/program interface exactly that - an interface, not an experience.
To hell with all of this shit!
hosts files work in ipv6 perfectly or did you think they didn't?
You're trying to tell us adblock doing far less than hosts less efficiently too is better? LOL!
Can adblock do the following things (that custom hosts files can):
1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
13.) Block out trackers
14.) Block spam mails sources
15.) Block phishing mails sources
"?"
* Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.
APK
P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?
That's illogical, but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!
... apk
W. Palant wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).
I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!
Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!
He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!
ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!
Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google And Others Reportedly Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk
:: = 0 or 0.0.0.0 in IPv4, & ::1 = loopback adapter address/127.0.0.1 in IPv4...
APK
P.S.=> Hosts work just fine in IPv6, using either :: (0.0.0.0 equivalent or 0 in Win2k SP#2 - Windows 7 pre 12/08/2009 MS Patch Tuesday's patch disabling the superior smaller/faster 0 there when it works on Win2k/XP/Server 2003 just fine still) OR using ::1 (loopback adapter address)... apk
:: = 0 or 0.0.0.0 in IPv4, & ::1 = loopback adapter address/127.0.0.1 in IPv4
APK
P.S.=> Hosts work just fine in IPv6, using either :: (0.0.0.0 equivalent or 0 in Win2k SP#2 - Windows 7 pre 12/08/2009 MS Patch Tuesday's patch disabling the superior smaller/faster 0 there when it works on Win2k/XP/Server 2003 just fine still) OR using ::1 (loopback adapter address)... apk
Yeah. The cookie jar was empty, so he had to take his nap with an empty tummy.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
I honestly tire of you misinformants constantly telling the world YOU WERE RIGHT when clearly you were not.
You're project you know apk's right on hosts being better in your quoted reply.
Linux isn't successful vs. MS on PC's + Servers combined They're no good example from you in that area. Trollishly attempting to "confuse the issue", a classic predictable troll move from you too? Please. Go away, troll.
Try Pale Moon, if on Windows.
Two tabs. TWO.
http://imgur.com/8oaZW6D
Zero excuse for that bullshit. Slashdot and Fark are NOT loading up nearly half a gig of information.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
http://imgur.com/8oaZW6D
Only installed plugin is AdBlock Edge.
Two pages. Almost half a gig of RAM used.
Absolute rubbish.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
http://imgur.com/8oaZW6D
Two tabs, nearly double that, with my only extension being AdBlock Edge.
I find it funny everyone makes claims but aren't backing it up with screenshots.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Quite close: http://arewefastyet.com/
The issue with back button which takes you to a browser page without any search is still there.....no fix as of yet...
Just because something is using memory (it's there to be used, after all), it does not automatically follow that it is leaking memory, either in your sense (poor memory management) or the sense developers use it (broken memory management).
I've got mysqld running at home. The only DB on it is a few megabytes of data, and yet mysqld uses 1.5Gb. Why? Because it's available. It doesn't harm the system, as far as I can tell.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Yup, from secuty point: something is wrong with the pinning CA, drop a fatal error message and you are ready.
But: No option to handle the connection as a unsecured connection. If you simply want to watch the intercepted information about funny cat video, the fact that there is a man in the middle attack is not interresting.
And: Something is alarml wrong error message. Nope, just that the connection might be intercepted, or not be from the original site. Nothing wrong with the PC of the user, but nothing he can do about it. Give him options!
Are you a retard or a newfag? First of all, just saying you have one plugin is pointless. How many extensions do you have? And if you don't have any extensions, what's the point of using Firefox.
And second of all, RAM is there to be used. As long as the browser lets go of it when it's finished, it's not a "memory leak."
https://imgur.com/0pIa2lj
Do you also want a picture with my 36 addons?
I'm just interested to know what all that memory is allocated to, can you post a pic of about:memory?
A local DNS server can do more than all the above. A local DNS server can simply not resolve a specific subdomain, even an entire domain with a one liner. This prevents the browser from even trying to connect to an address.
One DNS server is sufficient for the entire network.
With high caching settings in a local DNS server, you can have something more reliable than hosts for all sites.
A local DNS server can get the advantages of hosts files and go beyond by using TCP resolution, which prevents known resolution exploits without the use of technologies like DNSSEC.
Hosts files can do 1, 2, 3, 4. After all, you can setup local zone files as you wish.
Of course, Windows was designed in mind of large hosts file, so DNS cache has to be disabled for this to work. Not a very good workaround. Setup a local DNS server and get the benefits of running the DNS server in a low-level user account that can't touch the rest of the system and not mess with Windows internals or break internals in the process.
Additionally, you don't need the terabytes of harddrive space needed to block entire domains by generating every single subdomain possibility that you would under hosts files if you wanted to block entire malicious domains.
Instead work with a user-mode process that is running with low-level user rights that cannot touch the rest of the system.
P.S. Slashdot's lameness filter really does not like me quoting APK posts.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Why does he have to be a 'Mozillian' because it worked for him? Couldn't he just be a user that doesn't experience the issue?
Khyber also claimed to me once that he ran an IPv6 only IRC network where there were lots of furry musicians on a domain that was unreigstered that I couldn't access because of some gibberish.
But it isn't, it shows reproducibility.
Except maybe he isn't emotionally invested in Firefox and people who have problems like this maybe just trolling or having some other issue that's causing this.
What if he doesn't care because he's not that emotionally invested in what browser he's using?
Good for them? Sounds like these people are getting what they wanted. There is no need to stop them.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
You double DNS overheads using TCP vs. UDP (inefficient "fix"), & dns uses more electricity (higher bills), cpu/ram/other forms of I-O & DNS is more complexity + room for breakdown or exploit (kaminsky redirect poisoning flaw).
* A shame I had to blow you away, again, Ash-Fox... it's just (& you KNOW I've just gotta say it) too easy:
THIS? This was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'" & it always IS, vs. Ash-Fox the technically weak inferior troll...
APK
P.S.=> Disabling the USERMODE slower dnscache clientside local service makes large hosts files work in Windows perfectly (the kernelmode diskcaching subsystem takes over caching hosts & it is kernelmode as well - no overheads in context switch like dnscache is) - you FAIL AGAIN, Ash-Fox, as always:
Since 1 file (hosts) can do MORE than all of the other "complex" & security-issues riddled ones do, more efficiently & thus, better... apk
Per my subject-line above: This link is your proof of why https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
APK
P.S.=> Want to try something a LOT more efficient + a LOT more capable in terms of benefits it yields? Take a read here -> http://news.slashdot.org/comme... (you'll be glad you did - especially in YOUR case which illustrates MINE, to a tee, along with that link above, specifically)... apk
Ash-Fox uses TCP vs. UDP default for his INEFFICIENT "fix" making dns worse on efficiency by doubling overheads. As is, DNS has more complexity, room for breakdown/exploit,+ wastes cpu/ram/other forms of IO with a local dns server (far more electrical power use thus higher utility bills) vs. hosts http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
I do all you can do with 1 file (minus layering on more complexity as you do) - who's more efficient?
Hosts are, by far!
To the point of even complimenting DNS as well as LIGHTENING REQUEST LOADS ON THEM when you hardcode favorites as I do in hosts @ the TOP of my hosts file, where I spend 99.999% of my time online!
That even makes up for loss of indexing by DUMPING the usermode slow stupidly inflexible datastructure design dnscache service in Windows - which my 24 favs cached in the kernelmode local diskcache do make up for, equating to 2-3++ million indexed seeks...
(Which also SAVES CPU/RAM/Other forms of I-O WASTED on that mess of a faulty usermode SLOW service with large hosts files).
APK
P.S.=> Clue: Running a separate system especially, that is nothing but a DNS server, WILL increase your power bills (are you stupid?).
Better/BEST way = Using hosts in COMBINATION with a secured EXTERNAL DNS server (complimenting it):
E.G.-> OpenDNS = DNSSEC secured between it & their upstream updaters + it's patched vs. the Kaminsky redirect poisoning security flaw DNS has (of which 99.999% of ISP dns servers are NOT patched against).
... apk
Do DNS servers go down? Would apk's hosts hardcoded favs save you from it? Looks like a "yes" to both per this article http://tech.slashdot.org/story...
I run anywhere from 30 to 150 tabs open at a time. I'd say a nice average would be around 60 tabs.
I really cannot think of a reasonable workflow where that would make sense but I'm not trying to judge. As long as you are aware that you are doing something that almost nobody else does or even thinks is a good idea then go for it. Could be useful as a stress test I guess. I've been using Firefox (and Mozilla and Netscape before that) for a long long time and I've never seen behavior like what you describe but then I never thought it was a good idea to have 150 tabs open at once either.
My question would be, what have you done to isolate the problem? Are you sure it has anything to do with the number of browser tabs or is that merely coincidental? Are specific websites causing the problem? If something has changed is that something in Firefox or is it something in how the data is being served? You seem to be blaming Firefox but it isn't clear from your description that Firefox is the unquestionable source of the problem. It certainly should be on the list of possibilities but it isn't certain.
You're right. There's zero excuse for you blaming your problems on Firefox. Since you complained about other people not posting images here you go:
7 tabs open.
1 tab running a video
16 plugins installed
7 extensions running (10 installed).
350MB of RAM used. Go fix your browser instead of bitching about it on Slashdot.
http://s28.postimg.org/3zhxwhuzx/firefox.jpg
IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER IF YOU AREN'T EXPERIENCING THESE PROBLEMS! Why do you freaks always insist on denying that very real problems exist just because you haven't personally experienced them?
Yes it does matter if others aren't experiencing these problems because you can't fix a problem you can't reproduce. The problem is with people who complain that "Firefox is broken" but then never provide adequate data to isolate what they are doing that is causing the problem. If User A says Firefox is slow when doing Behavior X and User B tries Behavior X as described and cannot replicate the problem then the source of the problem has to be something more than solely Behavior X or it might have nothing at all to do with Behavior X because User B is mistaken. It could be how the software interacts with other software. It could be a hardware issue. It could be a version mismatch. It could be any number of things, particularly when you are talking about some weird corner use case like opening 200 tabs at once. (why anyone would do that eludes me)
These aren't isolated problems that people are reporting, either. The reports are numerous, widespread, yet still quite consistent. Firefox is slow. Firefox suffers from memory leaks. Firefox has a shitty UI these days.
On a daily basis I run Firefox and Chrome side by side at work (yes I have a good reason) on Windows PCs and sometimes Macs. I run IE and Safari with some regularity too. I see no evidence that Firefox is meaningfully faster or slower than any of the other major browsers. There probably are some differences but they are so minor as to be meaningless to most people in most cases. I have seen memory leaks in the past but I see no current evidence of them with the current stable builds. While they may exist I'm certainly not seeing much evidence of them. Provide a reproducible use case though and I'll of course reconsider. As for the "shitty UI" that is more a matter of opinion than fact. I don't think Firefox's interface is meaningfully better or worse than Chrome, Safari or IE. I wish they would stop needlessly screwing with it but that's a separate issue.
ALL OF THOSE COMPLAINTS ARE LEGITIMATE, AND ALL ARE FACTUAL!
Right, because who would ever lie on the internet? It's such a bastion of integrity and fair play.
If Khyber spent even a fraction of the time he spends whining on Slashdot actually reporting the bugs to Mozilla and honestly helping them diagnose his problems, then they would likely have been solved by now. I say this as someone who doesn't even like Firefox, yet has had several of his "show stopper" bugs fixed because he had the crazy notion of helping Mozilla fix their "busted junk". It's easy to sit back and tell Mozilla to fix things, but if all you do is present anecdotal, whiny, non-actionable bug reports and vitriol on sites other than Mozilla's bug tracker, then don't be surprised if your problems never get solved.
Also, stay classy with your BS "10%" statistics and "ass slow" commentary. Chrome doesn't need such flimsy and childish arguments made for it. Lately more people I know have been jumping back to Firefox than the other way around, and the only reason the "10%" statistic holds water is because Chrome is now bundled as the default browser on newer Android devices. Compare only on desktops with a big enough subset of the web's userbase and Firefox hasn't really lost much ground at all. It has always been kneecapped by the fact that it's not bundled with any OSes or devices, much moreso these days since there are no mobiles or tablets bundled with it that have any uptake.
Hardcoded favorite sites @ top of hosts = safe (where I spend 99.5++% of my time (efficiently as well since they're at the top of my hosts file & cached by a kernelmode subsystem, saving cpu cycles/ram/other forms of I/O wasted on the faulty with large hosts files usermode slow dnscache service in Windows)).
* With only 1 file/moving part, that's PART OF THE IP STACK ITSELF, via hosts (not "layering on" more complexity/learning curve + room for breakdown & exploit due to security flaws in DNS as you do)!
Hosts are also EASILY UNDERSTOOD & DIRECT USER CONTROLLED with notepad (any texteditor) vs. dns rulesets complexity + added moving parts complexity & room for breakdown + security issues (yes, DNS does go down QUITE A LOT)!
DNS also = HIGHER electrical power consumed/higher utility bills using DNS locally - especially on a separate system dedicated to THAT only...
Again: Best/better way = external secured DNS like OpenDNS (uses DNSSEC between it & its upstream updaters + is patched vs. Kaminsky redirect security flaw in DNS), complimenting it with hosts!
(Via your fav. sites hardcoded @ the top of hosts overcoming index loss in cutting the slow faulty with large hosts files usermode slower dnscache service in Windows - saving cpu cycles/ram/other forms of I-O wasted on it (bonus) & LIGHTENING UP REQUEST LOADS ON EXTERNAL DNS SERVERS TOO (double-bonus)).
Hosts are the 1st resolver queried: If I have blocking entries (which is MOST of my hosts file vs. known malicious sites + adbanners & spam/phish/trackers too), then I block those sites out, perfectly & easily.
APK
P.S.=> DNS (especially locally setup as a separate dedicated machine) = Inefficient - Especially DOUBLING dns overheads as you do, increasing its inefficiency which is already inferior to hosts, as is, using the UDP default & you using TCP literally DOUBLING your overheads, again + moreso...
... apk
Zero extensions. If I had extension, I'd have listed them. Are you that incapable of rational thought?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Yea, you going into about:memory and clicking 'reduce memory usage' before taking a screenshot doesn't count.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
If a DNS server goes down (or exploited by redirect) can hosts hardcodes protect you? A simple YES or NO will do as the answer Ash-Fox
* Clue (common-sense & physics):
Using "more" layering on more in DNS (above the IP stack, which hosts IS a native part of mind you & does the same as DNS can with less) DOES EAT MORE POWER, cpu cycles, RAM, + other forms of I/O too (& create complexity + room for breakdown/exploit also).
Lastly - YOU *may* not care about useability - others, do (especially less technical end users, & hosts are less complex + techish than DNS setups, by far...)
APK
P.S.=> "You don't see the problem"? of YOU LITERALLY DOUBLING OVERHEADS on a less efficient method in DNS (many moving parts & complexities + learning curve added) by your (mis)use TCP over the default UDP in DNS?? WTF??? LOL... apk
If they are trying to keep up with Chrome, they better start adding those new HTML 5.1 features too.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
See subject & the FACT you add on "more" = more power used/higher bills, cpu cycles/ram/+ other forms of I-O DNS servers use that hosts don't (especially *if* your local DNS is setup as a separate system): THIS IS NO "mere theory" - it's fact & common-sense!
2nd: Caching DNS can be INACCURATE (updates can happen when sites change hosting providers in the 24++ hr. period it can TAKE to propogate DNS changes thru the worldwide system for it (13 root to all dns on the planet takes time)).
By way of comparison: Updating my hosts favorites? Done in SECONDS!
(By reverse DNS ping, in the "Speedup Favorite Sites" tab of my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit program -> http://start64.com/index.php?o... (just 1 of the MANY great benefits it gives you for more speed, & reliability over DNS faults, along with more security + anonymity too)).
*YOU* "moved the goalposts" Ash-Fox in you noting "useability", not I - you literally used that word, 1st!
(Which you are, yet again on this point + the one in my subject-line above, CONCEDING TO ME yet again - hosts are less complex & easier to understand than DNS in its entirety).
APK
P.S.=> Lastly - I don't USE DNSSEC (or DNS period since hosts do what it can w/ less waste &/or complexity + room for breakdown/exploit): OpenDNS does & it is patched PROPERLY vs. the Kaminsky flaw!
(Unlike your INEFFICIENT hackjob DOUBLING DNS OVERHEADS using TCP vs. the default UDP)
& yes - OpenDNS does use DNSSEC between it & its updaters - for security purposes!
(I rarely use OpenDNS though, even though it's the default remote DNS I use in both my IP Stack settings in Windows + in my router too - 99.5++% or better, I am @ the hardcoded favorite sites in my local hosts file, cached into RAM by a kernelmode subsystem (fast) vs. the FAULTY w/ large hosts files usermode clientside dnscache service in Windows (saving wasted CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O on a BROKEN poorly designed usermode slow wreck))... apk
6 tabs open for the past 5 hours, 450MB.
"If you like linear search and have not bothered to do any timings on page loads I have and it is 50% slower than a DNS server over an 802.11b network" - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 03, 2014 @09:54AM (#47816147)
I don't put any more than 24 of my favorite sites in hosts @ the TOP of hosts (key point right there)!
That equals or exceeds 2-3++ million indexed seeks, first of all & also secures me vs. redirect poisoned (Kaminsky) security flaws DNS has unpatched & also makes me resolve FASTER than remote DNS calls since they're cached in RAM here (by the local kernelmode diskcaching subsystem since I use a LARGE hosts file).
Secondly - The rest of my hosts file is nothing more than blocked known bad sites/servers, adbanners, spammers/phishers & trackers!
* Thus - WHO CARES HOW "FAST" I GET TO THOSE, WHEN I NEVER INTENDED TO GET TO THEM IN THE 1st PLACE, stupid...
APK
P.S.=> Dumbells like YOU assume that I attempt to "cache the ENTIRE internet" in my hosts file: Clue - I don't! For other sites, other than my 24 favorites @ the TOP of my custom hosts file, I use OpenDNS (rarely, since I spend a good 99.5++% of the time @ those favorites online) - & it is DNSSEC secured to its upstream updaters + fully properly PATCHED vs. the Kaminsky redirect flaw (unlike 99.999% of ISP dns servers, which aren't)... apk
"if you do not mind that it is trivial to work around a.xyz.com != xyz.com != b.xyz.com have fun keeping up with thousands of subdomains" - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 03, 2014 @09:54AM (#47816147)
I don't mind it @ all: It's automated here via 12 reputable sources in the security community do THAT for me + my program that automates it all APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
APK
P.S.=> So far, your 1st 2 "so-called 'points'" have been RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get around & disprove!
Especially the first one, where YOU assumed I am *trying* to locally resolve every host-domain name under the sun to an IP address - clue/again: I don't, stupid http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
I.E./E.G.-> I use OpenDNS (DNSSEC secured between it & its upstream updaters + FULLY Kaminsky redirect poisoning properly patched vs. it)!
I use OpenDNS for any 'stragglers' I don't keep as favorites in hosts (& I rarely go to others, since I spend 99.5++% of my time online @ my favs. @ the TOP of my custom hosts file, which equates to 2-3++ million indexed seeks & is cached in RAM for speed here too, as well as hosts being the 1st resolver queried by default by the OS!)... apk
"if you do not mind your dns lookup program svchost.exe in windows taking up 40-50 more meg just incase you look something up" - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 03, 2014 @09:54AM (#47816147)
1st: I don't USE the faulty with large hosts files local dnscache usermode slow service!
2nd: I turn it off (for starters) saving CPU cycles, RAM, + others forms of I/O wasted on it (with good reason - it's faulty with large hosts files).
3rd: Instead, I opt for FASTER kernelmode caching via the local kernelmode diskcaching subsystem instead (which has NO SUCH FAULTS with larger hosts files).
* Thus - I both OFFSET loss of indexing (as I noted in my 1st post correcting your screwups in assumptions -> http://news.slashdot.org/comme... assuming I *try* to cache the ENTIRE range of host-domain names online, & I do not (OpenDNS which is DNSSEC secured to its upstream updaters + fully PROPERLY Kaminsky redirect flaw patched unlike 99.999% of ISP dns servers mind you is what I use for, oh, around .4% of the time when I rarely mind you, visit sites NOT in my 24 favs. @ the TOP of my custom hosts file (key point there, it equates to 2-3++ million indexed seeks right off the bat) and?
Doing it as I do in hosts also aids RELIABILITY vs. "downed" (crashed, which happens A LOT in DNS) dns servers + dns poisoned/redirected ones too!
(99.999% of ISP dns servers are NOT patched that way, mind you, vs. the kaminsky bug).
APK
P.S.=> Sorry for making a fool out of you, but... you are doing it TO YOURSELF, "point-by-'so called point'" of yours I am dismantling... apk
"yeah the site that serves up the hosts files and has all those adverts on them does not track you and the sites themselves cant track you at all" - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 03, 2014 @09:54AM (#47816147)
1st: I never see them (blocked, they get no preferential treatment from me, & to be honest? I don't *think* they do that much, *IF* @ all whatsoever)!
2nd: Sites can't track me since I cut them off on trackers you CAN'T see both in hosts AND in my firewall rules table!
I.E./E.G. -> Here's mine for /. in fact -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... which stops tracking me here on slashdot since those are served up by IP Address, vs. host-domain names... ( & yes, it ALL works great!)
* :)
Lastly:
It *TRULY* has been MY PLEASURE, literally ANNIHILATING YOU for being an ignoramus on YOUR part, not reading my posts in their entirety (or you would not have made such STUPID mistakes & statement on YOUR part) in all of these posts:
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> Of course, lastly? This post too, lmao... apk
b
It's weak vs. the FACT you can't prove a single thing I wrote is wrong: That, says it all.
APK
P.S.=>
"I'll trust a respected companies solution over some guy-in-a-basement's free hosts program who is probably just out to scam me." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02, 2014 @10:04PM (#47813357)
No scam here.
Plus/Obviously:
What I wrote ORIGINALLY is 100% truth & obviously FACT you can't prove wrong!
(Additionally - WHO THE HELL are "MyCleanPC"? I'd bank on it that their LEAD CODER hasn't done jack shit compared to myself in the art & science of computing as well (& I was doing things of great value & in commercially sold wares TO THIS DAY that did well in publications + technical tradeshows like MSTechEd in this field before he was out of diapers)).
"At least MyCleanPC lets me hold someone responsible if I have a problem! What guarantee do I have that some "Anonymous Coward" will respond if I need support?" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02, 2014 @10:04PM (#47813357)
I always answer support emails.
Always.
Your weak ac troll attempts @ "confusing the issue" here are pitiful... they truly are!
... apk
Can manage to do against your points is to downmod your posts to try hide them apk. You've outsmarted and out thought the lot of them.
Nice try, I didn't actually know about about:memory until you posted this, nor will I ever care enough about memory (I have 32GB in this machine) to ever type that in my browser again. Also I don't actually give a crap about Firefox because I use Chrome, but your anti-Firefox rant just needed correcting.
Interesting side note is that Chrome will show Firefox and IE memory usage in it's about:memory page. I decided to put that to the test. Both browsers have 8 identical tabs open, 7 slashdot tabs, and roundcube logged in, in the last tab.
Chrome 1035MB
Firefox 310MB
IE 11 261MB
I'm not entirely sure why Chrome shows other browsers. It would look like the marketing really does not work in its favour. Note though that Chrome has a lot of extensions installed, and IE is pretty much vanilla and appears to render the pages a lot worse than the other browsers.
That running a DNS server uses NO extra electrical power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other types of I/O (which DNS has more "moving parts" above the IP stack itself which hosts IS part of mind you)?
(IF so, you are sadly mistaken...)
Caching on DNS *can* be inaccurate though - another point you *HAVE* to concede nevertheless, right there also!
You can use PING to do what I do for my top portion of my hosts file to verify host-domain name to IP address translation, but again: You're just PLAIN-JANE using "more", which means you're eating up more resources of ALL types noted above... point-blank/fact - no way around it: It's the laws of the universe.
APK
P.S.=> Bottom-Line: The very FACT you're "adding on more", & a MORE COMPLEX 'more' no less, proves it all for me THAT YOU CONSUME MORE (of everything, period)!
That is, unless you can prove that running a DNS server (especially *IF* on a separate machine dedicated to it) takes:
1.) No extra electrical power to run itself
2.) No extra cpu cycles
3.) No extra RAM use
4.) No extra I/O
Vs. using hosts (which comes with the system natively and is always in use by the IP stack itself anyhow as the 1st resolver queried, always...).
Which is, to put it bluntly, IMPOSSIBLE for you to do (& you know it)...
... apk
Only security that I know of that boosts speed too: My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more, by doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
---
A.) Hosts do more than:
1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).
C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity
D.) Hosts files yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.
* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"
...apk
Can adblock do the following things (that custom hosts files can):
1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
13.) Block out trackers
14.) Block spam mails sources
15.) Block phishing mails sources
"?"
* Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.
APK
P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?
That's illogical, but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!
... apk
You really don't like backing your claims, do you? You've been making this claim about additional electrical usage for a while now and whenever pressed, you fail to provide it. I can only assume that you don't really know and you're just making this up as you go along.
If you read my post, I never admitted there was additional electrical usage. Sure, you can measure a DNS server is taking up resources, but is it impacting anything? I'm unconvinced there is a problem like you portray it to be.
I can too with DNS, I'm a Linux user.
I'm not. I'm telling you that some Linux distributions (particularly desktop ones) come with a DNS server (powerdns) configured out of the box. I was also pointing out in such a scenario, you're going to be hard pressed to even say there is even a recognizable difference in resource usage (after all, we can tell the difference between 200KiB use of memory verses 0, but 200KiB verses 200KiB ? not really)
I am not convinced there is a notable difference in electrical power supply though and I don't really see how DNS would even be notable for system performance either.
Seriously, what's the difference APK? Are we expected to use 400watts more for running a DNS server? Why are you constantly avoiding answering this? Why won't you show actual proof that it will increase the cost of electricity?
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
" your anti-Firefox rant just needed correcting."
Sorry, But unless you're some total n00b, Firefox has always had this problem. It's never been properly fixed since version 3.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
This is irrelevant to answering if this makes a difference to the electricity costs!
If the differences make little difference to the power consumption (something that requires little resources may not require the system to draw any further power at all than what is already available).
Now, since you're so adamant this will increase the cost of electricity, show us. Clearly if you know this to be true, you must have observed this and you're not just merely guessing.
How many more watts does it take to run a DNS server? What DNS servers did you run? What operating systems? What configurations? Come on APK, let's see the evidence to your claim!
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
It is not the answer and I provided reasons why.
Then prove it! How many more watts does it take to run a DNS server? It's a simple question, if you're correct, this can be measured and actually make some notable impact. It should be trivial for you to prove, but we both know why you aren't. After all, according to you, it impacts the electricity costs. So, it has to make enough of a difference to affect common units of usage.
You have failed to provide yet again, actual evidence where we see more power being consumed to just run a DNS server.
Irrelevant.
And you conceded hosts files can break windows services and I've pointed out that DNS can do all of this too without downing a windows service.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
You're using 1 lightbulb in a room & you turn on 1 more: Are you using more power? Yes.
QUESTION: So - if you decide to "pile on more" using a DNS server there AS YOU DO - Are you consuming more CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O too?
That = MORE POWER USAGE & HIGHER ELECTRICITY BILLS, fact/period...
---
This "takes the cake" from you though:
"And you conceded hosts files can break windows services and I've pointed out that DNS can do all of this too without downing a windows service." - by Ash-Fox (726320) on Thursday September 04, 2014 @10:37AM (#47825195)
LMAO: Hosts don't "break" a damned thing - MS designed poorly on their local dnscache usermode SLOWER service & it can't handle relatively larger hosts (Linux has NO SUCH ISSUE by the way)!
So, I turn it off, & guess what THAT does?
ANSWER = I am LITERALLY saving CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O wasted on it since it's faulty by design... + yes, power too.
I literally SAVE power & opt instead to use a FASTER KERNELMODE service to cache hosts - the diskcaching subsystem (& my placing 24 of my favorite sites @ the TOP of hosts also gets me indexing speeds back to the tune of 2-3++ MILLION indexed seeks also).
Funniest part is, DNS has its security issues FIXED BY HOSTS, easily (not doubling dns overheads as your INEFFICIENT "fix" using TCP vs. UDP default in DNS does) - I still don't SEE that YOU are able to say THAT either.
APK
P.S.=> Besides - You've already ADMITTED that DNS has more of a learning curve/complexity & the fact You ADMITTED hosts can secure users vs. downed DNS as well as You ADMITTED hosts can secure users vs. redirect poisoned DNS too...
... apk
Well the total n00b thing is you ignoring the fixes that have actually happened. There was an entire campaign centered around reducing the memory footprint of Firefox and closing out all open memory leak bugs. That campaign started at Firefox 3.5 and the memory footprint has been improving very steadily since making it now quite light weight on par with a browser heavily integrated into the system and far better than the competition.
But don't let my facts (or those of any of the other people posting and modding against you) get in the way of your religious tirade.
So, yea. That screenshot I posted is of the latest version of Firefox. So something is NOT fixed.
So what actually got fixed, hrm? RAM usage was most fucking certainly not one of them.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
So, yea. That screenshot I posted is of the latest version of Firefox. So something is NOT fixed.
So what actually got fixed, hrm? RAM usage was most fucking certainly not one of them.
That screenshot that disagrees with all the others in your thread? I take it your problem is reproducible and that you have filled a bug report complete with all the info required to reliably reproduce your problem? If not then kindly screw yourself, if so then wait for the outcome of the bug report.
But coming on a forum and saying everything is broken and nothing has been fixed since Firefox 3 is absurdly wrong and childish, not to mention disagrees with what others are seeing.
Or maybe do you think RAM usage is subject to a single bug which can magically fix everything, in which case I have a pet rock which also cures cancer I can sell you.
I had ff beta for a long time on our computer, but then number 30 went up. Mozilla Firefox don't work it said. Okej I say to my wife, we skip the beta. Nothing changes, the same Mozilla Firefox don't work came up. Yesterday I had enough and installed Opera.
Can we use the power of slashdot to DDOS this idiot's site into oblivion? Please?
That's the best you've got, puny little off topic troll? You can't prove apk wrong. You fail.
http://i.imgur.com/DyizJh0.png
Still leaking like a fucking sieve even after upgrading (and again, the only thing installed is AdBlock Edge.)
Two images, two slashdot threads, and an HTML-based e-mail.
Over 650 fucking megs.
Firefox is fucking broken.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Still fucking rising, just sitting waiting on the pizza I phoned in about 25 minutes ago. Same tabs, not touched shit and instead went on Camfrog to relax.
http://i.imgur.com/OxQtmyj.png
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.