Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chrome Beta Now Automatically Pauses Less Important Flash Content

Posted by Soulskill on from the let's-hope-they-mean-ads dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Google today detailed a very interesting initiative in partnership with Adobe: The two have been working to make Flash content more power-efficient in Chrome. Available now in the browser's beta channel, Chrome will use less power by simply choosing to play less Flash content on the page. Here's how the feature works: Chrome beta will automatically pause Flash content that isn't "central to the webpage" while keeping central content playing without interruption. The company offers an obvious example: Animations on the side will be paused while the video you're trying to watch will be unaffected.

98 comments

  1. Uninstalled Flash last week. by danceswithtrees · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can't say that I miss it.

    1. Re:Uninstalled Flash last week. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're slow ;) ... I uninstalled it 5 years ago and haven't missed it at all.

    2. Re:Uninstalled Flash last week. by NotInHere · · Score: 0

      4 years, for me.

    3. Re:Uninstalled Flash last week. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I have had long periods without Flash but somehow it always finds its way into my life. Even after my current 3 year break I still often have cravings. One day at a time, I guess. Keeping myself occupied on positive things helps.

    4. Re:Uninstalled Flash last week. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chrome has its own embedded version of Flash, independent of a system installation.

    5. Re:Uninstalled Flash last week. by LifesABeach · · Score: 2

      I liked Flash when it was ported to Linux. Then Adobe closed the door. I stopped telling people to use it; HTML5 could do the job just a well. Now I use OpenGL and Java/C++. So I should use Flash again because?

    6. Re: Uninstalled Flash last week. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > somehow

      Porn

    7. Re:Uninstalled Flash last week. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HTML5 does not handle vector animation, for one thing among many others.

    8. Re:Uninstalled Flash last week. by ron_ivi · · Score: 1
      I think the noscript extension provides the best of both worlds.

      Flash doesn't load at all unless I explicitly click it -- but for handfulls of websites where I want it to play, I can set noscript to whitelist those.

    9. Re:Uninstalled Flash last week. by narcc · · Score: 1

      SVG

      You're welcome.

      --
      Required reading for internet skeptics
    10. Re:Uninstalled Flash last week. by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      SVG with Javascript, and one has a fine graphical animation package. My thinking is that Adobe is choking on the increasing use of Tablets, and Smart Phones.

    11. Re:Uninstalled Flash last week. by xeoron · · Score: 1

      Sadly, flash is baked into GC.

  2. What Flash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's 2015, who still has Flash enabled?

    1. Re:What Flash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's 2015, only idiots still use Flash on their websites.

    2. Re:What Flash? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Anonymous Coward wrote:

      It's 2015, only idiots still use Flash on their websites.

      Are the administrators of (say) Newgrounds, Kongregate, and Weebl's Stuff idiots?

  3. Variation of a theme by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tabs don't pre-load until I click on them. It would just be better if we can just turn off autoplay. But, advertisers... they make the rules

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Variation of a theme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would just be better if we can just turn off autoplay.

      Allow plugins only in click-to-play mode (and evaluate whether you need these security disasters in the first place).

    2. Re:Variation of a theme by ron_ivi · · Score: 2

      Tabs don't pre-load until I click on them.

      That sounds like a uniquely bad idea.

      The single most important reason I use tabs is to pre-load pages while I'm reading a different page.

    3. Re:Variation of a theme by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Normally I did also, until the damn videos would start playing, and I couldn't the find the tab it was playing in. So, off it goes, minor inconvenience.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Variation of a theme by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Well, there you go. What about videos in tabs you're not looking at, and also videos everywhere else, don't autoplay at all?

      There is no reason whatsoever for any video to autoplay. The person at Adobe who allowed that to happen without user intervention, as well as the committee of W3C experts who decided to replicate this anti-pattern in HTML5, need to be taken out into the streets and slapped around the face with a giant trout.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:Variation of a theme by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Yes they all would play, that's why I quit pre-loading tabs until I click on them. The videos would start playing even on the tabs I wasn't looking at. Damn noise could wake the dead.

      There is no reason whatsoever for any video to autoplay.

      What Madison Avenue wants, Madison Avenue gets. It's just a money thing, that only they can understand.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  4. You know your software platform has been abused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    when you have to actively start working on disabling content built on it

    1. Re:You know your software platform has been abused by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Depends on who your customers are...

      Back in the day, when lots of what we now take for granted was pretty much impossible in-browser unless you went Flash, Java, or were among the lost and the damned using ActiveX controls. At that time, Adobe still treated web devs as their customers, since that was substantially the case. They still weren't competent on security or anything, this is Adobe we are talking about; but there was at least the idea that it would be a good thing if Flash were something you could build a usable 'rich' website in without either the dev or the user clawing out their own eyes in frustration and pain.

      Now, Flash is largely relegated to being the fallback video player(and occasionally the one for idiots who think that its relatively weak obfuscation provides protection against piracy that is worth more than the cost of having to deliver RTMPe streams, rather than just serving .flv or .mp4 files from any HTTP server ever); and a platform for building seriously obnoxious and/or malicious ads.

      Unfortunately, as their 'legitimate' customers dry up, Adobe's remaining Flash customers are, increasingly, people who want to annoy, track, or attack you.

      From the perspective of the end user, that means that the platform is being abused; but given that Adobe can have no realistic prospect of regaining ground among legitimate web developers with Flash, they arguably have a pragmatic incentive to get as sleazy as the law and PR concerns will allow, since that is the last part of their customer base that will dry up.

  5. Throw Flash Under the Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So I gather dousing flash in gasoline and lighting it on fire, Allowing it to burn until it is nothing but a charred skeleton wasn't even considered?

    1. Re:Throw Flash Under the Bus by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 2

      If aliens ever attack mankind, we should upload a copy of Flash to their mothership. That'll teach them!

  6. Re: You know your software platform has been abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I wish someone would disable half of the crap on Slashdot's mobile site. It's virtually unusable on my iPod and frequently causes the Safari version of a crash ("there was a problem with this pageâ¦).

  7. We need this why? by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wait - Does anyone not have click-to-play set as their default?

    Guess what, Google - you don't get to pick what I consider "important" content. I do.

    1. Re:We need this why? by cjjjer · · Score: 2

      This is my thought exactly it's up to the content creator to define what is important and the user to agree or disagree not the browser. Seems that Google just wants to make sure that it's content loads and works first...

    2. Re:We need this why? by JimMcc · · Score: 2

      My guess is that this is intended for people who have no idea what preferences are, where to set them, or what they do. I don't think the average Slashdot user is the intended audience.

    3. Re:We need this why? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Yes. Many, many people.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re:We need this why? by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Flash is such a security risk on its own that it would be insane to allow it run by default. It should always be click-to-played or whitelisted for trusted sites.

    5. Re:We need this why? by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Wait - Does anyone not have click-to-play set as their default? Guess what, Google - you don't get to pick what I consider "important" content. I do.

      Well, yeah, I've done that when I can find the setting. But I need to do a lot of web testing, and have lots of browsers installed on my various test machines. With most of them, I can't find any such setting anywhere. This doesn't mean they don't have such controls, of course; it could just mean that I don't recognize whatever they call it. Terms like "click to play" don't seem to exist on any of them, and for the few that I know how to do it, they all use different terminology.

      So does someone have a list of where to find the click-to-play setting on lots of browsers? Googling finds a few very short lists, but doesn't seem to have any info on the hundreds of others that are out now. Thus, I just installed Vivaldi on this Macbook Pro, its settings seems to have nothing at all to control active content, and google seems to just find questions about it, not answers. Again, this might just be because I don't know what Vivaldi calls their click-to-play setting.

      So if you think that everyone should have click-to-play set by default, you presumably know how to do this on every browser, or you know where there's a list of explanations. Can you give us a link to this list?

      (Curious web testers want to know ... ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    6. Re:We need this why? by pla · · Score: 1

      So if you think that everyone should have click-to-play set by default, you presumably know how to do this on every browser, or you know where there's a list of explanations. Can you give us a link to this list?

      TFA deals exclusively with Chrome. Chrome supports Click-to-play. I know where to change that setting in Chrome.

      (That said, I do have a plugin that does the same for FireFox, and beyond Chrome and FireFox, I don't care in the least what they do or don't support). :)

    7. Re:We need this why? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      This whole problem is also solved by having adblock. Seriously, anyone who puts up with "animations on the side" needs to start blocking these.

    8. Re:We need this why? by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      I'm seeing an increasing number of websites sticking transparent div elements over flash so that you can't click on them in flashblock. I've got to assume it's an effort to devalue flashblock and make people turn it off. (It causes me to close the web site in question, unless I absolutely have to use it, in which case I fire up firebug and delete the element)

      --
      http://blog.nexusuk.org
    9. Re:We need this why? by Samuel+Dravis · · Score: 1

      Adblockers usually also have a "block element" option (uBlock has "Element Picker" when you click on its options) which gets rid of those types of overlays quite handily.

  8. Re:Latest Chrome and Firefox betas break websites by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

    Please don't spread FUD.
    Security weaknesses are pretty bad as it is.
    Obvious overexaggeration just makes people think it's less bad.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  9. news site will redesign... by tekrat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So now the flash Ads will be centered on the webpage, and the story you're trying to read will be a sidebar. Not that that's not already happening. Every damn news website is now nothing but a crapfest with a paragraph of story.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re: news site will redesign... by ZeroWaiteState · · Score: 1

      A paragraph of story lifted from AP newswire, no less, because $&@k research.

  10. Adsense by JimDarkmagic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Adsense and Doubleclick must not use flash ads...or they will make an exception for their ad platforms.

  11. HTML5 Adverts by tomxor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I actually quite like that most of the highly animated CPU hogging adverts are written in flash, because i can easily disable all of them.

    What concerns me is when those advertisers are finally forced to start writing them in javascript + Canvas / SVG / WebGL... yes it's possible to write efficient animated HTML5 content, request animation frame etc... but that's not forced, you think advertisers give a shit about that stuff? they will use everything at their disposal once flash is considered completely obsolete. Look forward to unsandboxed memory leaks and poorly optimised animation directly in your page... yay

    1. Re:HTML5 Adverts by halivar · · Score: 1

      Look forward to unsandboxed memory leaks and poorly optimised animation directly in your page... yay

      So you're saying we're going back to GeoCities circa '98?

    2. Re:HTML5 Adverts by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      Cool. I loved Geocities! However, I recently found out, much to my shock and horror, that modern browsers no longer support the blink tag. :(

    3. Re:HTML5 Adverts by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Worse, they might do some WebGL stuff. Depending on your graphics card or driver this causes various levels of lock ups, from browser freeze (complete or in a favorable case corrupt rendering and you can close the page), X11 session freeze that you can kill by ctrl-alt-backspace or ctrl-alt-f1, or X11 server locked up so bad it doesn't take keyboard input anymore and you have to hit the reset button.

    4. Re:HTML5 Adverts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you're not the only one: HTML5 blink tag.

    5. Re:HTML5 Adverts by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      CSS animations allow you to blink elements at more annoying and out of sync speeds than <blink> ever did!

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    6. Re:HTML5 Adverts by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      What concerns me is when those advertisers are finally forced to start writing them in javascript + Canvas / SVG / WebGL... yes it's possible to write efficient animated HTML5 content, request animation frame etc... but that's not forced, you think advertisers give a shit about that stuff? they will use everything at their disposal once flash is considered completely obsolete. Look forward to unsandboxed memory leaks and poorly optimised animation directly in your page... yay

      Well, your browser has direct control of that stuff, so it can easily make it also click-to-play and other things. Heck, the browser can easily see that maybe since the tab is not active, it won't run that crap so the ad is halted.

      HTML5 is not evil because it mixes in everything, but it's a good thing that your browser is in charge, not some 3rd party plugin that you can't control. I mean, stuff like tracking cookies done using Flash are much harder for your browser to track and obey user privacy settings with, than something your browser runs directly and can implement the desired user policy.

      With third party plugins, you're at the mercy of the third party provider to do stuff. With HTML5, the user (or really the browser) is in charge.

    7. Re:HTML5 Adverts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem being that all four current browsers (Firefox, IE / 'edge', Chrome, Safari) are controlled by user-hostile corporations.

      The real harm of HTML 5 and all the other 'modern' web standards is that we the users, even technically capable / coders, are a captive audience because maintaining a modern browser engine requires a team of full-time employees..

    8. Re:HTML5 Adverts by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Our purpose as citizens of the internet is not to get information, but instead to serve as eyeballs that consume advertisements. Do not reject your advertising overlords it will only lead to inner turmoil. Accept the peace and tranquility of the new Buick Regal, available now at select dealerships.

    9. Re:HTML5 Adverts by narcc · · Score: 1

      Mozilla isn't user-hostile. Quite the opposite, I'd say.

      --
      Required reading for internet skeptics
    10. Re:HTML5 Adverts by tomxor · · Score: 1

      Well, your browser has direct control of that stuff, so it can easily make it also click-to-play and other things.

      The browser has direct control of globally determining what is allowed in that page. You cannot click to play HTML5 adverts because the whole point is that they are part of the page... there is no rule for determining how ads are embedded into a page, so there is no reliable objective way of telling if that content is an advert or not, for instance attempting to implement a generic-global click to play WebGL content is just as likely to target your primary content as it is an ad.

      It's reasonable to argue however that flash "is not an ad" because using click to play on flash kills everything that is flash... It's not inconceivable that the canvas 2d and 3d contexts could be limited in some way, the problem is that a lot of use of those contexts are not only legitimate and widely used but are also lightly used and not CPU or GPU hungry. In which case there perhaps a "click to give full resources" as opposed to a "click to do anything at all" would be more appropriate.

      HTML5 is not evil because it mixes in everything, but it's a good thing that your browser is in charge, not some 3rd party plugin that you can't control.

      I'm not saying HTML5 is evil, i really like the web actively moving away from plugins and toward better more refined specifications to write content properly, i'm saying advertisers are evil, they fill pages we want to view with alien content that can eat up resources we don't want to give it... flash was actually a solution to isolate that (don't get me wrong i hate flash, but i was happy for content i hate to stay in flash).

  12. Re: You know your software platform has been abus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you think safari shouldnt crash no matter what crap slashdot throws at it?

  13. half the effort. by Jazoray · · Score: 2

    >2015 >still not making click-to-play the default for all elements of all plugins Every browser is still exactly like IE6

  14. Re:Latest Chrome and Firefox betas break websites by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Diffie-Hellman is weak as fuck IN THE FIRST PLACE and broken anyways.

    Man can make it, man can break it.

    Next non-story.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  15. Easy answer: YouTube by Immerial · · Score: 1

    They don't want to set click to play as their default because of YouTube. Just think of how many you'd piss off as that as your default. Hence the "smart" playback selection.

    1. Re:Easy answer: YouTube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YouTube on Chrome doesn't use Flash anymore (or at least on most operating systems and hardware) -- it's all HTML5.

    2. Re:Easy answer: YouTube by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      People would be pissed off that they'd have to manually start a Youtube video with a single click? I suppose it's theoretically possible, but they'd be immensely outnumbered by the people who want it the other way (no more searching down which tab just started blasting out sound).

  16. Animations on the side by PPH · · Score: 1

    I see Dice is prepared for this change. That's why their stinkin' Video Blights are in the middle of the page. It's a short step to have them play on load.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Animations on the side by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Ad block plus. I didn't even know there were advertisements on slashdot until recently. And today I learned that there's a thing called Video Blights somewhere on the pages too.

  17. Better yet... by mark-t · · Score: 1
    ... don't run *ANY* flash content on a page until a user has expressly allowed it to run.

    Which I believe is what adblock does. Pretty good at halting those annoying "autoplay" videos.

    Now if only they would just make a similar feature that could always strip the autoplay attribute from the html5 video tag unless you want to allow it for a page, that would be perfect.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  18. I had this for ages by penguinoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    AdBlock permanantly pauses Flash content that isn't "central to the webpage" while keeping central content playing without interruption.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:I had this for ages by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      I wish they'd do the same with animated gifs, they've come back in full force for ads. (Or perhaps this is already done but not in Safari?)

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  19. Contact website owners by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    For any of my favourite sites that I see using Flash for video or audio, I feedback to them asking when they are moving to the HTML5 tags. If more people did that, maybe they would get the message?

    With the HTML5 video & audio tags, in addition to the WebAudio API, there is less and less reason to use Flash. Certainly there are obscure uses for Flash, but maybe obscure enough that not all of us will miss the plugin.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  20. Great idea, it was lagging behind by cerberusss · · Score: 1

    According to a test by The Verge, this was pretty sorely needed: "The native Safari made the new Retina machine look good: 13 hours and 18 minutes. Google’s Chrome, on the other hand, forced the laptop to tap out at 9 hours and 45 minutes."

    http://www.theverge.com/2015/4...

    --
    8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  21. I thought altering the appearance of ads was immor by ZeroWaiteState · · Score: 1

    I guess they finally caught up to the idea that Progressive Insurance FMV in the sidebar equals dead battery and customer complaints.

  22. Google search box broken .. by nickweller · · Score: 1

    Entering new terms and pressing the ENTER key used to work, now you have to move the mouse and click on the spyglass icon.

    1. Re:Google search box broken .. by DescX · · Score: 1

      I've noticed this as well. I can't be arsed to reproduce the behaviour, but killing my ad blocker and reloading the offending page did the trick -- on two separate google pages -- when keystrokes weren't registering at all. I expect there's a rule in my config that's a bit too aggressive about a JS resource; YMMV :).

  23. HTML5 + Canvas + your JS library by tepples · · Score: 2

    In theory, HTML5 + Canvas + your own vector animation playback library written in JavaScript handles vector animation. This is supposed to be what Adobe's Edge Animate does. Then the problem becomes one of playing legacy Flash objects created prior to Edge Animate, such as those seen on Dagobah and Albino Blacksheep.

  24. Halting is counterexample by tepples · · Score: 1

    Man can make it, man can break it.

    Man can make a Turing machine. Man can prove that not all Turing machines can be analyzed for whether or not they even finish.

    1. Re:Halting is counterexample by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man can make it, man can break it.

      Man can make a Turing machine. Man can prove that not all Turing machines can be analyzed for whether or not they even finish.

      And that is how man breaks the Turing machine halting detector...

  25. Pausing side flash objects? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Outcry from Advertisers flash ads not being played and viewed in 5... 4... 3...

  26. The Escapist paywalls the HTML5 by tepples · · Score: 1

    For any of my favourite sites that I see using Flash for video or audio, I feedback to them asking when they are moving to the HTML5 tags.

    I asked The Escapist a similar question, and the reply was to the effect "Subscribers have access to our entire library in high-quality HTML5. We accept major credit cards. Adobe Flash Player is required only for free viewing." (Source)

    1. Re:The Escapist paywalls the HTML5 by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      Odd that they would spread their resources between two technologies? May they just haven't updated their free site, since it didn't make financial sense?

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    2. Re:The Escapist paywalls the HTML5 by tepples · · Score: 1

      Odd that they would spread their resources between two technologies?

      It sounded to me more like they consider Flash as a "secure" stream, priced like a stream, and HTML5 as a premium download, priced like a download.

  27. Why don't they freeze all background tabs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use now the Great suspender plugin to do it, but that one actually unloads the page and reloads when clicked.
    What is so difficult to just freezing all scripting and plugins when a tab is on the background?

  28. Waiiiiit a minute by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1

    Doesn't this violate Net Neutrality? Who is Chrome to say what's "less important"? Time for the FCC to kick in some doors and extract multi-million dollar settlements over this outrage.

  29. Popover Flash ads by tepples · · Score: 1

    So now the flash Ads will be centered on the webpage

    That's been common for years now. See a blog cataloging examples of lightbox abuse.

  30. Re:AdBlock = slower, inferior + 'souled-out' by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    I'm looking for a blocker for those annoying hosts file advertisements.

  31. does online advertisers suffer? by jan_jes · · Score: 1

    i have tried this and it works perfectly if selecting the option. But what if the advertisers suffer, when Google blocks the flash contents?

    1. Re:does online advertisers suffer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would Google care, I don't think they sell Flash adverts. Hopefully this will just encourage advertisers to use less annoying ads, instead of the annoying Flash ones, which are now less likely to be seen.

  32. it feels great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just block all plugins

  33. AdBlock = slower, inferior + 'souled-out' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious ads: See 2-10 next)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
    16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!

    APK

    P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    AdBlock's SLOWER than hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...

    For the BEST hosts file?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    ... apk

  34. AdBlock = slower, inferior + 'souled-out' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious ads: See 2-10 next)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
    16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!

    APK

    P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    AdBlock's SLOWER than hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...

    For the BEST hosts file?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    ... apk

  35. AdBlock+ = slower, inferior + 'souled-out' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious ads: See 2-10 next)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
    16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock+ doing it as well or at all!

    APK

    P.S.=> AdBlock+ does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    AdBlock+ adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    AdBlock+'s SLOWER than hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...

    For the BEST hosts file?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    ... apk

  36. UBlock = Inferior vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ublock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious ads: See 2-10 next)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
    16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ublock doing it as well or at all!

    APK

    P.S.=> ublock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    ClarityRay defeats it

    Ublock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    For the BEST hosts file?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    ... apk

  37. Hosts = no exceptions for doubleclick/adsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious ads: See 2-10 next)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
    16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!

    APK

    P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    AdBlock's SLOWER than hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...

    For the BEST hosts file?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    ... apk

  38. AdBlock = slower, inferior + 'souled-out' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious ads: See 2-10 next)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
    16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!

    APK

    P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    AdBlock's SLOWER than hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...

    For the BEST hosts file?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    ... apk

  39. DarinBob = "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject "Forrest" & this -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

  40. Re:AdBlock = slower, inferior + 'souled-out' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Adblock's paid shill sockpuppets always downmod you. They're scared of you.

  41. Still waiting 4U2 validly prove me wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & validly technically prove me wrong here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

    FACT: You just plain CAN'T (& you know it, I know it, + so does anyone else with 1/2 a brain even... lol!).

    * After all DarinBob:

    You RAN from that completely FAIR CHALLENGE I put to YOU before -> http://news.slashdot.org/comme... & the "best ya got" BEFORE back then was bogus downmods too, just like now http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... yet again yet you never *EVER* validly technically proved my points wrong in favor of hosts files over other CLEARLY INFERIOR so-called 'competitors' in AlmostALLAdsBlocked, Ghostery, UBlock, AdBlockPlus, AdBlockEdge, wrong!

    APK

    P.S.=> Fact (that nobody can ever disprove): Hosts add more speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity (To a lesser extent only on the latter though) FOR LESS resources consumed in CPU cycles, RAM, + other forms of I/O in excessive messagepassing in a slower mode of operations layering in over already slower browsers (vs. hosts in pure kernelmode) - period!

    ... apk