Firefox To Let Users Control Memory Usage (bleepingcomputer.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from BleepingComputer: Mozilla engineers are working on a new section in the browser's preferences that will let users control the browser's performance. Work on this new section started last Friday when an issue was opened in the Firefox bug tracker. Right now, the Firefox UI team has proposed a basic sketch of the settings section and its controls. Firefox developers are now working to isolate or implement the code needed to control those settings [1, 2, 3]. According to the current version of the planned Performance settings section UI, users will be able to control if they use UI animations (to be added in a future Firefox version), if they use page prefetching (feature to preload links listed on a page), and how many "content" processes Firefox uses (Firefox currently supports two processes [one for the Firefox core and one for content], but this will expand to more starting v54).

Comments

Host files

[110010001000]

You can reduce memory usage by using a custom host file to control malware and advertising. They are the biggest usage of memory.

Re:Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

You got this wrong. It should not be hosts files. It should stop at the level of your router, so you can protect all your computers and mobile devices with a singe configuration.

Re:Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

And how, pray tell, can you accomplish this without adding a trusted certificate on each device when the majority of websites are now (or will be) https?

Re:Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but blocking with a hosts file is so easy especially when great sources like this:

http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm

And are so easy to automate updates of.

Re:Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need a certificate to null route an IP address or send a domain lookup to loopback.

Re: Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

I have used hosts files at home for years. I don't know any home router that supports uploaded a text file or list into it's url filtering

Re: Host files

[corychristison]

Exactly the same way the hosts file does it: Block (null route to 0.0.0.0) the DNS queries. No certificate or packet inspection necessary.

And, as an added bonus, if someone wanted to utilize an Authorative DNS Server other than the one provided by the Router/Gateway, they would be able without any trouble.

I block a lot of the low hanging stuff at the router level in my house using this technique, and then use uBlock Origin in Firefox/Chrome to block the higher level stuff.

The hosts file does not cosmetically clean up pages in addition to blocking ads, where uBlock/Adblock do.

Re:Host files

[110010001000]

I wouldn't use that. it looks like malware. I would recommend using one of the publicly available host files.

Re: Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

If your router supports dd-wrt, it's no tougher than copying and pasting. https://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/DNSMasq_-_DNS_for_your_local_network_-_HOWTO

Re:Host files

[grep -v '.*' *]

You can reduce memory usage by using a custom host file

But how do you do exceptions? I can't do:
0.0.0.0 *
and still read reddit.com.

For that matter, * doesn't really work either.

And adding aliases on a single line stops after 640K bytes -- it's like that's enough for everyone. Why can't I place every single FQDN on a single line? Stupid DNS. ;-)

Re:Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

That's one of the oldest publicaly available lists of hosts. It's shipped with uBlock Origin, which is developed by the best programmer and privacy advocate alive today.

Re: Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

LMFAO

Did he who should not be named die or what?

Re: Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

yes much less tedius and the comunity updates. though as stated elsewere you need root access to even go that level. adblocker are good too especially if you can choose your own lists either ciustom and/or existing ie easylist.

Re:Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't trust 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1. That's why my host file hardcodes all the bad stuff to 8.8.8.8. Sorted.

BQL

Re:Host files

[iNaya]

It's got horrendous design. But, how does it look like malware? And it already is "one of the publicly available host files".

Re:Host files

[buss_error]

https://pi-hole.net/

Much better and protects the entire network.

Re:Host files

[Known Nutter]

Been using that for years... formally known as "Mike's Ad Blocking Hosts File" -- definitely not malware.

Re: Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

If I encrypt a letter to you and you know the key, all is well.

If I encrypt a letter to you, as well as encrypting your address om the front of the letter, you will not get that letter.

Re:Host files

[Rockoon]

Hey everybody... we now know how to fool this guy. He thinks simple site = malware and therefore must think fancy flashy = safe

Re: Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

You force all dns resolutions through a local server - All outbound traffic to port 53 is redirected to a local DNS that returns a predefined IP address that you drop (or preferably reset for tcp and for non-tcp you return an icmp message) with firewall rules. Then you configure your DNS server which domains it should resolve locally and which to forward to the root servers for resolving.

Re: Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and the hosts file goes directly on my router, and all dns requests are being inspected and served by my router. I have close to 30 devices at home counting all the virtual machines and dual boots and tablets, and other IoT idiocies. I don't have the necessary access to apply hosts file to the OS on about 8 of them. On the other 22 do you really think that I want to do separate configurations and update it and keep in sync? That is what the router is for, configure it once and you are covered, even for devices that you otherwise have to root or crack and the source of those exploits can't be trusted.
Plus my router logs go to syslog and ntop-ng. I know exactly which device, when is attempting to connect to what and keep that for 4 months. May be an overkill for a home user, but it keeps my skills sharp.

Re: Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

On a router with a proper dns server you can do regex

Re: Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

Group policy lets you import hosts via logon scripts or admins can easily via timed chronjob/windows scheduled tasks to multiple systems easily. Routers are security nightmares https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10476859&cid=54219573/ that cost money. Hosts are free.

Re: Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

DNS's an inefficient security nightmare (100's of valid examples from reputable sources https://news.slashdot.org/comm... ). Your method's too complex and too much work adding on more (windows desktop doesn't have a dns server and most people use windows desltop model, server models cost big) and too much to configure. Hosts are there already natively, easy to understand on their interior and 1 part only in a single file. Apk made working with hosts even easier point and click gui easy APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

Re: Host files

[fisted]

"Group policy" is a fucking nightmare on its own, as well as a Windows-specific concept.

Also, it's spelled cronjob. Thanks for playing.

Re: Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

Group policy only works on Windows. Only one of my dozens of devices runs Windows. May others don't allow their hosts file to be edited at all.

I have a router because it's required to get all those devices online. How else will I do it?

While I'm there I can use the same router for DNS filtering with a single hosts file without any measurable performance impact. No need to touch any endpoint devices.

And no, the router is not a security issue because I manage it properly.

Routers aren't inherently insecure, just the cheap garbage SOHO kit from Best Buy is out of the box. Nothing that can't be properly fixed by anyone with enough clue to know what a hosts file is though.

If you have a garbage insecure router, no app on your own box is gong to protect you from that issue.

Re: Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

For you tying your shoelaces must be a nightmare. AD group policy's easy and why most lans use it. Ease of use is Windows' trademark. NIX admins can use the other route shown in scripts. You lose. Not even a nice try.

Re: Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

Blowjob, damn it. I mean blowjob not chronjob.

Re: Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

Use scripts. Can't handle it? Those routers you call crap is what most people have from their ISP. Hosts help secure shortcomings there at another level in layered security defense in depth.

Re: Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

I repeat: many other devices don't allow their hosts file to be edited at all.

Your move.

Re: Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

You chose devices that miss out on added layered security and speed hosts files give users. Choose better devices next time. Looks like you wasted your money. No surprise. You aren't very smart. I gathered that much right away based on your not knowing how to use scripts.

Re: Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't miss out - my router does it for them. Defense in depth and all that.

So what smart phones do you use then? Or do you prefer to root them and compromise their security?

Shall I tell my wife she is dumb for buying an iPhone? Or my kids that they are dumb for wanting an Xbox and PS4?

Just please don't tell my customers I can't script - they haven't figured out that I can't yet.

*sigh*

Captcha: unguided

Re: Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

Routers alone aren't defense in depth. They're a single point of fail with tons of security issues https://it.slashdot.org/commen... and you think everyone has a customized router? Wrong. I don't use smartphones as they're so compromised they're dumbphones. Your wife's dumb for marrying you. Did you buy her too like you buy your kids those make you fat toys? Tell them to go play outside to be healthy instead of human flabs sitting likes brainless drones in front of those things. Again, you show me you're not only dumb but a shitty father.

Re: Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeepers you are ignorant. I never once claimed everyone has a custom router. I just claim that DNS blacklisting is more effectively done at the border than every endpoint, some of which can't be managed to that degree. I've also got Ghostery and other bits which collectively form defence in depth. End of story.

You also know nothing about me or my family.

I don't make assumptions about people I don't know. I don't attack people personally. I also don't put words in the mouth of others. Just a few life tips there buddy...

Re: Host files

[fisted]

I think we have different definitions of 'ease of use'. The moment something doesn't work, you're SOL. Googling generic error messages, trying to fiddle with the blackbox. You can't trace anything, you can't debug anything, there are no straightforward logs, sometimes no logs whatsoever. Fuck that absolute nightmare.

Of course, if "trying random things until it eventually kinda sorta works" is your general approach to administration, then I see why you would defend that concept. Sorry to break it to you, but you're incompetent.

Re:Host files

[AmiMoJo]

uBlock Origin supports hosts file, but also wildcard and CSS selector rules. Also throw in Privacy Badger while you are there.

Re: Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly the same way the hosts file does it: Block (null route to 0.0.0.0) the DNS queries.

I prefer returning NXDOMAIN - no such domain.

Re:Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually no, it should be hosts files on each computer, otherwise those computers are unprotected when they are being used on a different network or connecting through someone else's router.

Re:Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't sound very formal, it sounds rather informal to me.

Re: Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

Group policy on a kindle, or on a security camera? Good luck momma!
We don't live in a Stone Age. And even a 50 dollar router can have scripting capabilities and can hold several million entries in the dns setup.
And you also miss the fact that I practically log every packet from every device and have the ability to do investigations

Re:Host files

[mrchaotica]

First of all, host files aren't flexible enough: I want to be able to block domains conditionally (e.g. block Google subdomains except when I'm visiting a Google page directly).

Second, even if something running on the router were good enough, I'd still want a uMatrix-like browser extension for making it easy to add new rules to it anyway.

Really what I'd like is for uMatrix rules to sync between the browsers on all my computers, and then for the subset of the rules that are always-deny (in uMatrix parlance, rules of the form

* [domain] * block

) to be exported to the router hosts file.

Re: Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

Ghostery's advertiser owned. Not good choice. Border perimeter defense isn't defense in depth and you did say that https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10476859&cid=54220381/ I know plenty about you now. You say I am ignorant but I did not ignore that and now use it against your garbage attempt to cover up. You are a bullshitter.

Re:Host files

[flappinbooger]

And how, pray tell, can you accomplish this without adding a trusted certificate on each device when the majority of websites are now (or will be) https?

Get a router with sufficient ram, (32megs or more) put on DD-WRT, add a script to block ads. I did it and it works. The info is out there and easy to find.

Re:Host files

[arth1]

Yeah, hosts files are so limited that they're worthless. How do you block every host in 116.128.0.0/10 or 42.208.0.0/12 in a hosts list?

My router can not only block netmasks, but block by ASN. So when Chinanet in Gongzhou adds more IP addresses, it will already block them.

But still, you need a blocker can do content based blocking. A hosts file or firewall rule cannot block ads here on /. where the ads are served from the same server - you'd block the non-ad contents too.
Adblock Plus/Latitude most certainly can.

Re:Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

APK? Is that you?

Re:Host files

[Anonymous Coward]

I already run it with Ublock Origin to remove advertising. It still balloons to over 2 gigs of memory usage when loading 50+ tabs. Chrome is a lot more efficient.

But FF advocate s said there weren't problems!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is confusing. Whenever somebody pointed out that FF uses a lot of memory, FF supporters would come along and tell those people that they're wrong and that FF doesn't use unreasonable amounts of memory. But now they're putting in ways to limit the memory usage! So those FF advocates were wrong: FF can use too much memory!

Re:But FF advocate s said there weren't problems!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is confusing. Whenever somebody pointed out that FF uses a lot of memory, FF supporters would come along and tell those people that they're wrong and that FF doesn't use unreasonable amounts of memory. But now they're putting in ways to limit the memory usage! So those FF advocates were wrong: FF can use too much memory!

Mozilla is reacting to a perceived problem, not a real problem.

If you are using an old, slow computer, or you don't have much RAM or you open a ridiculous number of tabs, you will experience performance problems. Essentially, Mozilla is trying to help fix a problem that is caused by users, not by Firefox.

Re: But FF advocate s said there weren't problems!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a perceived problem. My workstation has 32 GB of RAM yet Firefox will still use many GBs if I leave it open for a few days. This happens with addons enabled, and even with a new profile. Chrome doesn't do that. Edge doesn't do that. It's a problem that effects Firefox and not the other browsers. Maybe it's due to memory leaks in Firefox?

Re: But FF advocate s said there weren't problems!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. I loved seeing firefox take 2-3G of memory and running the CPU at 100% after a few hours of using it and nothing happening on the one tab I'm using.

Firefox is an absolute pig when it comes resources.

Re: But FF advocate s said there weren't problems!

[rudy_wayne]

It's not a perceived problem. My workstation has 32 GB of RAM yet Firefox will still use many GBs if I leave it open for a few days. This happens with addons enabled, and even with a new profile. Chrome doesn't do that. Edge doesn't do that. It's a problem that effects Firefox and not the other browsers. Maybe it's due to memory leaks in Firefox?

Well then, i guess I must be the luckiest person in the whole universe, because I've been using Firefox since v1.0 and have never had that problem.

Re: But FF advocate s said there weren't problems!

[Rockoon]

Yes you have. You just arent knowledgeable enough to know it.

Re:But FF advocate s said there weren't problems!

[arglebargle_xiv]

I also don't like the UI, who needs sliders and whatnot when all they need to add are the following config toggles:

[X] Use 100% of CPU performing almost any operation.

[X] Consume GB of memory with more than a handful of web pages open.

[X] Leak memory.

[X] Burn up CPU and run down the laptop battery while doing absolutely nothing.

Then you could just uncheck all those enabled-by-default options and get decent performance from your browser.

Re:But FF advocate s said there weren't problems!

[arglebargle_xiv]

The whole article seems to be pretty sycophantic, for example:

the browser was unfairly labeled as a memory hog

"unfairly"? I guess Hitler was also unfairly labelled as being a bit antisemitic, but he wasn't really such a bad guy when you got to know him. Firefox is the single biggest memory hog on my machine, it's currently using more memory than all other apps and the OS combined, and that's SOP, not some one-off that's just popped up today.

Re: But FF advocate s said there weren't problems!

[munch117]

about:memory would probably tell you something useful to put in the bug report.

Pro tip: slashdot AC commenting is not the optimal way to report bugs that you want fixed.

Re:But FF advocate s said there weren't problems!

[jellomizer]

Yes there is a lot of blaming the user in software and especially in open source where it is public. But often we have a lot of users pining for those 8 bit days where wonderful software ran on under 256k of ram. Not realizing the limitations of these systems and why you were suppose to spend $50 on what today would be a throwaway app. Most of the work in these old apps was about trying to get it it fit then work as expected.
You would need an early 32bit (80386) PC to play an MP3 fille. A lot of what is common now takes a great deal of power. Granted today most development will use extra ram because most people now have more than they need. But today's apps do have extra features that you don't realize.
Now that said. Being able to performance tune the browser is a good idea for an open source product as it allows you to tinker with setting and allow us to choose the trade offs. However a word of caution as the tendency to blame the user exists. They may use it as a crutch to stop making things better.

Re:But FF advocate s said there weren't problems!

[Tranzistors]

Firefox is the single biggest memory hog on my machine

And what else is running? XFCE with bunch of terminals running vi and ssh?

Re:But FF advocate s said there weren't problems!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. I was even told that it was by design that Firefox used more than 2GB memory on a 32-bit system. 2GB just happens to be the maximum address space available to user space on a 32-bit system (though some configurations may allow 3GB).

Re: But FF advocate s said there weren't problems!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, there were always plenty of "works for me" posts. Though for some reason, when it comes to projects with lots of fans (like Firefox and even Windows), "works for me" is somehow proof that the bug that a lot of other people hits doesn't exist.

Re: But FF advocate s said there weren't problems!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it's due to memory leaks in Firefox?

Maybe it's something they'd have to do a major rewrite to fix?
Oh, but of course, change is bad so I guess they can't do that.

Re:But FF advocate s said there weren't problems!

[Serge_Tomiko]

Wow you're young. You need a Pentium to play MP3 files.

Re: But FF advocate s said there weren't problems!

[Anonymous Coward]

Pro tip: slashdot AC commenting is not the optimal way to report bugs that you want fixed.

Well, reporting bugs at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ sure as fuck hasn't helped, since these memory problems still exist in Firefox years and years after they were first reported there.

When bugs logged to the official bug tracker go ignored, or worse, when it's repeatedly denied that the problems exists when they very well do exist, people will have no choice but to seek help elsewhere. So they mention the problems here and at other discussion venues.

Will doing that help fix the bug? Probably not. But at least it warns other users not to bother with Firefox. This is at least part of the reason why Firefox's share of the market is only around 5% now. It has gotten itself a really bad reputation as a browser that's slow and that uses way too much memory. People now know to just use Chrome instead.

Re: But FF advocate s said there weren't problems!

[Rolgar]

You know, I shut it down when I log on to let my wife use the machine. When I login and launch, I get back all of my tabs, but I set the setting that does not load all of the tabs, so most of them don't use any memory, other than having a tab and knowing the URL. I periodically go back, and decide I'm never going to use many of those tabs and close them without reading them, but other than being clutter, they don't really impact my browser usage.

Re: But FF advocate s said there weren't problems!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have never seen Firefox use that much memory. I usually keep an eye on it with about:memory. Chrome on the other runs like shit on older computers with 2 or 3 GB of ram.

Re: But FF advocate s said there weren't problems!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a perceived problem. My workstation has 32 GB of RAM yet Firefox will still use many GBs if I leave it open for a few days. This happens with addons enabled, and even with a new profile. Chrome doesn't do that. Edge doesn't do that. It's a problem that effects Firefox and not the other browsers. Maybe it's due to memory leaks in Firefox?

Well then, i guess I must be the luckiest person in the whole universe, because I've been using Firefox since v1.0 and have never had that problem.

Nope more likely you are either a liar or simply too uneducated in technology to understand the problems. Firefox (like all browsers) has had its trouble spots and many of those have been memory leaks, to claim you have never had a problem shows ignorance on your part not luck.

Re:But FF advocate s said there weren't problems!

[jellomizer]

No a 386 for a MP3 file. Without any other apps.

A good browser

[Anonymous Coward]

Should not use any more than 50mb of ram

Re:A good browser

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense. You might not even be able to browse Slashdot with 50 megs, and it's hardly the browser's fault that everyone wants to be so free with their resource usage.

Re:A good browser

[rudy_wayne]

Should not use any more than 50mb of ram

If you live in 1998.

Re: A good browser

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish. Curl and mental parsing of HTML tags uses about 1 MB but it's slow as hell.

Re: A good browser

[Anonymous Coward]

I was just a kid and I had 96 megs of RAM back then.
Remember when we all said "megs?"

Re: A good browser

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, I gots hung up on "megs" nostalgia and forgot to make a point.

I needed all that RAM so I didn't have to close my browser or WinAmp to fire up Napster.

Re: A good browser

[Anonymous Coward]

you know theres something to that its good ff is working on a lower foot print but i do not really come to any issues with it. i will not go into my laptop or desktop there pretty beefy as far as any browser could throw at them but it works fine on phone devices ive had except maybe back in the day but ff did not exist for mobile yet.

I suppose

[93 Escort Wagon]

I would've voted for fixing the memory leaks, but I suppose this is an option too...

Re:I suppose

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, it won't be an option for very long.
It will no doubt be flagged for removal in a version or two after marked as "causing too much confusion for users", just like the "allow javascript" checkbox was.

Re:I suppose

[Anonymous Coward]

This is about performance settings, not memory settings. The title is misleading. You should never trust an article title. Their only intention is to get you to view the article. They used to be a summary of the content, that is no longer true. Everything is click-bait. The control memory usage bit comes from being able to change the number of processes Firefox is using. More processes = more memory. That's not what most people with think when they read "control memory usage".

As far as I can tell everything in the new Performance settings tab is something you can already change through about:config. The article suggests it will take them until 2018 to get this new settings panel finished. Why the fuck should a few new controls to existing settings take 8 months to develop? Their proposed UI controls aren't even that good. Why limit the content processes to a slider 1 through 7? Make it a numerical text entry instead of a slider so in two years people with better computers won't be limited to 7 processes. We already have more than 7 cores on today's computers.

Mozilla's decisions always baffle me.

Re:I suppose

[phantomfive]

They're working on that, too. Firefox is fast becoming the best browser.

Re:I suppose

[Waccoon]

In my attempts to track down why Firefox has huge memory problems but Pale Moon v26 does not (and Pale Moon v27 does), I've determined that bad caching policy is responsible for memory consumption, not leaks.

Firefox will cache the hell out of everything it encounters regardless of the limits you set for the memory cache, up to a certain percentage of total available memory. In recent versions of the browser, most internal memory management settings not in the preferences file seem to be set to "-1" (fully automatic) so there's no way to change them unless you recompile. Bloody annoying.

Not being an application developer, my only lead on how to track down all the settings involves comparing the code of Pale Moon v26 to v27. Not an easy feat, seeing as how there's over 40,000 new or changed files between those two versions. I've not made much progress on compiling a less stupid build, but I do know the problem is that the browser is just insanely greedy with memory, not that it's "losing" it.

I have no idea how much memory FF uses

[Snotnose]

Nor do I care. I switched to Chrome years ago because FF flat out got slow, so much so I decided "hmmm, FF, IE, or Chrome. Let's try Chrome".

Chrome was much faster. 2.5 years ago I got a new laptop with a much faster processor and a lot more RAM. I kept Chrome. It works, usually.

I fire up FF once a week. My supermarket website (Vons) doesn't work with Chrome (could be the add ons, don't really care). But until Chrome starts to suck I don't feel any need to return to FF as my daily browser.

TLDR; piss off your long term users, they turn into long term users of something else

Re:I have no idea how much memory FF uses

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool story bro. I'm glad that you managed to feed your ego and be the center of attention for some free karma whoring, but nobody really cares about how pissed off you were a few years ago or how much faster Chrome was back then.

What really matters in the context of a post like this is whether Firefox is finally becoming worthwhile again, not your impressions of it a few years ago. And since you flat-out stated that you don't use it enough to really offer us any insight on whether it's becoming worthwhile again, your post is as worthless as this one I've written in reply.

Re:I have no idea how much memory FF uses

[Anonymous Coward]

Same. Only I switched finally back when they decided that they would get rid of Addons for chrome style Extension. I figured that if I can't have my UI altering extensions and will be forced to use a Chrome-esque UI, I may as well use the original instead of a shitty knockoff

Opera had that feature

[locopuyo]

Cool, Opera had that feature 10 years ago.

Re:Opera had that feature

[Anonymous Coward]

It was more than 10 years ago. Opera was really leading the way in browser innovation. It's too bad it killed itself.

Re: Opera had that feature

[Anonymous Coward]

Google should have bought Opera and used it as the basis for Chrome instead of WebKit. That would have made Chrome a better browser, and it would have made Firefox a better browser, too, when it would have started imitating this Opera-based Chrome.

Re:Opera had that feature

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, we don't live in 10 years ago, and nobody cares about Opera now.

a Bugzilla ticket is not news

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you /. Shitspot.

Fuck you.

GOOD direction

[markdavis]

This is a very good step in the right direction. There are non-majority but very valid use cases where one might need to limit memory and especially CPU usage and threading when wanted. For example, on hosted or application servers that serve thin clients. Please give as much control to users and system administrators as possible.

This also holds just as important for single-user systems. One thing I hope they especially pay attention to is some way to quell the rampant misuse of local resources by websites that throw more and more meaningless "fancy" effects at us. Barely a site remains that doesn't fade in and out every single element, loads endlessly, creates tight busy loops, presents continuous animation for no real reason, etc. It just chews through CPU and on battery powered devices, it unnecessarily decimates stored power, it presents never ending barriers and distractions to getting to useful information on sites. Give us tools and settings to slow and limit such nonsense. Return control of our resources to us.

In the past, Firefox was all about CHOICE and CONFIGURABILITY. For years as Firefox has become "Chrome-ified" in look and mission, user choice has wrongfully and systematically removed in favor of "simplicity". Stop trying to be Chrome, it is not helping anyone!

Firefox stands as the only remaining main-stream, completely open source, multiplatform browser developed by a community model. Here is a last chance to prevent it from become totally obscure.... EMBRACE USER CONTROL. Differentiate yourself based on that. It is something Chrome sorely lacks. We need real choices and real competition, not a world left with one browser controlled by a single information overlord who lives based on tracking, capturing, and sharing information about us. Been there, done that.... Mozilla set us free once. Please be there to prevent us from sliding back into it again :)

Re:GOOD direction

[gravewax]

I think it is already too late to save firefox. It has alienated and pissed off so many of its previously loyal userbase that I doubt it can recover now. It is all downhill from here on out.

Re:GOOD direction

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop trying to be Chrome, it is not helping anyone!

It helped me switch to Konqueror. Best browser I've ever used.

Re:GOOD direction

[Anonymous Coward]

too little too late. Firefox has lost its userbase. Those that like the chromification are better off with Chrome, those that don't are better off with another browser. firefox has gone from the best choice to the why the fuck would you choose it.

Re:GOOD direction

[Anonymous Coward]

So true. Unfortunately Mozilla thinks that by blindly copying Chrome and removing features is a way to compete with Chrome. After all, why would one use a clone instead of the original one? For a clone to survive, it really must provide something extra, be it better performance or more configurability.

Re:GOOD direction

[Gavagai80]

Don't underestimate how many disloyal people there are. I use chrome 99% of the time, but if firefox becomes a better experience I'll switch. Most of us aren't religious about browser use, we aren't pissed off at or alienated by firefox, we simply found it was no longer the best choice.

Re:GOOD direction

[Anonymous Coward]

see you are one of the people that are better off with Chrome. this is the problem with firefox it has just tried to mimic chrome to attract the wrong people who in the end will just use chrome anyway, why have an inferior copy of something. Firefox was all about user control and technical capabilities now it is just another clone, if that is what you like I really hope they don't do anything to bring you back as chrome sucks dog shit and is the exact opposite of what made firefox great.

Re:GOOD direction

[gravewax]

I think you have actually just demonstrated the problem. firefox SHOULD NOT be chasing people that think Chrome is a great browser, being a clone is not the way to go. They don't have the resources or funding or distribution machine that google has to compete in that way, it is a recipe for death and has been well demonstrated by their farely rapid decline in marketshare, they need to address go back to addressing the browser audience that wants the power in their hands, sadly though I think it is too late for that.

Re:GOOD direction

[zifn4b]

Here is a last chance to prevent it from become totally obscure.... EMBRACE USER CONTROL. Differentiate yourself based on that. It is something Chrome sorely lacks.

Have fun storming the castle! It'll take a miracle...

Re:GOOD direction

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly.

The people who left Firefox because they love Chrome won't be coming back. The people who left Firefox because it's becoming too much like Chrome won't be coming back as long as Mozilla is chasing the first group by making Firefox more and more like Chrome.

Re:GOOD direction

[Anonymous Coward]

It's already taken far too many steps in a BAD direction to ever find its way back. In fact, it continues to RUN in that direction, bolting on crazy things to its chassis whenever and wherever possible.

I use and endorse Palemoon. (https://www.palemoon.org/)

It's what Firefox used to be before all the "update it for the sake of increasing the version number every couple days" idiocy ensued.

Re:GOOD direction

[Anonymous Coward]

When they make it impossible later this year to use the fifteen years of accrued extensions that people rely on, the last remaining members of its loyal userbase will have no reason to stick around. This is not a good thing for the web.

How about...

[Anonymous Coward]

1) How about give me an option for my tabs on the bottom without a userChrome.css hack

2) How about stop making requests to servers when I hover over a link:
https://news.slashdot.org/stor...

3) How about rethink the rewrite the extensions - No Noscript = No Firefox

4) How about be bold and listen to your users that made firefox as popular as it is today.. (or whatever year it had its most users). Don't forget it is where it is because it was us telling everybody to use it. With us gone firefox will probably become another skin of Chromium.

Re:How about...

[rudy_wayne]

Unfortunately, back around the time of Firefox 4.0, the people in charge at Mozilla became infected with some sort of toxic brain worms. Since then, they have been on an all-out campaign to completely destroy Firefox, and if you look at the market share numbers, they're doing a wonderful job. The best, most popular browser is now battling Opera for the title of most irrelevant browser.

And since there seems to be no end of companies who will give Mozilla hundreds of millions of dollars, for nothing, no matter how badly Firefox sucks, it seems unlikely that anything will change.

Fortunately, thanks to Firefox being open source, there are forks, such as Palemoon, that retain the good features that Mozilla eliminated and avoid the useless crap and pointless changes that Mozilla seems to love so much.

Re:How about...

[Anonymous Coward]

Palemoon odesn't even want linux users to use their cut and paste buffers and seem intent in 'unifying cross platform behavor' so that it's just like windows. This dispite the fact the windows cut and paste buffers are there for their use. I don't think they're on our side either.

Re:How about...

[Merk42]

...there are forks, such as Palemoon, that retain the good features that Mozilla eliminated and avoid the useless crap and pointless changes that Mozilla seems to love so much.

But since Palemoon has an even smaller marketshare, it is, by your logic, worse than Firefox.

More memory the longer it runs

[Maxo-Texas]

After two to three days, my firefox memory runs out of control and then I have to restart it.

And then things are fine for two to three days.

Right now I have 12 tabs open and it's using 923 mb of memory and 2.7% of cpu (on an i7).

Re:More memory the longer it runs

[Anonymous Coward]

It sure would be nice if someone experiencing this issue would file a bug and help them investigate it. I guess it's just not really a problem if nobody has bothered to help figure it out yet.

Re:More memory the longer it runs

[Anonymous Coward]

That's HOW computers ARE DESIGNED to run. Temp and memory usage adds up the more you keep it going. Especially with browsers that go through tons of temp data. That's how Firefox works, Chrome, Vivaldi, Opera, and others also work.

Re:More memory the longer it runs

[Anonymous Coward]

You know damn well that people have tried reporting this issue to the Mozilla team plenty of times in the past and just been told to "disable extensions" or "You're wrong".

Also FYI, right now the Firefox instance I'm using to write this comment with is using approximately 1.3 GiB of RAM with 12 tabs open...

Re:More memory the longer it runs

[Tranzistors]

"disable extensions" or "You're wrong"

Sounds about right. Why should Mozilla fix memory issues of other applications. If extension developer writes leaky code, what should FF do? Balcklist or restart extension somehow? And if you have 12 tabs of “web applications” like twitter, should FF reload page?

I'm not saying Firefox is without flaws or anything, but it is a sort of operating system on it's own. Keeping that in mind, we can paraphrase Maxo-Texas statement like this:

Right now I have 12 applications open and they're using 923 mb of memory and 2.7% of cpu (on an i7).

This is hardly scandalous. Without knowing details, just pointing out MBs and tab count is useless

Memory Missing from Summary

[jaminJay]

The new Performance page will allow tech-savvy users to control how much RAM Firefox will be using. The more "content" processes Firefox will be allowed to use, the more responsive the browser will get, and the easier will be to handle tens or hundreds of tabs.

The downside is that more "content" processes means more RAM usage, but if users have RAM to spare, this shouldn't be a problem. It is a problem, though, on older systems. This is where the new Performance section comes to help, allowing users to put a muzzle on Firefox's unwieldy memory usage, preventing crashes or computer freezes.

I'm worried about the info Firefox sends out.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't get me wrong, Firefox does use way, way, way too much memory a lot of the time. But that problem pales in comparison to how much user info Firefox collects and sends to Mozilla and others.

Their page clearly lists various types of identifiers and browsing history that might be sent, including such things as: "IP address", "location", "phone number", "email address", "URLs", "information about visited sites", "terms you type in the Awesome Bar or Search Bar", "website domain", "Google advertising ID", "active URL at time of crash" and "personal information".

In case you don't believe me, let's look at some examples from their page:

"Once per day, Firefox sends the following info to Mozilla when it checks for browser updates: your Firefox version information, language preference, operating system, and version."

"Firefox contacts Mozilla once per day to check for add-on information to check for malicious add-ons. This includes, for example: browser version, OS and version, locale, total number of requests, time of last request, time of day, IP address, and the list of add-ons you have installed."

"Firefox sends Mozilla a monthly request to look up your location at a country level using your IP address."

"Some Mozilla sponsored snippets are interactive and allow you to optionally share your phone number or email address. For example, you can enter your phone number to receive an SMS to install Firefox on Android. Your information is received and handled by our email and mobile marketing vendor."

"This data includes, for example: device hardware, operating system, Firefox version, add-ons (count and type), timing of browser events, rendering, session restores, length of session, how old a profile is, count of crashes, and count of pages."

"Firefox may send metadata, including URLs associated with the downloaded file, to the SafeBrowsing service. "

"Firefox that sends Mozilla usage, performance, and responsiveness statistics about user interface features, memory, and hardware configuration. Your IP address is also collected as a part of a standard web log."

"When Telemetry is enabled, certain short-term experiments may collect information about visited sites."

"Firefox sends to Mozilla data relating to the tiles such as number of clicks, impressions, your IP address, locale information, and tile specific data (e.g., position and size of grid)."

"Firefox sends Mozilla a request once to look up your location at a country level using your IP address."

"Firefox may send the terms you type in the Awesome Bar or Search Bar to your Default Search Engine to retrieve suggestions"

"Firefox may send “Referral Data” such as the website domain"

"Firefox sends Referral Data to our mobile analytics vendor, and also includes a Google advertising ID, IP address, timestamp, country, locale, operating system, and app version."

"Firefox records and sends Referral Data to Mozilla as part of Firefox Health Report. "

"Firefox may use several pieces of data to determine your location, including your operating systems geolocation features, Wi-Fi networks, cell phone towers, or IP address."

"This report contains technical information for us to improve Firefox including why Firefox crashed, the active URL at time of crash, and the state of computer memory during the crash. The crash report we receive may include personal information."

"Firefox sends information to Mozilla, including the list of add-ons you have installed, Firefox version information, and your IP address."

Some people will try to justify this by saying nonsense like "At least they disclose it!" or "At least some of it can be disabled!", but none of that really matters. What does matter is that this information is being collected and sent to Mozilla in the first place when

uBlock-Adblock inferior to NoScript

[Anonymous Coward]

i gotta hand it to you guys that do all this fancy Hosts file tampering and have access to their router. Just dandy if you dont mindvall that comprehensivevtraining to identify every domain and IP address of advertisement services and all their go-betweens like Google-Analytics.

For those of us that start with the domain we visit FIRST, and unblock to see what comed alive as we enable each content block; that is NoScript and every reversion of Firefox and Chrome just breaks the simpledtvof real-time non-setup tasks as NoScript.

Did you know NoScript has a Whitelist that you decide what may run from where? No root or Admin privileges necessary: click of a pointer. tada.

Re:uBlock-Adblock inferior to NoScript

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, you know, you could use Google to find a decent hosts file without having to do any of the stuff you mentioned (http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/).

I use that hosts file + AdBlock Plus + NoScript on every computer. A hosts file and NoScript are not the same thing, and as such, should not be treated as such. They complement each other on the loosing battle against malware and in-your-face advertisements.

Re: uBlock-Adblock inferior to NoScript

[corychristison]

Everyone has different needs and wants.

NoScript does nothing for ads in Android Apps (especially YouTube) or my TV.

I actually like JavaScript (most of the time). If you want a shitty, barebones, reduced functionality browsing experience, why don't you just use Lynx? You'll save even more bandwidth, and it makes it literally impossible to see any image-based ads.

Re: uBlock-Adblock inferior to NoScript

[Anonymous Coward]

Illiterate looser.

Re: uBlock-Adblock inferior to NoScript

[Anonymous Coward]

AdAway is the answer for Android. Of course you must be root, but who doesn't root and Android device?

Re:uBlock-Adblock inferior to NoScript

[phantomfive]

That hosts file routes everything to 127.0.0.1, which can be kind of inconvenient if you have a web server running on port 80 on your local computer. Better to route it to 0.0.0.0

Also how much memory each tab was using

[UpnAtom]

A few years ago, Opera could also tell you how much memory each tab and extension was using. Ahhh the good old days.

Re:Also how much memory each tab was using

[Anonymous Coward]

The good old days. I remember those. Such a time when the Insert key actually did something. Let's see. Doesn't work in Chrome, MS Office, Outlook, IE, etc... At least it still functions in most IDEs and oddly in Windows 7's search controls (Start Menu, Explorer) but not in other text fields...

What happened to our industry. I know I'm off-topic. Just wanted to rant somewhere. I miss my easy insertion abilities. Maybe I'm just getting old.

Re:Also how much memory each tab was using

[Anonymous Coward]

that would be before its own chromification.. don't worry, firefox is gonna get stripped bare of useful features by the time 59 rolls around. if we're lucky, it will still browse pages. if a miracle happens, we'll still be able to use an adblocker with element selection and listings along with noscript with its current feature set.

if not.. well it's off to waterfox or palemoon, then.... fuck mozilla. we don't need another chrome clone.

Re:Also how much memory each tab was using

[chihowa]

I miss my easy insertion abilities. Maybe I'm just getting old.

They make a pill, er app, for that now.

Re:Also how much memory each tab was using

[Anonymous Coward]

That's good, Chrome users are like the AOL users of yesteryear, it's a handy idiot label. Because only idiots use the Internet with a browser made by a fucking ad broker which employs a small army of lobbyists to advocate against your privacy, thus empowering them.

Re:Also how much memory each tab was using

[x_t0ken_407]

Vivaldi (the successor in-spirit to Presto Opera) currently has that feature, FWIW :)

Need per site controls

[UpnAtom]

Facebook is a monster. It can easily use over a gig.

Yeah I know many Slashdotters pretend not to use it, and some actually don't.

Also, this sounds like 80s memory management eg turn off prefetching forever. Why can't we tell our browsers what to let go of first eg:
1. Prefetching
2. LRU tabs.
3. Hi-res images.
4. Bloated JS sites eg FB.com. Heck, worth putting in special rules for this monster.

Have a default then allow it to be accessible and changed for the rest of the session. Also, a box to ask it to return memory before the OS starts swapping like crazy.

Re:Need per site controls

[DontBeAMoran]

First off, prefetching is insane. Some of us have old, slow computers. We don't have gigabit internet connections and dozens of GB of RAM. Prefetching maxes out our connection all the time and makes the computer swap like crazy. No wonder I thought Firefox was a piece of crap.

Second, hi-res images. Ever since computer display resolution started going up, websites have been increasing their images. I don't NEED nor WANT a fucking 4K JPEG that's 30MB because my display only has 1280x1024 pixels. So my computer has to download a 30MB file, de-compress the 4K into memory and then re-sample the damn thing down to something appropriate for my display. That's just insane.

Hell I've even seen so-called "thumbnail" pages where the idiots loaded the full-size images to display them as thumbnails.

Re:Need per site controls

[rnturn]

Hardly Firefox's fault. You're not the first to notice that web site developers have gotten incredibly lazy over the years. The practices like you just described seem to the norm now. Adding more Firefox (or any other browser, for that matter) user controls isn't going to do much of anything to solve that problem.

Re:Need per site controls

[tepples]

I don't NEED nor WANT a fucking 4K JPEG that's 30MB because my display only has 1280x1024 pixels.

How does the server know that your display has only 1280x1024 pixels, not 3840x2160 pixels, before sending the JPEG? Or would you prefer that sites send images sized for 320x480-pixel phone screens and then replace those with images sized for 1280x1024 screens only once JavaScript runs?

Re:Need per site controls

[Anonymous Coward]

How does the server know that your display has only 1280x1024 pixels, not 3840x2160 pixels, before sending the JPEG? Or would you prefer that sites send images sized for 320x480-pixel phone screens and then replace those with images sized for 1280x1024 screens only once JavaScript runs?

When the server also sends a specific size to render the image at, you'd think it would know that.

Re:Need per site controls

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called responsive CSS. Most developers are just lazy assholes and either don't even know about it or just don't care.

Developers who code things for the public shouldn't be given powerful computers. They keep adding stuff and never notice that they're building wasteful piles of crap.

Web developers should be forced to use 2GHz Core 2 Duo computers with only 4GB of RAM, the OS should be at least three major versions behind the latest and the connection to the website only 2Mbps.

Re:Need per site controls

[tepples]

It's called responsive CSS.

I'm familiar with media queries. But since when can CSS, such as the CSS conditioned by a media query, replace the value of the src attribute of an img element with a different URL? Or would each img element appear five times in the HTML, with a different URL for each of five different resolutions, where CSS assigns display:none to all but one?

Re:Need per site controls

[Anonymous Coward]

<img> with the srcset and sizes attributes

No system impact when using +4 gigabyte

[thesjaakspoiler]

was what those engineering geniuses were always responding when people complained that FF was using 10~50 times as much memory compared to any other mainstream browser. Somehow I still don't believe them.

remove useful features and then add...

[Anonymous Coward]

remove useful features and then add this not so useful feature... go Mozilla. I still use Firefox but some decisions that they make ....

Good, good

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got 16 gigabytes on this laptop and I want to use all of it.

Re:Good, good

[Anonymous Coward]

By making sure no programs do so.

Best hosts file builder bar-none

[Anonymous Coward]

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

Ads/script & malware rob speed/security/privacy

Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).

Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!

Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirects (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + lightens DNS load & resolves faster from local system RAM!

* Via what u NATIVELY have in the IP stack in FASTER kernelmode!

APK

P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/

Netscape N1 Did That 20 Years Ago

[Anonymous Coward]

N1 was by today's standards was 20 years ahead of its time!

Ha ha Ja ja

UBlock/AdBlock/NoScript = inferior vs. hosts

[Anonymous Coward]

UBlock/Adblock (the latter 'souled-out' to advertisers letting ads thru by default) are inefficient on RAM & slower usermode. NoScript has to parse tags to block ads (here is how ads really work (downloading scripts you run to render them on web pages) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10221859/ & hosts does it before NoScript even begins to work & in 1 step blocking them as part of the IP stack itself operating in FAR faster kernelmode - NoScript by comparison works in slower usermode & has to parse page tags (far more expensive & complex process in steps etc.)

Routers have TONS of security issues galore (partial list shown here only of MANY types from many manufacturers) https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9995967&cid=53488785/

APK

P.S.=> None are native to your OS & IP stack - hosts are (bonus)... apk

Re:UBlock/AdBlock/NoScript = inferior vs. hosts

[Anonymous Coward]

>ycombinator link
>no such item

Your bitch ass got shadowbanned from YC too! What a fucking riot!

Re:UBlock/AdBlock/NoScript = inferior vs. hosts

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you drunk or high on drugs? I just reached the link apk put up https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10221859/

Re:UBlock/AdBlock/NoScript = inferior vs. hosts

[Anonymous Coward]

YC doesn't put up with that anti-semitic hate shit, unlike /., which either doesn't want to pay staffers to do more than repost a few news articles submitted by others everyday or is too chickenshit to moderate or ban people spreading hate propaganda.

Re:UBlock/AdBlock/NoScript = inferior vs. hosts

[Anonymous Coward]

If jews are good people then why were they kicked nation to nation in history in Spain (1492), France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them: Explain that.

Re:UBlock/AdBlock/NoScript = inferior vs. hosts

[Anonymous Coward]

The explanation is simple: you aren't the only antisemitic piece of shit out there.

Re:UBlock/AdBlock/NoScript = inferior vs. hosts

[Anonymous Coward]

8 entire peoples are shit? You run into 1 asshole in the am he's the asshole. You run into 8 countries worth you're assholes. Only "god's chosen people" which they wrote about themselves are good? I know not.

Re: UBlock/AdBlock/NoScript = inferior vs. hosts

[Anonymous Coward]

I use Opendns to control access and point my router to use their DNS. Its much simpler and all devices are handled including smart phones and tablets. No need to mess with hosts files on each device plus it allows custom whitelists and blacklists. Its free with easy to use menus and lots of help.

-GeekPoet

Re:UBlock/AdBlock/NoScript = inferior vs. hosts

[mrchaotica]

WTF? APK writes like a schizophrenic retard and constantly spams about hosts files, but I don't recall him ever being anti-semitic.

Re:UBlock/AdBlock/NoScript = inferior vs. hosts

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess if you block ads you're antisemitic. Jews own the media and advertisers so it makes sense: Of the forty-six(46) senior executives of the major advertising corporations and trade associations, thirty-one(31) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 67%. Of the twelve(12) senior executives of the Big Six media corporations, ten(10) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. Of the sixty-four(64) senior executives of the major television broadcast networks, cable networks, and production companies, fifty-seven(57) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. Jews are matriarchically driven (women run the decision making and wear the pants in the family).

DNS & ROUTERS = SECURITY NIGHTMARES

[Anonymous Coward]

DNS efficiency & security issues https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9007355&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=51969075/ & ROUTERS security issues https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9995967&cid=53488785/ = SECURITY NIGHTMARES. Addons are inefficient & don't do DNS resolution like hosts (faster than routers & dns - no network traversal & straight from LOCAL system RAM).

DNS also is a FAR bigger memory hog. Routers also cost money, hosts don't (you have them natively in fast kernelmode, NOT slow usermode).

APK

P.S.=> For the best hosts file builder bar none (better vs. hostsman stuck in 32-bit & doesn't do hardcoded favorites that bypass DNS security issues & hosts resolve faster) APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ ... apk

ROUTERS = SECURITY NIGHTMARE

[Anonymous Coward]

ROUTERS = SECURITY NIGHTMARE https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9995967&cid=53488785/ & cost money (hosts don't): For the best host file builder bar-none APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

APK

P.S.=> Enjoy going faster & safer online using what you natively have in the IP stack itself in faster kernelmode, for FREE (blocking not only ads that slow/infect/track you but also MANY other threats online like malware etc.)... apk

Re: ROUTERS = SECURITY NIGHTMARE

[Anonymous Coward]

zAParKie, take your pills and go to bed, stop with your misinformed comments that do more harm than good to regular people.
If you can't manage a router, blow some steam, calm down and learn how to do it. Not everyone needs to run Windows, and definitely they don't need to waste their time managing individual computers.

Re: ROUTERS = SECURITY NIGHTMARE

[Anonymous Coward]

Cost money? Or power? A $100 used chromebox and a USB3 network adapter needs 7W of electricity and runs pfsense (FreeBSD) or Linux and can route 800+Mbps. Has 2gb of ram, and an AC wifi. A router some guys want you to buy is 300 and can't do half that, but it is your problem you don't know what to chose.

Ridiculous proposal

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of all of those RAM-doubler products a while back. Mozilla lost the plot a long time ago, and this proposal simply confirms what they have become.

Re:Ridiculous proposal

[Anonymous Coward]

This story had me thinking, maybe I should enable ZRAM.
ZRAM is an actual RAM-doubler feature in the linux kernel, known for its use in Android 4.x and Firefox OS (I think), that happens to really work as it compresses stuff for real. Not like fraudulent software from Windows 3.1 / 95 era.

But, I'm feeling really CPU strained these days. I have not yet gotten to using a quad core CPU, or quad thread, or similar just for browsing and media playback crap.
The one major performance upgrade I can expect is when the onion browser moves to Firefox 52 from older Firefox 45.
That's it, I mostly like and await new Firefox versions for the performance and stability improvements.

Hosts do more for less vs. addons & faster

[Anonymous Coward]

What hosts do addons can't (or as well):

PROTECT vs.:

1.) bad sites (past ads)
2.) fastflux C&C
3.) dynDNS C&C
4.) DGA C&C
5.) DNS down
6.) poisoned dns
7.) trackers (dnsrequestlogs/ads/transparent ISP proxy)
8.) spam/phish payload
9.) dns blocks
10.) slowdown 2 ways: adblocks & hardcodes

11.) Multiplatform
12.) Ez data edit
13.) Efficiency (cpu/ram/I-O)

14.) UBlock no DNS bennys = poor imitation = "sincerest form of flattery"
15.) NoScript tag parses. Hosts block ad script before it downloads!

APK

P.S.=> AB+ 151mb http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/adblocker-memory-consumption.jpg/

UBlock 64MB http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/adblocker-memory-consumption.jpg/

(hosts ~6mb)

ClarityRay defeatable

Don't work http://www.businessinsider.com/google-microsoft-amazon-taboola-pay-adblock-plus-to-stop-blocking-their-ads-2015-2/

SLOWER: http://superuser.com/questions/686041/which-leads-to-faster-browsing-an-ad-blocker-or-an-edited-hosts-file/

Preloaded links

[Anonymous Coward]

Could preloaded links be exploited? What if the link has malware at the destination?

Opera 12.x (not Chopera) does it

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Opera, TRUE Opera (not the Joogle Chrome advertising machine engine) does all of this & tons more!

APK

P.S.=> It had features like this & TONS more back as far as, oh (iirc) version 4x... apk

Re: Opera 12.x (not Chopera) does it

[Anonymous Coward]

Even before that. Opera 5 was the best - icq client, irc client, download manager and a browser in less than 6mb executable 19 or 18 years ago. And opening 15-20 tabs wasn't a problem on a machine that had 32mb ram and was also running Winamp.

Re: Opera 12.x (not Chopera) does it

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera 2.x was the only one I could get running on a slow Windows 3.1 machine (quite slow but with 16MB of 9bit RAM and good ISA graphics)
It sucked, but it was awesome to browse on a 1991 or 92 machine on a RJ45 LAN, when it was a decade old. The tabs actually were windows in a window - that fit well with Windows 3.1 as it used the same GUI convention.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just avoid wasting your time and learn about cgroups

More pc users use windows

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's best you got apk knocked you out. Stay asleep. You don't understand layered security. Hosts are good layered security. Routers and dns are central points of failure. Hosts supplement them (or can actually replace them locally). Group policy lets you import hosts via logon scripts or admins can easily via timed chronjob/windows scheduled tasks to multiple systems easily. Most people also can't afford multiple devices or routers that can take millions of blocking entries. Most consumer grade routers are cheap for a reason, that's 1 of them. Routers cost money and higher electric bills as well as more complexity most people do not want to learn. Hosts are very simple and easy to learn to manage and apk made that a point and click gui easy affair https://www.google.com/search?... for windows users and they are by far the majority in the world and yes they have a hosts file that is free and easy to use like apk's program.

Re:More pc users use windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try, APK. Nice to see you can almost post coherently when you don't sign off with your initials, but unfortunately it doesn't make the content much more credible.

I guess you don't use a router to connect to the 'net then? Just hook that public IP right up to your PC and hope for the best... Seriously mate, nobody does that any more. No-one. Everyone already has a router, so why not manage it there? Cover the whole network in one go. My router handles millions of host records just fine (I've extracted quite a few out of your app in fact), and it's just consumer-grade hardware.

Android is just as highly used as Windows for browsing, and while Apple's ecosystem is smaller it's still a big chunk of the market. Many families I know of have many devices on the Internet with only one (or none) of them a PC running Windows.

You app may have a GUI, but 'GUI' doesn't automatically imply 'easy to use'.

The 1990s were a long time ago...

Re:More pc users use windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't handle I point out hosts are good security? Yes obviously. I'm not apk either. Routers cost money and are a single point fail in an attack and they have bugs/security issues listed by 100's by apk. Routers than can contain millions of entries are expensive. Hosts do resolution faster than a dns or router since there is no network traversal and access to local memory on a system is unquestionably faster and yes hosts do get cached there once loaded. You use the typical 'everyone's doing it' and from posts I see here that's not true. Poor tactic. Not even a nice try with that crap. Get a clue. You're not everyone so don't speak for everyone and I don't see apk on that post. He signs his posts.

Re:More pc users use windows

[Anonymous Coward]

My router cost nothing - ISPs hand them out like candy. Like many cheap consumer routers it has 128MB RAM. I have over 1M hosts entries on there and it's still under 50% memory usage. Obviously it's not running stock firmware, but either way it's just dnsmasq under the hood. It's plenty fast - fast enough not to bother measuring and I bet even yourself wouldn't be able to tell the difference in day-to-day use using that versus a local hosts file.

And yes, everyone does have a router. I never stated or implied that everyone is doing hosts filtering in their router, just that they have a router to get on the 'net in the first place, so it makes sense for those interested in hosts filtering to make use of that resource seeing it's there for using anyway. So the whole "it costs more" mantra is completely moot.

Re:More pc users use windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Routers don't do name resolution. Hosts do faster than remote DNS or dns your router points to which has network traversal time. Hosts don't. That stops entire classes of threats in DNS security issues apk pointed out and entire classes of ROUTER issues apk also pointed out. People's ISP modem doesn't run dnsmasq and has stock firmware that probably isn't patched for security issues that came up from when it was put out. You pay a rental fee for that router from your ISP you know. That's a cost apk did not cover that comes with them.

Re:More pc users use windows

[Anonymous Coward]

My ISP (like all others) charge the same whether I take their modem or not, so once again, it's moot. It draws the same amount of power whether I use it for DNS resolution or not.

Off the shelf SOHO and ISP-supplied 'routers' definitely do name resolution (normally using dnsmasq); that's why their default DHCP config sets option 6 to their own internal IP address. I challenge you to find one that doesn't.

The person who doesn't know how to replace their stock firmware is not going to have a clue who to use a hosts file app either. Those who do know how can manage it once on the router and write a short shell script to automagically keep it updated from various sources online. No junk like HFE to run on endpoints so they stay nice and clean.

Re:More pc users use windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Routers don't do name resolution themself. They point to DNS so they're slower than hosts in local system memory with no network traversal lag. Apk's program does hosts data gather gui easy on the most used OS there is in Windows on PC's and servers combined. Much simpler and better than some hacked up probably buggy script that's ugly tty/dos window code nobody wants to use over gui.

Garbage collection

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't any desktop browsers utilize it?

I just want my "disable Javascript" checkbox back

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, Mozillians: on the one hand you say that the users are too stupid to give them a "disable Javascript" checkbox ("telemetry has proven..."), and then you give them knobs to tune memory management. You are not credible, you see?

Look, I am for knobs. The more the merrier. And I am for teaching users how to use those. After all, this is what free software is about, isn't it?

Give us the "disable Javascript" checbox back already!

Just like with Windows

[CptLoRes]

it seems my preferred settings are the exact opposite of what the default ones are.

Thank God

[TheOuterLinux]

I became a Palemoon user a while back simply because Firefox stopped being worth a damn about half a year ago. It's too slow to open and uses WAY too much RAM. It even runs like crap on a new MacBook (dodges thrown vegetables). I think they put too much eye candy work into it rather than in performance. But, computers aren't actually getting much better as far as RAM and Gz are concerned in the last decade and probably won't if everything goes to cloud computing. You're going to pay outrageous prices for a 1.2 Gz 4 GB RAM tablet. Oh wait....lol.

Re:Thank God

[Blaskowicz]

I do think newer versions perform better, i.e. Firefox 51, 52 are good.
Slow to open? I've not noticed as for five seconds to open something that will run for hours or weeks, I don't care. But yes it will gobbles resources, unless you seek to use lightweight web sites only!
By this point computer hardware without RAM slots feel dumber and dumber. Like, bringing the max RAM limit to 32GB or 16GB (on Atom) or 64GB or possibly more could be a reason to upgrade from old hardware.

good

[Anonymous Coward]

Fingers crossed this for both mobile and desktop,Firefox was good,but then they just had to copy bloody poxy chrome and now every tab is an app,that might be fine on high spec mobiles with 3-4 + gb of ram,but on anything with limited ram,it's a craps experience if you want/need more than a few tabs open..+ ff now seems to take ages loading pages that use to open in seconds..
I only use it now because ff can do one trick that I just cannot get opera to do.
Open new tabs in the background,opera insists on opening the full app then you have to minimise it again,then go back into the first app you wanted to open the link from..
I have asked on opera forums before,but no joy,, if anyone knows how to set up opera to stay minimised when opening new tabs,please post how here..

Best hosts file builder bar-none

[Anonymous Coward]

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

Ads/script & malware rob speed/security/privacy

Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).

Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!

Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirects (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + lightens DNS load & resolves faster from local system RAM!

* Via what u NATIVELY have in the IP stack in FASTER kernelmode!

APK

P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/

Best hosts file builder bar-none

[Anonymous Coward]

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

Ads/script & malware rob speed/security/privacy

Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).

Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!

Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirects (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + lightens DNS load & resolves faster from local system RAM!

* Via what u NATIVELY have in the IP stack in FASTER kernelmode!

APK

P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/

Re:I just want my "disable Javascript" checkbox ba

[Anonymous Coward]

Give us the "disable Javascript" checbox back already!

I was able to get PrefBar working on Pale Moon and the ESR release of Mozilla. Not sure how/if the developer can get it to work with WebExtensions dreck, but this may be of interest: https://prefbar.tuxfamily.org/

Hosts do more for less vs. addons & faster

[Anonymous Coward]

What hosts do addons can't (or as well):

PROTECT vs.:

1.) bad sites (past ads)
2.) fastflux C&C
3.) dynDNS C&C
4.) DGA C&C
5.) DNS down
6.) poisoned dns
7.) trackers (dnsrequestlogs/ads/transparent ISP proxy)
8.) spam/phish payload
9.) dns blocks
10.) slowdown 2 ways: adblocks & hardcodes

11.) Multiplatform
12.) Ez data edit
13.) Efficiency (cpu/ram/I-O)

14.) UBlock no DNS bennys = poor imitation = "sincerest form of flattery"
15.) NoScript tag parses. Hosts block ad script before it downloads!

APK

P.S.=> AB+ 151mb http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/adblocker-memory-consumption.jpg/

UBlock 64MB http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/adblocker-memory-consumption.jpg/

(hosts ~6mb)

ClarityRay defeatable

Don't work http://www.businessinsider.com/google-microsoft-amazon-taboola-pay-adblock-plus-to-stop-blocking-their-ads-2015-2/

SLOWER: http://superuser.com/questions/686041/which-leads-to-faster-browsing-an-ad-blocker-or-an-edited-hosts-file/

F drm

[Anonymous Coward]

F drm f DRM

ROUTERS = SECURITY NIGHTMARE

[Anonymous Coward]

ROUTERS = SECURITY NIGHTMARE non-defense in depth single point of failure https://it.slashdot.org/commen... & cost money (hosts don't): For the best host file builder bar-none APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

Prefetch, load text only

[Anonymous Coward]

In my third world country where internet rates are high
1. Hate prefetch, since it eats my data quota. Make it OFF by default and user settable.

2. Advertisements eat 65 percent of my data quota. I want a checkbox "Do not autoload media". Interaction should be, I will select a media object on webpage and click option "download this". Human beings are good at guessing if an image is related to the topic based on its position.

Re:Prefetch, load text only

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're okay with such an involved process, why not use uBlock and uMatrix/NoScript? uMatrix is preferable, IMO, since it allows finer-grained control than NoScript, while having a nicer UI.

Nice to have set timeout to block slow ad sites

[Anonymous Coward]

Nicer to have set timeout to block slow ad sites.
I don't care if the ad did not load or if the site broke.
An easy to use slider at the bottom or top somewhere to slide and adjust the threshold per tab.

Yet another bandaid that will break

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just another bandaid that will break, and that won't address the root cause of the problem at all.

JUST FIX THE GODDAMN MEMORY LEAKS.

Right direction

[Anonymous Coward]

I want a firefox like in those old days back. What i don't want is a Chrome wannabe.

But it's already too late. I switched away from Firefox, GUI change bullshit and all.

Wow, going old skool

[zifn4b]

A long time ago on an internet far far away, there was a setting in crusty old browsers like Netscape Navigator that allowed you to control whether you wanted images to load automatically. It's the new old thing!

Re:I just want my "disable Javascript" checkbox ba

[Merk42]

Developer Tools > Advanced settings > Disable JavaScript ???

Or use NoScript

Re:I just want my "disable Javascript" checkbox ba

[rnturn]

Question: Is it Firefox's Javascript engine that sucks like a tornado or is it NoScript? The majority of the time that Firefox has to recover from a crash, I get a tab announcing a new version of NoScript. I could live with allowing Javascript to run in my browser if it didn't perform so badly when using Firefox. Enabling Javascript in other browsers doesn't seem to be the problem that it is in Firefox.

Ublock's no resolver (no speed gain there)

[Anonymous Coward]

UBlock can't do these as well as (or @ all) hosts do 4 speed, security, & reliability:

Protection vs.:

1.) Bad sites (past ads)
2.) Fastflux botnet C&C's
3.) Dyndns botnet C&C's
4.) DGA botnet C&C's
5.) Downed DNS (reliability)
6.) DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) DNSChangers in IP stack OR routers
8.) DNS requestlog trackers
9.) Spam payloads
10.) Phish payloads
11.) Bandwidth caps

Additionally:

12.) Get past dns blocks
13.) Speed up 2 ways (adblocks/hardcodes)
14.) Work on anything webbound multiplatform.
15.) Ez data edit
16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu/ram/I-O use

* UBlock now uses hosts (no DNS benefits vs. dns issues) - poor imitation = "sincerest form of flattery"

Hosts = native vs. illogically "Bolting on 'MoAr'" & not ClarityRay blockable like addons.

APK

P.S.=> Hosts (1st resolver) do MORE w/ less in fast kernelmode & before slow usermode addons

Hosts ~3mb vs. UBlock = 64MB -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

Hosts do more than any single other solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Hosts do more vs any 1 other solution 4 less & natively (not illogically "Bolting on 'MoAr'") & aren't sold out to allow ads (adblock). My program allows you to turn hosts on/off w/ ease from a tooltray icon (your flexibility right there) APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ AND it protects the hosts file while it operates vs. corruption by malware (nothing in usermode can bust thru, & I've tried).

APK

P.S.=> See subject - it's the truth... apk

Re:Hosts do more than any single other solution

[mrchaotica]

Clearly, you did not actually read what I wrote (not that I actually expected you to, but hope springs eternal).

Among the things that you missed were:

1. I referenced uMatrix, not adblock, which implements a plain old "default deny/allow whitelisted" policy that can't be sold out to advertisers since you do all the whitelisting yourself.
2. No host file-based solution, including yours, is capable of blocking conditionally, which is absolutely necessary.
3. If you're going to use a host file, you might as well keep it on the router instead of maintaining it on every computer on the LAN. Your "engine" doesn't do that.

By the way, it almost goes without saying that there's no way in Hell I'd ever use closed-source software written by a raving lunatic like you anyway, even if it did fulfill the requirements listed above.

Remote DNS = network traversal lag

[Anonymous Coward]

I avoid it 96% of the time via hardcoded favs @ TOP of hosts for fastest possible resolution (avoiding ALL of DNS' numerous security issues) & my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ does that & resolves LOCALLY from system RAM (fastest possible).

Depending on routers & dns alone != good layered security/defense in depth.

Smartphones = dumbphones they're so compromised & bug ridden.

APK

P.S.=> I do the same in my router (OpenDNS) & also IP stack settings (you seem to miss that & shouldn't if the router is compromised) & ROUTERS https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9995967&cid=53488785/ + DNS https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9007355&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=51969075/ have MASSIVE SECURITY & INEFFICIENCY... apk

Illlogic logic: Spend 'MoAr'!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: A hosts file is free & does more than any other 1 solution does by itself for less (especially adblock sold to advertisers letting ads in) & nothing builds a custom hosts file as well as my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ which is free & Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/

Routers are SECURITY NIGHTMARES full of security bugs (by the 100's from reputable sources) https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9995967&cid=53488785/

Depending on them alone = a FOOL's game & it's not defense in depth either.

APK

P.S.=> This works too & for less costs in power, actually money to buy routers etc. @ ZERO cost all the way around... apk

Illogic logic: Spend $ & != layered security

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: A hosts file is free & does more than any other 1 solution does by itself for less (especially adblock sold to advertisers letting ads in) & nothing builds a custom hosts file as well as my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ which is free & Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/

Routers are SECURITY NIGHTMARES full of security bugs (by the 100's from reputable sources) https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9995967&cid=53488785/

Depending on them alone = a FOOL's game & it's not defense in depth either.

APK

P.S.=> This works & for less costs in power, actually money to buy routers etc. @ ZERO cost all the way around & is good layered security (most threats use host names not IP addresses)... apk

Most folks don't know regular expressions

[Anonymous Coward]

Most folks don't know regex (coders do). Hosts are like phonebook entries (easy) & native not illogic logic "Bolting on 'MoAr'" & in PURE faster kernelmode (not slower usemode with a zillion parts room for exploit/breakdown) on a 50 yrs. proven IP stack (iirc, hosts since 1973?). DNS = a SECURITY NIGHTMARE https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9007355&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=51969075/ , no questions asked - depending on it alone OR ROUTERS (another security nightmare) https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9995967&cid=53488785/ = a FOOL's game & is NOT good layered security!

APK

P.S.=> The entire "ARMY" of fake names online for fake lives can't take me down as you suggest utter illogic logic spending money on "so-called 'solutions'" that are full of security bugs & COST MORE + USE MORE - hosts = free (so is my program vs. most prevalent threat & ads (use hostnames not IP addy))... apk

CPU use

[Espectr0]

I would rather have a fix so i wouldn't have to restart firefox once every few days because it eats 25%-35% of CPU without any tab running videos or animations. And this is with ublock installed.

/.ers disagree (ur outnumbered nametosser)

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional by mmell

his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant

his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg

(APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon

APK is kinda right. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo

I like your host file system by Karmashock

I find your hosts file admirable by vel-ex-tech

* My code's recommended & hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!

APK

P.S.=> See subject: You're a no talent menial that can't code! Hosts do a form of whitelist (hardcodes) & my prog does all the work (you make us work more) & routers ARE a security nightmare full of bugs suggesting slow usermode addons (hosts = kernelmode) - easily detected & blocked... apk

Re:/.ers disagree (ur outnumbered nametosser)

[mrchaotica]

I don't give a shit about testimonials. Tits^W Source code or GTFO.

Illogic logic = spend 'MoAr' bolt on 'MoAr'

[Anonymous Coward]

You're using crude far less used Linux on pc's + servers combined that doesn't run as many wares or games + devices that don't support hosts files good layered security illogically spending more money on routers that are known to be full of security issues https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9995967&cid=53488785/

APK

P.S.=> By comparison I use what is already native & proven since 1973 (hosts intro to IP stack iirc) minus all those security bugs, free, & does more w/ less vs. ANY other SINGLE "so-called 'solution'" out there bar-none... apk

/.ers disagree: You're outnumbered

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional by mmell

his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant

his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg

(APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon

APK is kinda right. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo

I like your host file system by Karmashock

I find your hosts file admirable by vel-ex-tech

* My code's recommended & hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!

APK

P.S.=> Advertisers don't trust site counts: /. doesn't serve ads from slashdot.org & Adblock's sold out to advertisers default letting ads in, Routers = security bugs https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9995967&cid=53488785/ I block hosts as needed easily via a point & click gui others here like (malwarebytes too)... apk

Re:/.ers disagree: You're outnumbered

[arth1]

In other words:
A million flies can't be wrong: eat shit!

U project U care nametosser

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Prove you code - you can't, can you? Nope. No testimonials for your work I see Mr. projectionist. You wouldn't know what to do w/ the code & I do NOT put it out for a VERY GOOD REASON: Google Chrome EFast (so much for "OpenSORES") a doppleganger version of chrome that was malicious.

I don't do work for "your kind" no talent OPEN SORES menials either. Learn to do it yourself (you might get excellent testimonials as I do instead of suggesting routers & dns full of security issues & easily detected + blocked slower less efficient & less capable browser addons).

APK

P.S.=> Truth hurt? It's all facts - you're welcome to prove you can code (& get great testimonies as I do)... apk

LOL: You're SOL on many fronts then

[Anonymous Coward]

Crap can't work w/ easiest most used network & desktop combined OS + suggest router security bugs https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9995967&cid=53488785/ & DNS is the same https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9007355&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=51969075/ & addons are less efficient, easily blocked & detected (clarityray), don't do as much as hosts yet use FAR more!

APK

P.S.=> You're tossing names, illogical spending money & "Bolting on 'MoAr'" + missing the layered security value of hosts @ THE ENDPOINT (which I have tons of respected famous security pros espousing, wanna see 'em? Ask)... apk

I'm sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

See my subject: My mom just reminded me take my meds; turns out I had forgotten them this morning.
Sorry for the off-topic shitpost, won't happen again!

APK

P.S.=> I really am trying to be less obnoxious: you can tell by the lack of boldface.... apk

Thanks for showing you FAIL, lol

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for showing you FAILED & resort to attempting to impersonate me w/ an illogical off topic ad hominem attack chumps!

* It's EXACTLY how I know I've destroyed you publicly & EASILY in front of all of /. (& you KNOW it).

APK

P.S.=> As per my usual inimitable style you KNOW I've just GOTTA say it: This?

This was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'" & it always is vs FAKE NAME for FAKE LIVES /. trolls &/or UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous trolls here too, lol... apk

How to speed up a bit the UI

[Parker Lewis]

One setting that I always use is to disable the tabs animation. In about:config, search for browser.tabs.animate and toggle to false.

UBlock=inefficient/inferior vs. hosts alone

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: That piece of openSORES bs imitated my work in hosts & doesn't do DNS local fastest possible name resolution adding weight that's not needed (especially maintaining it in regex etc. - STUPID).

BETTER SOLUTION = APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ & it protects hosts (Shit UBlock doesn't) vs. corruption (nothing in usermode can get thru, I've tried).

APK

P.S.=> You're creating MEMORY BLOAT that's unecessary buying into /. BULLSHIT - Proof? Ok: UBlock uses 63++ MB -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

Proof-> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

ClarityRay defeats it via native browser methods!

Hosts ALONE don't consume that much & eat less (default ! 3-16mb tops)... apk

Tell ya what

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Show you did better in /.ers saying so about your work (that doesn't exist) & /.? Doesn't serve ads from slashdot.org, ok?

APK

P.S.=> Are you being paid to be a disgusting troll or what? apk

"In every revolution..."

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: "... there's 1 man w/ a vision" & "A man must also have the power"-> "In my cabin there is a device that will make you invincible..."-> APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

* You've begun what I call "The Halken Phazer revolt"

(1 man can change the present - good observation on your part by the way)

APK

P.S.=> For your entertainment & reference to the quotes above: (since the world is ASS backwards) "THE FAIREST OF THEM ALL" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJf2ovQtI6w/ Capt. Kirk @ ending "Who told you that?" YOU DID... apk

I want it to use more memory.

[tailgunner_050]

The thing that seems to be slowing down firefox more than anything for me is the bookmarks toolbar at the top. I love my bookmarks toolbar but as it get filled up with more and more links it really bogs down Firefox. If you right click on one of you links in the horizontal bookmarks bar at the top > properties > delete the name = nice simple icon in the bookmark bar. I've go nearly 50 of them now running along the top of firefox and its just sooo handy but you feel it when it comes to performance. This needs heavy optimization imo.

Re:I want it to use more memory.

[Blaskowicz]

Others might not like to hear this but this might get fixed for good when Firefox hits version 57 and it doesn't include XUL for the interface anymore. I'm not even blaming XUL, I think it's been great - Firefox just looked like a normal desktop application no matter the OS, I'm just saying the GUI implementation will be different.
If that theory works out, you might try Firefox Aurora 57 a few months from now and see if it's fast.

"You won't get away w/ this Spock"

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject (the matriarchal YOOD empire is illogical): "In every revolution, there is 1 man w/ a vision" APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

* FOR YOUR REFERENCE AS TO THAT QUOTE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJf2ovQtI6w/ because your 'empire' IS back-assward illogical (people don't want it & will not tolerate it - so I give them what they want in the link above - you & "yours"? Can't win on that alone...)

APK

P.S.=> "Who told you that?" well, "YOU DID" https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10476859&cid=54218965/ ... apk

CPU issues more problem for me

[Anonymous Coward]

Using Firefox no extensions no Flash plugin I have much bigger issues with Firefox consuming CPU cycles at incredible amounts than memory issues. Playing any kind of html5 video I hear my laptop fan ramp up all the time with Firefox. Same video playing in any other browser no problems. This is on a clean install Windows 10 with a core i5 Skylake CPU. Clearly Firefox is passing the buck on its own problems blaming everyone but themselves.

It's a srcset to everybody

[tepples]

The page on caniuse.com about srcset states that IE 11 does not support srcset, and Edge will display distorted images until the majority of Windows 10 users install the Creators Update. Is it considered acceptable to show distorted images to users of pre-Creators Edge and force users of IE 11 to gulp data transfer allowance while allowing Chrome, Firefox, and Safari to sip it?

My hosts engine imports that one & 8 others

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: You can get them ALL @ once or optionally pick & choose (such as ones you don't like OR that haven't updated) via APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

* Enjoy & it's FREE + /.ers like & use it, testimonials here https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10476859&cid=54222849/

APK

P.S.=> It's easily hands-down the BEST hosts building program out there (even vs. hostsman its nearest competitor stuck in 32-bit & using potentially problematic 3rd party libs in SQLite + it doesn't do hardcoded properly reverse DNS verified sites where you spend most time online, placing them @ TOP of hosts for fastest resolution as hosts caches into local system RAM... apk

UBlock = inferior + inefficient vs. hosts

[Anonymous Coward]

UBlock can't do these as well as (or @ all) hosts do 4 speed, security, & reliability:

Protection vs.:

1.) Bad sites (past ads)
2.) Fastflux botnet C&C's
3.) Dyndns botnet C&C's
4.) DGA botnet C&C's
5.) Downed DNS (reliability)
6.) DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) DNSChangers in IP stack OR routers
8.) DNS requestlog trackers
9.) Spam payloads
10.) Phish payloads
11.) Bandwidth caps

Additionally:

12.) Get past dns blocks
13.) Speed up 2 ways (adblocks/hardcodes)
14.) Work on anything webbound multiplatform.
15.) Ez data edit
16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu/ram/I-O use

* UBlock now uses hosts (no DNS benefits vs. dns issues) - poor imitation = "sincerest form of flattery"

Hosts = native vs. illogically "Bolting on 'MoAr'" & not ClarityRay blockable like addons.

APK

P.S.=> Hosts (1st resolver) do MORE w/ less in fast kernelmode & before slow usermode addons

Hosts ~6mb vs. UBlock = 64MB -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/adblocker-memory-consumption.jpg

Not much difference

[NewYork]

http://arewefastyet.com/