Slashdot Mirror


Creator of Opera Says Google Deliberately Undermined His New Vivaldi Web Browser (wired.co.uk)

The latest allegation against Google? Jon von Tetzchner, creator of the web browser Opera, says the search giant deliberately undermined his new browser, Vivaldi. Rowland Manthorpe, writing for Wired: In a blogpost titled, "My friends at Google: it is time to return to not being evil," von Tetzchner accuses the US firm of blocking Vivaldi's access to Google AdWords, the advertisements that run alongside search results, without warning or proper explanation. According to Von Tetzchner, the problem started in late May. Speaking at the Oslo Freedom Forum, the Icelandic programmer criticised big tech companies' attitude toward personal data, calling for a ban on location tracking on Facebook and Google. Two days later, he suddenly found Vivaldi's Google AdWords campaigns had been suspended. "Was this just a coincidence?" he writes. "Or was it deliberate, a way of sending us a message?" He concludes: "Timing spoke volumes." Von Tetzchner got in touch with Google to try and resolve the issue. The result? What he calls "a clarification masqueraded in the form of vague terms and conditions." The particular issue was the end-user license agreement (EULA), the legal contract between a software manufacturer and a user. Google wanted Vivaldi to add one to its website. So it did. But Google had further complaints. According to emails shown to WIRED, Google wanted Vivaldi to add an EULA "within the frame of every download button." The addition was small -- a link below the button directing people to "terms" -- but on the web, where every pixel matters, this was a potential competitive disadvantage. Most gallingly, Chrome, Google's own web browser, didn't display a EULA on its landing pages. Google also asked Vivaldi to add detailed information to help people uninstall it, with another link, also under the button.

247 comments

  1. alter it by turkeydance · · Score: 0

    and pray

    1. Re: alter it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pray to a 10.000.000.000 â fine for Google, from EU

    2. Re: alter it by mschwanke97402 · · Score: 1

      Pray to a 10.000.000.000 â fine for Google, from EU

      Rich, very good. But seriously, what’s up with Google these days?

    3. Re:alter it by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      ...they do not alter it further

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  2. "Return" to "not being evil"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Google has NEVER not been evil. They were evil from day one, but pretended not to be to lure all you gullible geeks in. It's amazing that most of you still haven't figure out how things are, considering how smart you often are in purely technological terms.

    Also, it's pathetic to see the old Opera guy allowing himself to be bullied by them while trying to use their services, not to mention the fact that "Vivaldi" is just another Chromium skin. This really is a broken world where nobody wants to do anything on their own anymore. Just take the easy path and make a skin for some existing technology -- that should do it!

    1. Re: "Return" to "not being evil"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do something original when a big company can steal your idea and beat you in court?

    2. Re:"Return" to "not being evil"? by supremebob · · Score: 1

      Wait a minute... he's expecting Google to HELP him advertise a competing browser that's based off of Google's open source offerings?

      LOL... good luck with that, buddy. Maybe he should give his ad money to Bing or Duck Duck Go instead.

    3. Re: "Return" to "not being evil"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anti-trust, bitches!

      Learn it, love it, adhere to it, or be crushed by it.

      Yes, he had every fair and reasonable expectation that Google wouldn't illegally abuse their monopoly in one area to win and maintain market share in another.

      This is textbook anti-trust violation.

    4. Re:"Return" to "not being evil"? by dnaumov · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wait a minute... he's expecting Google to HELP him advertise a competing browser that's based off of Google's open source offerings?

      Umm, yes? When you have a monopoly position, different rules apply.

    5. Re: "Return" to "not being evil"? by mschwanke97402 · · Score: 1

      Why do something original when a big company can steal your idea and beat you in court?

      Pardon if I am mistaken but isn’t Chrome itself a fork off Apple’s WebKit project?

    6. Re: "Return" to "not being evil"? by darkain · · Score: 1

      Chrome is a proprietary version of Chromium. Chromium uses Blink. Blink is a fork of WebKit, which is also used by Apple's Safari. WebKit is a fork of KHTML. Nothing is original!

    7. Re: "Return" to "not being evil"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Which law facilitates this?

    8. Re: "Return" to "not being evil"? by Wootery · · Score: 1

      Nothing is original!

      Not quite fair. V8 is original.

    9. Re: "Return" to "not being evil"? by Wootery · · Score: 1

      It's called antitrust law, genius.

    10. Re: "Return" to "not being evil"? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Another AC that doesn't know what a monopoly is. There sure are a lot of you.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    11. Re: "Return" to "not being evil"? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      V8 has been largely rewritten now, but a lot of the original code was from Anamorphic Smalltalk, which was bought and BSD licensed by Sun.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    12. Re: "Return" to "not being evil"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am afraid you have to have a government that is willing to pursue the anti-trust cases. Google (Alphabet) is one of those untouchable entities, at least, for now. And for very good reasons. They could literally sink people into a black hole on the internet and do actively do so.

    13. Re: "Return" to "not being evil"? by Wootery · · Score: 1

      So it has the same origins as HotSpot? Curious.

    14. Re: "Return" to "not being evil"? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      A lot of former Self and StrongTalk people went to work on v8 (and later Dart and WebAssembly) at Google. If you look at Dart, you can see that it's very much StrongTalk-with-braces. If you look at the name of the project lead, you'll understand why.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    15. Re: "Return" to "not being evil"? by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      They do hold the majority of the search advertising market, so they're not entirely insane. "Dominant market position" might be a better label.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    16. Re:"Return" to "not being evil"? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      This.

      It's important to keep an eye on the ball. It's the little round thing.

      In this case, the ball's name is AdWords.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    17. Re: "Return" to "not being evil"? by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      You've perhaps missed that they just lost an antitrust lawsuit in Europe (with respect to advertising their shopping site), to the tune of billions of dollars, two other antitrust investigations ongoing?

    18. Re:"Return" to "not being evil"? by Black+LED · · Score: 2

      Vivaldi is based on Chromium, but it certainly is not just another skin job. Vivaldi actually makes huge improvements to the base Chromium to the point that it nearly rivals the feature set of old Opera.

      You should try it out if you haven't or haven't recently. It's become my default browser under Windows.

  3. Google, you can't fight against by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just few years ago, my every comment against Google was getting modded down. I can bet there are many Google employees on Slashdot and these die hard people don't take negative comments on Google lightly.

    Google has got too much power. With search monopoly, it can decide what sells and what does not. What websites user visits and what does not. What news user read and what does not. The only real competition is from Facebook and I am equally apprehensive about it.

    1. Re: Google, you can't fight against by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paging Swillden!

    2. Re: Google, you can't fight against by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think Facebook is evil. They really care about users being able to connect and share.

    3. Re: Google, you can't fight against by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shillden

    4. Re: Google, you can't fight against by thsths · · Score: 1

      That is the beauty of true evil: if you can rationalise it, maybe not for yourself, but for your staff and customers, that is half the battle of getting away with being evil.

      Has it ever occurred to you that Facebook may care about connecting users, and still be evil?

    5. Re: Google, you can't fight against by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re: Facebook, from London Review of Books, https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n16/john-lanchester/you-are-the-product

    6. Re:Google, you can't fight against by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either that, or your posts were vapid, insightless, poorly structured, whiny ranting... which I find a much more likely cause. People here shit on Google all the time.

    7. Re:Google, you can't fight against by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mac fanatics did it first.

    8. Re:Google, you can't fight against by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 1

      Two problems with Google: it has too much power, and it's now abusing it's power. This instance is only one of many other similar instances of Google throwing its weight around.

      No longer content to try to develop and bring to market superior products, Google is now suppressing outside negative opinions (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/us/politics/eric-schmidt-google-new-america.html?mcubz=0), kneecapping competition in the best tradition of Microsoft of old, and ruthlessly enforcing a groupthink internally, not to mention demonetizing subjects on AdSense or Youtube that they don't like or disagree with (examples: Trump supporters or Ron Paul supporters or gun videos).

    9. Re: Google, you can't fight against by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Free rainbow-vomiting unicorns for everyone, with bonus butterflies.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  4. Why Would Google Bother by Luthair · · Score: 0, Troll

    The market share of these niche browsers has always been a rounding error, the chance of Vivaldi having any sort of market was always zero.

    1. Re:Why Would Google Bother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This seems to be more about silencing criticism of Google than stopping Vivaldi. Stopping Vivaldi is the punishment, not the objective.

    2. Re:Why Would Google Bother by PRMan · · Score: 1

      He made a ton of money being the official browser of Wii and also other devices.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    3. Re:Why Would Google Bother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      IT could be the objective if its to keep other browsers from rising. They're starting to act like Microsoft in that department.

    4. Re:Why Would Google Bother by Cederic · · Score: 2

      What, like Netscape when it was first released?
      Like Opera when it was first released?
      Like Firebird when it was first released?
      Like Chrome when it was first released?

      Yeah, these niche browsers with their zero market share. They'll never make it.

    5. Re:Why Would Google Bother by gl4ss · · Score: 0

      look, vivaldi is just another chromekit(tm) browser.

      it is not terribly interesting.

      last I tried, it didn't have any redeeming quality to it vs. using firefox or chrome.

      and look, them using adwords as the advert choice should be a clue.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    6. Re: Why Would Google Bother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is the #1 search engine with the #1 web browser also allowed to own a leading ad company? Break them up so they can't collude.

    7. Re: Why Would Google Bother by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Because Google sure does love silencing free speech and abusing its monopoly power.

      Break up Google! Antitrust action now!

    8. Re:Why Would Google Bother by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      the only reason vivaldi matters vs. other chromekits is only because of the opera fame.

      I find the whole browser quite unnecessary to be honest as is opera now in it's current guise.

      another layout/render engine would be nice.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    9. Re: Why Would Google Bother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did it ever even occur to you, just for even a second, that there's people out there who, well you know, might like Vivaldi?

      Or you one of those asshats who figures what they like is what everyone needs to like?

      You ever heard of the word 'choice'?

      If you think that there are no redeeming features then it's obvious you've never actually installed the bloody thing, yet alone actually used it.

      Sure, your can not like the features, but you cannot legitimately claim there are none.

      Well, you can if you're just an argumentative opinionated little fuck who believes that all software should revolve round their needs and desires only.

    10. Re:Why Would Google Bother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, like Opera when it was first released, throughout it's entire lifespan, up until the present day.

    11. Re:Why Would Google Bother by maelkum · · Score: 1

      another layout/render engine would be nice.

      This is true, but Vivaldi has some unique features (tab tiling; tab stacks are poor man's tab groups) and is quite usable if you give it a chance. And it has tabs on the side, not on top!

      But there's WebKit/Blink underneath and that's no good.

    12. Re: Why Would Google Bother by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Why is the #1 search engine with the #1 web browser also allowed to own a leading ad company? Break them up so they can't collude.

      Because freedom. You don't have to get permission from the government just to open a business, which is apparently what you're suggesting.

    13. Re: Why Would Google Bother by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      Because their ad business is their business. The search engine and browser are just loss leaders.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    14. Re:Why Would Google Bother by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Or maybe I'm just pointing out that the CEO of Vivaldi is blaming others for failure instead of accepting responsibility for understanding the market?

  5. Re:What I do to Google... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Call it a hunch, but I have a feeling a hosts file isn't going to help Jon von with his situation.

  6. If Goog doesn't follow the standard, sue them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems to me if Goog is not following the EULA policies themselves, Jon can probably sue for what minimal damages they can prove. The question would be is it worth the gamble.

    1. Re:If Goog doesn't follow the standard, sue them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It would cost him all his money and years of appeals to get anything from Google, who has both the time and money to fight anything.

      If he loses, he loses everything. If he wins, he gets some money, most of which will be taken by lawyers after years of fighting. Then what? He's basically right back where he started.

      For the most part, suing a large company is completely broken. The only people winning are the lawyers.

    2. Re:If Goog doesn't follow the standard, sue them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For the most part, suing a large company is completely broken. The only people winning are the lawyers.

      You don't fight Google on Google's turf.

      You spill Google's IP, databases, and confidential data, etc etc guts all over the 'net via hacks, leaks, etc until you destroy their market competitiveness and ability to operate, get them disqualified from government contracts, and ultimately crash their stock price.

    3. Re:If Goog doesn't follow the standard, sue them? by pedz · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered about a few ideas. These are half baked but I'm curious what the pitfalls might be.

      First, a browser should randomly "click" on the ads and then just spew the resulting web page to /dev/null. This would start creating false clicks. False clicks would cause the advertisers to start paying more only to discover that the effectiveness of Google advertising is becoming less and less useful.

      This would impact bandwidth and would clearly be something that users would want to customize and tailor as far as how much bandwidth to allow this activity to consume and during what time. Is there a reason not to let your browser randomly surf the ads late at night when everyone is asleep?

      Ad blocking is fine but that doesn't create false data. To fight back against the web trackers and folks like Google, false data must be introduced into the system. And it can't be 1% or 10%. It would need to be a significant percentage; utopia is if there is more false data than valid data.

      Second, create several servers that are giant cookie jars. Web browsers, instead of rejecting third party cookies, would soak them up only to dump them into the big cookie jars. Then they would suck out a random sample of cookies from the cookie jar and use them as if they were real.

      I believe this would frustrate many of the tracking methods that are used today.

      This idea clearly has some risks. Competent web designers never put critical data into a cookie but the day of anyone being competent at anything is long gone. So, the user would need to explicitly mark cookies as potential security risks and not send them to the giant cookie jars. Third party cookies (I would assume) would never be a security risk.

      The point here is go on the offensive and find viable methods of producing false data. If the SNR becomes negative, I believe Google, FB, Yahoo, etc would start to have serious issues.

      The other point is if there is more noise to signal in these types of things, it would seriously hamper any reason for Big Brother from just assuming the data and the implications that lead from the data is valid.

      I'd love to see the next generations of ad blockers start producing false data rather than just passively blocking the ads.

    4. Re:If Goog doesn't follow the standard, sue them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Entire businesses exist on fake clicks. It seems that Google just pays them money for the clicks anyway, as some of these have been at it for years.
      With how full of shit some of these online marketers are (it's kind of difficult to call any of them legit) it's no wonder it isn't easy to spot the scammers.

    5. Re: If Goog doesn't follow the standard, sue them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens when Google just blocks what they consider "malignant sessions" or, if necessary, "malignant IPs" from accessing Google altogether?

    6. Re:If Goog doesn't follow the standard, sue them? by theweatherelectric · · Score: 2

      First, a browser should randomly "click" on the ads and then just spew the resulting web page to /dev/null. This would start creating false clicks. False clicks would cause the advertisers to start paying more only to discover that the effectiveness of Google advertising is becoming less and less useful.

      AdNauseam does this. Some think AdNauseam works a little too well. It was recently blocked by Pale Moon.

    7. Re: If Goog doesn't follow the standard, sue them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't block IPs, they just make the user sort images with ReCaptcha.

      Captcha: bastards

    8. Re: If Goog doesn't follow the standard, sue them? by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's super lame. I wasn't going to use Pale Moon anyways - but now I'm definitely not interested.

    9. Re:If Goog doesn't follow the standard, sue them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't fight Google on Google's turf.

      Exactly this:
      1) Dont use any court that uses the medieval adversary system, it will break your bank account as the adversary system is run like a cartel *.
      2) Make sure the court uses an investigative system like in Germany/France etc.. where the judges are not ex-lawyers. Court resolutions are quicker and much less expensive and tend to produce quantatively more accurate outcomes to reach the truth.

      * For sources read: http://netk.net.au/Whitton/OCLS.pdf

      IANAL

    10. Re:If Goog doesn't follow the standard, sue them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Russian method! And from an AC on Slashdot, how surprising!

    11. Re:If Goog doesn't follow the standard, sue them? by thegreatbob · · Score: 2

      I imagine that going up against Google in court is something like crawling out of a structure fire with an air conditioning unit fallen on your back, while lawyers and board members stand near the door, lighting their cigars on the flames and taunting you

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    12. Re: If Goog doesn't follow the standard, sue them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ad-nauseum causes a variety of issues for a variety of people. It generates false clicks on advertisements. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to discern whether they feel this is a proper way of dealing with ads vs. simply blocking them. You can still enable it by fiddling with about:config. Since you have already made up your mind, your statement is pointless.

  7. Vivaldi is nice.. try it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I really like it so far. Snappy and stays out of the way. Tab grouping and tiling are really nice. Support alternative browsers, it's good for the health of the web.

    1. Re: Vivaldi is nice.. try it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still no synchronisation...

    2. Re:Vivaldi is nice.. try it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compared to the original Opera, it's still slow as hell and has not nearly the same amount of features. Furthermore, it doesn't even work on Vista anymore

    3. Re:Vivaldi is nice.. try it. by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      Vista is now adandonware; please upgrade to.. anything else. Even XP with the POS/embedded registry hacks has more remaining life.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    4. Re:Vivaldi is nice.. try it. by gustygolf · · Score: 1

      Er, Vivaldi uses the same Webkit as Chrome and Opera and Safari do. It's not an alternative browser in the sense you were going for.

      Use SeaMonkey, use Firefox, use MSIE, use Edge. Those are alternative browsers -- ones with a minority rendering engine -- that are good for the health of the web.

      --
      "Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 58 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment" -- slashdot, driving users away.
    5. Re:Vivaldi is nice.. try it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love Vivaldi. It works far better than IE 11 these days.

  8. Thanks Google! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Downloading Vivaldi now.

    1. Re:Thanks Google! by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Brave loads a lot faster than does Vivaldi and is more privacy-centric.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    2. Re:Thanks Google! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brave loads a lot faster than does Vivaldi and is more privacy-centric.

      Yes, but Vilvaldi is remarkably customizable, to the extent that you can pretty much fully simulate the way you used to work in Firefox, even on a Chromium-based browser. Pretty much any aspect of it that might seem annoying can be changed.

    3. Re:Thanks Google! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, howdy! So you're the guy who's been using it. How about your uniqueness?

  9. this is not a free market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what is hilarious is that everyone goes on about how public companies are evil warmongering soulless faces of society when in reality google never wanted to go public. they were forced to share their company with others once they reached a certain size. even the most capitalistic governments embrace socialism in some form...

  10. Vivaldi. by ledow · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Gosh, if only you'd created a browser with its own rendering engine that you then didn't sell off to a company that immediately replaced it, and then go on to "revive" the old browser by... creating another browser based on the Chrome browser too.

    As a Vivaldi user, I can confirm that it's nothing more than a Chrome clone, and a pretty boring one. All the interesting Opera features haven't made it in in all the years it's existed and been promised.

    Guess what? When you make a Chrome-clone, you have to do what the people who make Chrome want you to do. Shocking, isn't it?

    1. Re:Vivaldi. by Inviska · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Guess what? When you make a Chrome-clone, you have to do what the people who make Chrome want you to do. Shocking, isn't it?

      No, that's not the way open source software works. The Blink rendering engine is released under the BSD license, and placing instructions for uninstalling the software next to the download link is not a requirement of that licence. Vivaldi is required to fulfil the terms of the licences under which Chromium is released, no more and no less.

      Besides, Google isn't even using the Chromium licence to manipulate Vivaldi. They're claiming that Vivaldi isn't meeting the terms of Google AdWords, and is using that to force Vivaldi to jump through hoops.

      Google has been abusing its monopoly position with alarming regularity recently, and clearly intervention is necessary. Unfortunately, any intervention will likely be in the form of a fine, which helps nobody. In situations like this the only real solution is to split Google into multiple companies, each of which gets a copy of the search engine code and full data set. The companies can then compete against each other from the same initial starting point. When presented with real competition their ability to be evil is significantly limited.

    2. Re: Vivaldi. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Konqueror begat Webkit begat Chromium begat Blink. Chrome didn't come out of nowhere

    3. Re: Vivaldi. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No if you make a pile of mini googles you'll end up right back here in 5 years.

      Split it up into verticals. Adwords, search, phones, etc. Each company can then compete in it's,own space without the unfair competitive advantage of using other parts of the google network to abuse competitors in other areas in direct violation of anti trust laws.

    4. Re: Vivaldi. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well it will take more than 5 years but yea ... no one thinks about the bell breakup and how that eventually wound up with only 2 in the end (red vs blue)

    5. Re: Vivaldi. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You clearly don't understand capitalism and its End Game.

    6. Re: Vivaldi. by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      Konqueror is dead! Long live Konqueror!

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
  11. Vivaldi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In terms of UI and customization, Vivaldi is 100 times better than Chrome, and of course supports all the extensions and more (the one's Google doesn't like you having which improve its services more than they are capable of natively).
    The only problem I could emphasize when I used Vivaldi is the page loading problem. Sometimes, clicking on a link or trying to load a webpage ends up in a hangup of a few seconds or so. Don't know if that's a problem still, but it was a BIG problem that hadn't been resolved for at least 2 months of my attempted usage. I hope they have resolved it these days.
    Another thing I would love for the Vivaldi staff to do is to consider achieving what Chrome devs failed at and gave up in the very dedicated thread, while citing Chromium core as the problem: Tab Lazy Loading. Firefox has a great Session Manager that works with many tabs loading at once and never bricking or freezing any system (old or new) because it has this feature, but SessionBuddy on Chromium based browsers is malfunctioning because of the lack of this performance hack/cheat.

    1. Re:Vivaldi by Opyros · · Score: 1

      Is it possible to disable or restrict Javascript on Vivaldi? I tried it recently but saw no way to do that.

  12. Don't be Google. by goombah99 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This company lostit's moral compass when it hired Eric Schmitt and it hasn't found it again. Eric as you know was the one who didn't recuse himself from apple's board even when he learned about the iPhone. Either he was trying to steal the iPhone or if you really beleive he wasn't and Google was already planning their own, then you have to ask why he didn't recuse himself. It's because he's morally bankrupt. it infected google and the company hasn't been the same ever since.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Don't be Google. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it was also around that time that the decision was made to push for the ipo. the new, and now sole, focus on shareholder value is what turned google 'evil'. companies become blind to everything else in pursuit of profits and higher share prices. morals become irrelevant and doing the right thing becomes impossible.

      WHATIF.. excite's then-ceo george bell didn't make yet-another-totally-stupid decision and did not reject buying google for a measly $750,000 back in 1999?.. this is the same moron that dropped $425 MILLION on "imall" and $780 MILLION on bluemountain the year before. this guy makes carly fiorina and marissa mayer look like absolute geniuses.

    2. Re: Don't be Google. by Brockmire · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Yes he fucking did, you lying piece of shit. "Schmidt had recused himself of portions of Apple's board meetings when conflicts of interest or anything Google-related arose. But Jobs said Schmidt would have to leave much larger portions of the meetings after Google announced last month that it would enter the operating system sphere." http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/0...

    3. Re: Don't be Google. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We found Eric Schmitt!

    4. Re:Don't be Google. by sudon't · · Score: 1

      Eric, as you know, was the one who didn't recuse himself from Apple's board even when he learned about the iPhone. Either he was trying to steal the iPhone or if you really beleive he wasn't and Google was already planning their own, then you have to ask why he didn't recuse himself.

      I’m sure it just a coincidence that Android looked almost exactly like iOS.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    5. Re:Don't be Google. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Probably. Both, at launch, looked pretty much like an updated PalmOS and fairly similar to Symbian Series 60. Most of the common UI elements between iOS and Android were found in at least one, if not both, of those prior smartphone operating systems.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re: Don't be Google. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, profit was the motive long before they filed the IPO (like from the beginning).

    7. Re:Don't be Google. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget guys that Android was developed by Android Inc and bought up by Google. History people, history.

    8. Re:Don't be Google. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except that pre-google, android looked like a blackberry clone.

  13. Re: What I do to Google... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So.... what you "do to google" is spam links to their search engine in all your Autistic posts.

  14. Undermined because you can't show Google ads?? by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 2

    There's lots of software around that doesn't show Google ads. Even web browsers!

    You do realize that it's possible to sell software, or to get ads from other sources (or even sell advertising space yourself, heaven forfend!).

    There's even something known as Free Software that has a whole ecosystem that's built up around the idea that software can be developed and distributed without requiring everyone to reach into his pocket and pull out a credit card.

    --
    If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    1. Re:Undermined because you can't show Google ads?? by moronoxyd · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's lots of software around that doesn't show Google ads.

      The software (the Vivaldi browser) doesn't show ads. Except when displaying a website that contains ads. (And those will not be shown if the user decides to use some extension that supresses ads.)

      The problem here is that Vivaldi would like to advertise it's product using Google AdWords, and can't. And considering that AdWords has a pretty wide reach, that hurts.

    2. Re:Undermined because you can't show Google ads?? by maelkum · · Score: 1

      There's even something known as Free Software that has a whole ecosystem that's built up around the idea that software can be developed and distributed without requiring everyone to reach into his pocket and pull out a credit card.

      Free Software movement does not object to selling software, nor is it dedicated to providing software gratis. The ultimate goal is for software to be free "as in freedom", not "as in free beer".

  15. Echoes of the Borg (Microsoft) by J+Story · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Once upon a time, when Microsoft ruled the world, its Internet Explorer was undisputed King of browsers. But when upstart browsers started to make inroads, Microsoft baked its browser into the bowels of Windows, making it not only preinstalled, but impossible to remove. Believe it or not, Microsoft spun this borgian action as a Good Thing, making sure that the "user experience" was up to Microsoft's standards. Now, however, it seems to be Google that is swinging its hefty weight around, positioning its ever growing assimilation of the Internet as something it's doing for our own good.

    1. Re:Echoes of the Borg (Microsoft) by moronoxyd · · Score: 2

      Once upon a time, when Microsoft ruled the world, its Internet Explorer was undisputed King of browsers. But when upstart browsers started to make inroads, Microsoft baked its browser into the bowels of Windows, making it not only preinstalled, but impossible to remove

      You've got the timeline wrong. IE was the upstart that was trying to replace the king Netscape. And succedes using shady tactics.

    2. Re:Echoes of the Borg (Microsoft) by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      There may have been shady tactics involved, but at the time IE was also a better browser - I remember the days when you used to have to test against specific *minor* versions of Netscape Navigator because they had massive rendering differences. Netscape 4 was also a lot slower than IE4, mainly because it was translating all CSS stuff to its own JSSS system internally (which meant you could have both CSS and JavaScript enabled or neither enabled, but not one or the other...)

      People look back at the time with rose tinted spectacles - NN peaked during its early versions but was a lumbering turd from version 4 onward. Theres a reason the Mozilla development team dumped the Netscape Navigator codebase.

    3. Re: Echoes of the Borg (Microsoft) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IE was really Spy Glass browser. Microsoft was waay late to the Internet party. Windows 3.1 did not even have a winsock layer and did not dupport tcp/ip without a third party installs like Trumpet Winsock. Once they finally woke up and needed a browser pronto due to Netscape (e.g. Spy Glass) they added horrible features like vbscript, activex, and proprietary htlm extensions. Next they licensed Java and embraced and extended it so when you developed Java apps for Windows or IE you couldn't tell what APIs where part of Java and which were proprietary to Windows. Then they lost the right to license Java or at least the use of the trade mark for it. After that they released an incompatible version of Java script to Netscape's horrible Java script language which caused years of pain for all. In later versions they forced the Windows OS to use the Browser for stupid things to pretend that it was an integrated part of the OS that couldn't be removed to fight anti-trust actions.

    4. Re: Echoes of the Borg (Microsoft) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google has packed more proprietary horseshit and craft to Chrome than Microsoft ever did in IE and /. hadn't a word to say. Seriously people, they built an OS substitute in a browser for no other reason than to be a Trojan on windows. There is Zero user benefit to a browser having cloud print mgmt, offline app execution frameworks, http extensions that despite being submitted to standards is by no means free and open (AMP), adblock for other people's ads,...

      Microsoft did plenty wrong over the years, but if we had proportional reaction to the shit going on in Chrome as we did to activex the debate would be very very different.

    5. Re: Echoes of the Borg (Microsoft) by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      There was plenty of support for TCP/IP in Windows. It came a little late, and it wasn't a dialup kludge, it was real NIC support. There was even a client for MS-DOS.

      I remember having a Slackware box back in the mid 90's, running Samba on it.

      I remember pareing down the MS-DOS client so that it fit on a floppy diskette.

      I remember setting up a boot floppy to boot on an old 286 box that didn't have a hard drive, that mounted a Samba share as the MD-DOS C: drive.

      Then I remember installing Windows 3.1 from floppy disks onto that C: drive.

      The Windows installer didn't even know it wasn't a real C: drive.

      Now, a lot of less adept people were installing the Trumpet Windsock thing to get PPP to work so they could have a crummy dialup access to TCP/IP. I was just using cheap second-hand 3C503 cards in old 286 boxes.

    6. Re:Echoes of the Borg (Microsoft) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being someone who had to contend and develop commerical websites for IE4/5/6 onwards can I tell you that it wasn't like that. The way it went down was that Netscape was the undisputed king until Internet Explorer was forced on Windows users. The sheer distaste developers' had for IE 5 and 6 (7 was slightly better) sparked the entire legal process and it was used as a catalyst to clip Microsoft's wings (so-to-speak).

      Without Internet Explorer the innovation of XHR Ajax wouldn't of made its presence, which was a part of ActiveX, I believe. The issue was the use of tags like Blink and dumb things like favoring Table based Transitional specification over Strict and proper DIV plotting and needing to have quirks mode enabled to ensure effective rendering for anything meaningful. It was at that point that not only did Microsoft kill Netscape but also tried to kill the HTML standard in the process.

      Firefox emerged claiming only a small portion of the market. Chrome took years to gain traction against the small marketshare IE had and it wasn't until Android borgified the market that Chrome became relevant. And with the Chromebook and Android brands in toe Chrome eventually overtook IE.

      Make no mistake even for today's Desktop market share Internet Explorer is still very popular. None of which makes any difference these days as all of the big tech brands need a good old anti trust and they're not getting it.

    7. Re:Echoes of the Borg (Microsoft) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may have used shady tactics, But Netscape handed them victory by turning netscape navigator into a steaming turd which forced users to flee on mass. I have bitter memories of mid project haven't to turf Netscape and adopt IE because netscape refused to listen to feedback or fix reported bugs, they were wholly focused on releasing broken features. at the time IE was actually the far superior product.

    8. Re:Echoes of the Borg (Microsoft) by gravewax · · Score: 1

      They succeeded because they wrote a far better browser. They also used shady tactics but that was really a sidenote, Netscape committed suicide in much the same way that Mozilla and Firefox are currently committing suicide, they refused to listen to their users and wrote a really buggy product.

    9. Re:Echoes of the Borg (Microsoft) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no one cared at the time that it was harder to make webpages that worked on IE outside of the small group that were doing the work.
      USERS liked IE cos it better than netscape.

    10. Re:Echoes of the Borg (Microsoft) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not having a browser pre-installed would have made an OS in the internet age useless. Also, they were actually ahead of the curve by attempting to write portions of the UI using webtechnology, which is why an HTML renderer became a system dependency.

      If MS actually did all the things you loonies on Slashdot think they did, the world would be a very different place.

    11. Re:Echoes of the Borg (Microsoft) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Internet and web browsers at the time prior to all of this was all 3rd party software. Microsoft had nothing. You'd download Trumpet winsock and used netscape. Windows 95 was used to kill Trumpet which was resonable because it should be a part of the OS as for IE it was considered the milestone which needed to be achieved next. Your're wrong in saying a small group of people, it involved everyone in the IT industry because of LDAP and Visual Studio. Where Intarnets were involved IE wanted to merge IE with the File Manger and that was when anti trust stepped in.

      Netscape for the end user was as good as IE it was just why was it needed if you had something you didn't need to install because it was already there?

  16. ban on location tracking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    calling for a ban on location tracking on Facebook and Google.

    No. We merely need people to be smart enough not to give away all of their personal data to Facebook and Google .

    1. Re: ban on location tracking? by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. When it's a handful of people affected, feel free to preach your personal responsibility / public irresponsibility hokum.

      When tens or hundreds of millions of people are impacted, it becomes perforce a matter of public policy.

  17. Monopoly by fluffernutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People keep saying Google isn't a monopoly, but if it can use tactics to make the market unattainable for everyone else. is that not what it is?

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:Monopoly by Ayano · · Score: 1, Insightful

      People are mad because google is popular and is now using it's popularity to snuff smaller corps out which suddenly outrages people. That confuses me, it's not like a credit rating company where you have no choice. These disgusted people keep using google and giving all sorts of generic excuses for 'having to use it'. Nobody has to use google, Just because they expect super car Bugatti features doesn't mean other cars don't exist. It's like libre office users, sure everyone might be using office 365, but I don't have to use it.

      --
      I don't read AC
    2. Re: Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they do. If he wants to use an adwords service to actually reach people he has little choice and google has illegally violated anti trust laws by using it's monopoly in one market to protect its control of another market. This is a text book and direct violation of anti-trust laws. Period.

      Companies have been broken up for less.

    3. Re:Monopoly by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Well I always use Google because none of the other search engines are very good. But this article makes me wonder if there would be other search engines that are good (for me to use) if Google wasn't abusing its dominant force in the market. It's not like a grocery store where you just need to carry groceries at the lowest price in order to compete, or sometimes not even the lowest price in the case of Whole Foods. In technology, these companies are able to situate themselves so that they can actually stifle competition from arising. That's the worrisome part.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    4. Re:Monopoly by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      Well I always use Google because none of the other search engines are very good.

      This is the only real reason Google is the head of the pack in search engines.

      Honestly, I don't believe there's a monopoly here. Google is but one web site on the net. Anyone else can easily cobble together their own crawlers and search page and try to compete. I'm sure Amazon Web Services will happily sell you compute time to run your business.

      The only thing Google has over everyone else is a lead on the technology. They have spent countless man-hours refining and improving their crawling and indexing systems. They've spread a lot on tendrils into other technology too, all built on an innovative advertiser revenue stream.

      Google has absolutely no power to hinder you from launching your own Google-like infrastructure. A monopoly is more like days past of Microsoft bundling IE with the operating system (something you need to run any web browser), and then deliberately 'messing' with competitors browsers when running on their OS. They have a long rich history of bullying third party developers with their control of the operating system. Google is in no such position. Android is open source so anyone can build upon it's pieces to make their own stuff. But Google will always have a technological advantage due to their experience in this field. But it's still not a monopoly. They can't mess with Bing, DuckDuckGo or any other search engine. Google is just better than them all because they're better at it. They've invested tremendous resources in getting better at what they do.

      However Google is probably evil. Or at least they are creepy if you look behind the curtains. I'm not so sure I am comfortable being Google product. Which is what everyone who uses Google is. You're their product. They are selling YOU to advertisers and research. Their services are not free, even though you don't have to pay money (as an end-user.)

    5. Re: Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't understand anti trust so I shall explain.

      Google is allowed to have a monopoly, such as search as long as they got it by being better.

      They are NOT allowed to use their search monopoly to break into other markets. Or they adwords monopoly to do the same. And so on.

      That cross market abuse is where they violate anti trust. More power to em for building a better search engine.

    6. Re:Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I always use Google because none of the other search engines are very good. But this article makes me wonder if there would be other search engines that are good (for me to use) if Google wasn't abusing its dominant force in the market. It's not like a grocery store where you just need to carry groceries at the lowest price in order to compete, or sometimes not even the lowest price in the case of Whole Foods. In technology, these companies are able to situate themselves so that they can actually stifle competition from arising. That's the worrisome part.

      I use startpage.com for search. It gives Google results but no tracking, not even IP address. It's run by Ixquick which has their own (non-Google) search engine at ixquick.com. Getting Google results without giving up my info is my own way of sticking it to 'em.

    7. Re:Monopoly by Boronx · · Score: 1

      "Google has absolutely no power to hinder you from launching your own Google-like infrastructure"

      They have plenty of power. They have the power to sue. They have the power to buy you up. They have the power to influence legislation. They have the power to head hunt your talent. They have any other power that money might buy, including libel, espionage, sabotage, and murder. Whether they use these powers or not, Google has them.

    8. Re:Monopoly by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      People keep saying Google isn't a monopoly

      They say no such thing. They say Google Search is not a monopoly. It fails many of the monopoly tests.

      Google Adwords most definitely is one, has been for a very long time, and is also what this story is about.

    9. Re: Monopoly by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      You don't understand anti trust so I shall explain.

      Google is allowed to have a monopoly, such as search as long as they got it by being better.

      You obviously don't understand what a monopoly is. A monopoly is when one company has so much dominance in a market that there are no competitors. And any attempt to 'rise' by a competitor is quashed by the monopoly. Read about Bell Systems circa 1950-1984 for a view on what a monopoly looks like.

      Google is doing no such thing. They are not quashing other search engines or advertising networks. They're just good at what they do and their competitors aren't very good (yet.) But that's not Google's fault, they're not doing anything overtly to competitors other than just being superior to them. That's not a monopoly, nor is it anti-trust.

      Google's dominance is only due to no one else being able to build a competitive system to challenge their dominance. And frankly, most people aren't even interested in doing this. Microsoft was, hence the rise of Bing. But even with the power of Microsoft behind Bing, they are still behind Google in usage. That's customers making a choice based on excellence and performance. No monopoly here, sorry, moving along.

    10. Re:Monopoly by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      They have plenty of power. They have the power to sue.

      Only if you give them something to sue you over.

      They have the power to buy you up.

      Only if you are willing to sell.

      They have the power to influence legislation.

      So do you. So do I. Everyone has this influence. Some more than others.

      They have the power to head hunt your talent.

      So do you. So do I. Everyone has this option. Some more than others.

      They have any other power that money might buy, including libel, espionage, sabotage, and murder.

      Now you're just being silly.

    11. Re:Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the sake of accuracy, you need to go to ixquick.eu to get the non-Google search.

    12. Re: Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are delusional if you think a small corp or business can compete with google any of those fronts.

    13. Re:Monopoly by Boronx · · Score: 1

      They have any other power that money might buy, including libel, espionage, sabotage, and murder.

      Now you're just being silly.

      What do you mean? Do you think people don't do these things? Or that having money doesn't make them easier to do?

  18. I wish "Mr. Von T" would... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish "Mr. Von T" would bring back his original Opera browser & engine putting in anything new he learned from Chrome!

    * Everyone else copied HIM pretty much feature for feature & his competitors were ALWAYS SLOWER PERFORMERS than Opera was, every damn time (he is a better coder than them all imo & I am a coder myself saying that).

    APK

    P.S.=> Imo, original Opera (not "Chopera") is STILL the best overall featureset & performing browser under the sun @ version 12.18 64-bit... apk

    1. Re: I wish "Mr. Von T" would... apk by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      I remember having a paid copy of the Opera browser back when the installer exe fit on a single 3-1/2" diskette. The small size was one of the things they boasted about at thatvtime.

    2. Re:I wish "Mr. Von T" would... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree.

      Opera 12 was the best browser of all time.

  19. Customization is not necessarily a benefit by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

    Browser customization doesn't matter to very many people. Nor does GUI customization. There is a case to be made for maintaining GUI commonality across users, especially users who will need to consult references or help each other in peer support online. If your browser doesn't look like the next person's, good luck event explaining what is going wrong in a way they can understand.

    1. Re:Customization is not necessarily a benefit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Different AC here. I'm not currently admin for lots of users, but if I were, I would love to spec. a browser that I could customize and deploy.

    2. Re:Customization is not necessarily a benefit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basic history proves you wrong given how Firefox was the most successful at a period when it focused on customization,
      while it started falling off the radar when it started removing customizability. Also I'd rather leave it to people to choose what matters or not,
      and not your own opinion on what people should find relevant, because as you know popularity and importance can abruptly and unpredictably blow up and change, and what you think matters may not be so a week down the road and vice versa.
      To put it plainly, arguing that certain featuresets shouldn't be pursued is an argument of the lazy or the incompetent people, while "what matters" is just empty excuses and subjective philosophizing; it is a Luddite rationale in an actually legitimate application of the word for a change.
      Science and technology exist not so people like you can find excuses to avoid advancement, but so advancement can meet with ups and downs; and so fixing and finding solutions for the downs can extend our experience and knowledge and even create new unintended breakthroughs in the process.
      This is one of the reasons we need more different browsers with different philosophies than Chrome, because those competitors can tackle fields of advancement in browser technology that Chrome and Google devs have given up on, or ignore on ideological stance (thereby contributing to the stagnation of the field as a whole).

    3. Re:Customization is not necessarily a benefit by Knightman · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid I'm going to place the people who can't describe what's going wrong in a browser in the same category of people that describes their car-problems in the style 'it made a clunking sound'.

      I can understand that commonality is good but I also expect that someone who uses a tool also understands how it works in general terms and adapt to changes. If someone can't bother to superficially understand a technological tool used by the majority of humankind it's a sad day.

      But I guess it has always been like that, most people doesn't want to think and things should just work in the way they are used to.

      --
      --- Reality doesn't care about your opinions, it happens anyway and if you are in the way you'll get squished.
    4. Re:Customization is not necessarily a benefit by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      If you have to enlarge the frame by grabbing different widgets at different places, and manipulating them differently, good luck with filing a bug report to developers who aren't using the same theme as you.

    5. Re: Customization is not necessarily a benefit by corychristison · · Score: 1

      One thing I don't like about Chrome is that it tries too hard to replace window decorations by default. I understand commonality and all that crap, but its still annoying as it just looks out of place.

      I have my system the way I want, Chtome should Adhere to what I defined in my system settings.

      Firefox isn't perfect, but it's better than Chrome in my opinion.

    6. Re:Customization is not necessarily a benefit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another AC. Your point, while valid, is completely unrelated to Vivaldi. They were making "a browser for our friends", not for users who need support lines...
      On their page they have a video called "Vivaldi browser - not for everybody, just you"

  20. The European Anti Trust Regulators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should be very interested to hear this man's complaint. After all, they're hit Google with a record fine of 2.7 billion dollars for anti-competitive behavior. It would seem that 2.7 billion isn't enough for Google to learn its lesson. Perhaps the fine this time should be 27 billion dollars and be increased ten fold for each subsequent offense until somebody at Google gets the message.

    1. Re: The European Anti Trust Regulators by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Nobody at Google will get the message. They are the 21st Century version of Madison Avenue admen. Those critters migrated over to Google early in the companie's history.

  21. Duck it -- was Re:Monopoly by GLMDesigns · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One reason that it might not be classified as a monopoly is that WE can easily bring Google down.

    I've stopped using Chrome. I use Brave exclusively and have been very happy with it.

    I use DuckDuckGo and use the !G to get google results. As far as I know (and I'm willing to be corrected on this) Google doesn't receive any revenue from this DuckDuckGo search.

    So, instead of saying Google it - say Duck it.

    You don't have to stop using Google but if Google's market share drops from 88% to 50% and Chrome takes a huge hit (after all Brave is basically as good as Chrome) then you will have done your part in slapping Google upside the head.

    Oh - and protonmail is an excellent privacy-centric email server. (although it's free version allows only 150 emails per day).

    Still testing out zoho.com so I don't know how they compare to Google Docs.

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    1. Re:Duck it -- was Re:Monopoly by roca · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Brave's good but using it still aids Google since you're increasing the market share of Chromium, which Google controls; by making Chromium more dominant, you increase Google's power over the Web.

      If you want to do your bit to reduce corporate power over the Web, Firefox is pretty much the only choice these days.

    2. Re: Duck it -- was Re:Monopoly by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Instead, use Seamonkey. Firefox is too obsessed with changing the UI every time it is fashionable to do so.

    3. Re:Duck it -- was Re:Monopoly by CrashNBrn · · Score: 2

      Brave uses Apple's WebKit - which has none of Google's Blink updates since the April 2013 fork where Google ripped out all of the iOS/Mac dependencies among other refactoring.

    4. Re:Duck it -- was Re:Monopoly by Zerf · · Score: 1

      Brave uses Apple's WebKit - which has none of Google's Blink updates since the April 2013 fork

      That's only true on iOS. On the desktop and Android it does use Blink, see https://twitter.com/brendaneich/status/701019625006489600.

    5. Re:Duck it -- was Re:Monopoly by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      One reason that it might not be classified as a monopoly is that WE can easily bring Google down.

      No, we really cannot. All of society could. But, all of slashdot is a rounding error of a rounding error. But the same thing was true when MS put IE into windows. Turns out, it doesn't really work.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  22. ""Was this just a coincidence?" he writes" by brunes69 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes.

    1. Re:""Was this just a coincidence?" he writes" by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Considering they've been doing the same to other organizations? Likely no. Google was doing it to mypetjawa.mu.nu over half a decade ago, and there's instances of them doing the same to other organizations just in the last few weeks.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:""Was this just a coincidence?" he writes" by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The guy seems to be suffering from delusions of grandeur. Google has the most popular web browser in the world, and doesn't give a shit about his new fork of Chromium. His market share is non-exisitant, he is no threat.

      These are the same rules they have for everyone. Don't be a dick, provide a link to the EULA and how to uninstall your software, pretty much the bare minimum anyone could reasonably expect.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re: ""Was this just a coincidence?" he writes" by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      I have no clue what "mypetjawa.mu.nu" is or was (and am not going to be foolish enough to open it) but based on the domain alone I do not fault Google from denying them access to AdWords.

    4. Re:""Was this just a coincidence?" he writes" by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      Sadly, gone are the days of including an uninstaller shortcut; Windows 8 and 10 "start" systems don't really jive with it, though many softwares still do include one, and the search function will usually find it if someone searches for it. That being said, the Windows add/remove program control panel applet ("appwiz.cpl") has been around for 20+ years, so unless someone has exempted/partially exempted themselves from this avenue of uninstallation, the potential for harm seems quite low. Agreed though, uninstallation documentation seems like a no-brainer.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    5. Re: ""Was this just a coincidence?" he writes" by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      They directly track and go after jihadi networks on social media that try and recruit young people into becoming terrorists. They're fairly well known in anti-terrorism circles.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    6. Re: ""Was this just a coincidence?" he writes" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should seriously consider coming up with an actual name.

    7. Re: ""Was this just a coincidence?" he writes" by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      They should seriously consider coming up with an actual name.

      That is their name. The reason they use the same they do is because it's not obvious, and makes it a target that pro-jihadi's won't directly find.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  23. don't worry about it much mang by bobmajdakjr · · Score: 1

    we've all got an adblock on anyway lol. fkn love vivaldi over here.

    1. Re:don't worry about it much mang by execthis · · Score: 1

      Vivaldi is great and I use Duckduckgo

  24. Business as usual... in the information age! by Ayano · · Score: 1

    Google is doing what vendors have been doing for ages. There's only outrage because it's happening with everyone's favorite 'google' did you guys really expect something different? The only twist is that people use google to find things so there's not many equivalences out there; but vendors don't like advertising other competitors on their platform/storefront/street/location/whatever. IE used horizontal dominance to get IE where it was (you use windows, you use IE!). Google is using market dominance (Hey, be like the cool kids!). Rather than throwing tantrums, It's time to wise up on your options and stop drinking all the free kool-aid (gmail/google-drive/youtube/google-thing).

    --
    I don't read AC
    1. Re: Business as usual... in the information age! by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 2

      I switched over from Gmail a little less than a year ago, now. I decided paying a few dollars a year for email was worth it for the privacy. Google had started bugging me to register my cellphone number with my Google account 'for my protection.'

      I chose to buy a Fastmail account. There are a few other good paid email provders you can choose, too.

    2. Re: Business as usual... in the information age! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. This is an anti-trust violation on google's part. They illegally use their monopoly in one area, ads, to protect their other market, browsers.

      Interesting that you mention Microsoft and IE without mentioning the DoJ case against MS for -exactly- that which is why IE is no longer forced on windows users.

  25. Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google's treatment of Vivaldi is just one more reason I uninstalled Chrome. When they start playing nice again, I may reconsider.

    1. Re: Google by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      I keep Chrome installed for those very few times I can't get a web page to load with Seamonkey/noscript that I really want to see. It's the throwaway browser on my PC. Never, ever log onto Google services with it, though.

  26. BraveSetup-x64.exe by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2

    BraveSetup-x64.exe is 112 Megabytes. The file name does not include the version number.

    From the Brave web site: "Money
    "Brave makes money by taking 5% of any donations and -- after it is fully implemented -- a small cut of advertising that is placed. Brave even shares some revenue with you -- at least as much as we receive."


    There are plans for Brave that involve a lot of complexity:
    "BAT: Coming Soon "Opt into the Basic Attention Token platform, a blockchain-based digital advertising system giving publishers a better deal and users a share of the revenue."

  27. Re:What I do to Google... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So.... what you "do to google" is spam links to their search engine in all your Autistic posts.

  28. Re:Yea (lol) I do MINUS ads hahahaha... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your parents either beat you too much or not enough.

  29. Vivaldi download. But why? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Vivaldi browser is 40.3 Megabytes. The file name includes the version number.

    Why does the Brave browser (linked above) installation file require 112 Megabytes?

    Vivaldi's story doesn't include any information about how the 38 people who work for Vivaldi make money.

    1. Re: Vivaldi download. But why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you obsessing about the download size difference of 80 megs as ifmthat is the key indicator of browser quality?

      OCD much?

    2. Re: Vivaldi download. But why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That nothing, that uses so much more space, probably is not nothing. It's not about space dumb ass.

  30. Let's be honest with ourselves here. by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    You really undermined it yourself by switching engines. You ceded the last unique thing of value about your product for mediocrity.

  31. Not unique to Vivaldi by ebrandsberg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have a software project, and had my ads taken offline for exactly the same reasons he had. We don't compete with Google in any way. This isn't about them using their position against competitors, it is that they will error on the side of posting ads, and when they review them, if the landing pages don't meet their requirements, they will take them back offline. Noting unusual about their behavior here folks. They want several things, including a clear download link, EULA and install/uninstall instructions so if someone doesn't like it, they know how to get rid of it.

    1. Re:Not unique to Vivaldi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel like your comment doesn't belong here. It's supposed to be people speaking authoritatively who have no idea what they're talking about.

  32. News flash by viperidaenz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Google don't need to follow the AdWords terms and conditions for their Chrome pages.
    Not because they are AdWords, but because those pages have no advertising. None of the Chrome pages do. Infact, pretty much no Google pages apart from their ad platforms - YouTube, Gmail, Search - have anything remotely to do with AdWords.

    1. Re:News flash by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      Additionally, when you click "Download" on the chrome page, you must accept the EULA presented to you before you can download it.

      When you click Download on the Vivaldi page, it says "thank you" and the download starts automatically.

      Appears Google have themselves covered there too.

    2. Re:News flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are confusing AdWords and AdSense. AdSense is shown on the target page, while AdWords is shown in the Google search results.

      I was unable to verify whether or not Google Chrome has AdWords advertisements. I did not find any for either Chrome or Vivaldi.

  33. Google Is Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm de-googling my computer you can too - here is how :

    Use ublock origin, ublock protector and a hosts file like this: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/StevenBlack/hosts/master/hosts Block ads, block adwords, block AMP, block google ad services. Demonetize Facebook, Microsoft and Google. End this tyranny!

    Also on Duck Duck Go, you can search google using "!g" without giving them hits.

    Also note using 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 for DNS servers gives Google EVERYTHING so DONT use those. I run a local DNS and blacklist those IPs.

    Also, if you can, you can run PI-HOLE and use DNS for your whole house to protect and defend TRUTH. https://pi-hole.net/

    1. Re:Google Is Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      was with you until "TRUTH" ... spamming words like that automagically labels you as a crackpot. doesnt mean your points are invalid, just that it makes you come off as a nutter. work on your delivery.

  34. Yea (lol) I do MINUS ads hahahaha... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See my subject: I find it fitting to do so minus their ads as I do (pats self on back using their servers to do it) & stopping their trackers etc. they foist on unsuspecting others.

    APK

    P.S.=> Considering they've lost what? 62++% of their revenue from those ads not being seen (via myself & other adblockers) & then seeing what they've been doing to others?? Google gets what google gets... lol! apk

  35. Google is messing with other browsers by alexo · · Score: 1

    I was baffled that mobile Firefox did not show full functionality on Google search pages. Turned out that google is disabling the functionality by checking the user agent. Once I changed the user agent to a generic Nexus 5, the functionality was restored.

  36. changing Google by doctorvo · · Score: 1

    Google's predominance is the result of the original architecture of the Internet, together with the way we provide and charge for Internet access. And Google's predominance isn't just a problem because Google is misusing it more and more, it's also a problem because it gives governments easy access for privacy invasion and censorship. (Facebook and the current DNS system are secondary problems.)

    This needs to change: we need distributed, decentralized name services, P2P web sites, and distributed and crytocurrency-based advertising and business models. And given that Google is increasingly using government to maintain its predominance, we probably need to increasingly use government to fight Google. Good strategies would be to start more anti-trust complaints against Google, as well as demanding something analogous to "common carrier status" for Google's search, hosting, and advertising.

  37. Dear Google by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 3

    Stop with the "best viewed in Chrome" notification bullshit.

    I really don't give a hoot that you've optimised youtube and other sites for Chrome. The whole point of the web is to be cross platform.

  38. The BIG issue: Software abuse by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised at your reaction. I thought the issues were somewhat obvious.

    Everyone involved in computer technology has had HUGE hassles with browsers. Microsoft supplied IE version 6 that attempted to create its own language, instead of using standard HTML. Microsoft was doing what everyone calls Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, but that time the world reacted effectively to abuse.

    Now Mozilla Foundation is badly managed. The latest 64-bit version of Firefox has marked ALL of the 22 add-ons I use as "Legacy". When a lot of windows and tabs are open, Firefox begins gobbling memory and CPU power, and becomes unstable. (I first reported that more than 10 years ago.)

    Vivaldi employs 38 people. If the cost of employing them is an average of 50,000 U.S. dollars per year, that is $1,900,000 per year, just in salaries. What is Vivaldi doing that allows spending that amount of money???

    Why does the Brave browser (linked above) installation file require 112 Megabytes, 50 or 60 more megabytes than Google Chrome or Vivaldi or Firefox? What do the people who make the Brave browser want user's computers to do that takes so much more code?

    I think we have a right to know what is being run on our computers.

    A serious issue: Because you disagreed or didn't understand, you engaged in a personal attack. It would have been better to just ask a question, and avoid hostility.

    1. Re:The BIG issue: Software abuse by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      Regarding installer size, given current (long time standing, actually) trends in software, it's probably heaps of included libraries and poorly optimized graphical assets. That and not every installer packager uses super-efficient compression. Disclaimer: all speculation on my part; perhaps i'll be arsed to look into the real reasons why, but no promises.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    2. Re:The BIG issue: Software abuse by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      Repacking with 7-zip got it down to ~85MB. This demonstrates only that installer size doesn't mean a whole lot in and of itself.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    3. Re:The BIG issue: Software abuse by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      It carries with it ~200MB worth of node.js modules...

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    4. Re:The BIG issue: Software abuse by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      Now as for the executable itself being ~86MB, I've got no immediate explanation beyond likely static linking of libraries. Does it represent the full electron runtime environment or something? Forgive me, I know effectively nothing about electron.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    5. Re:The BIG issue: Software abuse by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      Regarding installer size, this appears to be easily blamed on Electron/node.js dependencies. The node modules themselves compress to ~54MB, and what I presume to be the electron runtime (main executable) to ~36MB.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    6. Re:The BIG issue: Software abuse by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      That being said, with this sort of bloat, you'd think they'd consider tweaking the nupkg compressor/decompressor (seems to be very much non-optimized ZIP) to bring that size down a bit.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
  39. CAPTCHA: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GOOGLE is just PUTIN spelled sideways.

  40. Google wants something. Comply or else. by Chas · · Score: 1

    The "or else" means you either disappear off the Internet, or any browser with any association with them lists you as a malware site.

    Fuck Google.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  41. yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Release your browser under GPL first then we'll talk about evil. For now it's one corporation against another.

  42. Re:What I do to Google... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must really truly love the taste of nígger penises. Do you even have a gag reflex anymore?

  43. Re:What I do to Google... apk by RuffMasterD · · Score: 1

    Quiet in the cheap seats! How dare you stop a perfectly good /. bum fight with your flawless logic. I want to see the show.

    --
    Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
  44. you can't falsify actions that give money... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    the real way how those spam companies track, and how some even pay out, is by tracking purchases/conversion. no conversion = it is as if it didn't exist.

    anyways, you can create false clicks but they wouldn't matter to anybody.

    this same thing happens naturally as well, the price of the ads being determined by the value they give for the advertisers, the ads will just be cheaper to run per click in the same proportion there are fake clicks. it doesn't solve the problem that people are stupid enough to sign up to something, install something or to buy something advertised in such a way.

    the real wonder is sites that have ACTUAL content but still put on so much ads that nobody comes back again or that are impossible(really) to browse without adblock as the ads forward the page to some stupid ad in 5 secs.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    1. Re:you can't falsify actions that give money... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      this same thing happens naturally as well, the price of the ads being determined by the value they give for the advertisers, the ads will just be cheaper to run per click in the same proportion there are fake clicks. it doesn't solve the problem that people are stupid enough to sign up to something, install something or to buy something advertised in such a way.

      The flaw in your logic is that advertising space is limited. Remember those late '90s pages that were 90% banner ads? There's a reason that they died. Price per click goes down, but only towards a minimum generated by the fact that companies are bidding for the same space. The goal is to make the cost of online advertising higher than the value of online advertising (various analysts believe that it's very close to that point now).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:you can't falsify actions that give money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the real way how those spam companies track, and how some even pay out, is by tracking purchases/conversion. no conversion = it is as if it didn't exist.

      The problem there is that the number of converted people is often too low to make meaningful analysis.

      Of course this would perfectly explain why spam ads are so braindead.

  45. Re:informative fago8zfagorz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FYI you dopey cunt, slashdot shows the destination domain after the link. Go back to 4chan.

  46. Re:Yea (lol) I do MINUS ads hahahaha... apk by Maritz · · Score: 1

    Oh look, it doesn't have the bizarre formatting so it definitely can't be APK. It's just a random AC, popping up to defend him. Perfectly plausible.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  47. allready leaving... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Starting to migrate important shit out, and useless shit can stay with google that makes them no money.
    Even NEO had to get back to the matrix, to fight, but not live there.
    Just watch the matrix trilogy decoded.

  48. Re:What I do to Google... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought what you did to google was post random racist garbage and beat off to Alex Jones

  49. I wish APK would stop being a retard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish APK would stop being a retard

    I guess that is like asking shit to not stink but one can hope.

  50. Re:Yea (lol) I do MINUS ads hahahaha... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except you haven't cost them anything since the people using your link wouldn't have ad blocking (if one can call your shitware that) yet so you are giving them business

    I guess we can count this as yet another case of APK proving that he is a retard for all to see

  51. What I do's give /.ers what they want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional. The Host File Engine performs exactly as promised 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

    I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo

    APK your posts on this & the hosts file posts, and more, have never been in error &/or bad advice by BlueStrat

    Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising & malvertising is quite valid by JazzLad

    I like your host file system by Karmashock

    (NEED MORE? Ask!)

    * It's recommended/hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!

    APK

    P.S.=> It's things like the above quotes that BEAT THE HELL out of "your kind" - UNIDENTIFIABLE do-nothing "ne'er-do-wells"... apk

  52. Quoted registered /.ers disagree (want more?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional. The Host File Engine performs exactly as promised 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

    I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo

    APK your posts on this & the hosts file posts, and more, have never been in error &/or bad advice by BlueStrat

    Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising & malvertising is quite valid by JazzLad

    I like your host file system by Karmashock

    (NEED MORE? Ask!)

    * It's recommended/hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!

    APK

    P.S.=> Now, let's see an UNIDENTIFIABLE do-nothing "ne'er-do-well" like YOU do BETTER, ok? apk

    1. Re:Quoted registered /.ers disagree (want more?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just generate a hosts file that directs every possible domain name to 127.0.0.1 on which i host a web server reminding me how great I am. I have a very large JBOD to hold the hosts file, but it's totally worth it. Very secure. And I get to be reminded of how great I am, every time I browse the web.

  53. You WISH you were this retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional. The Host File Engine performs exactly as promised 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

    I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo

    APK your posts on this & the hosts file posts, and more, have never been in error &/or bad advice by BlueStrat

    Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising & malvertising is quite valid by JazzLad

    I like your host file system by Karmashock

    (NEED MORE? Ask!)

    * It's recommended/hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!

    APK

    P.S.=> Let's see an UNIDENTIFIABLE no balls do-nothing "ne'er-do-well" like YOU do better, ok? apk

    1. Re:You WISH you were this retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just generate a hosts file that directs every possible domain name to 127.0.0.1 on which i host a web server reminding me how great I am. I have a very large JBOD to hold the hosts file, but it's worth it. Very secure.

  54. Why is any of that Google's business? by H3lldr0p · · Score: 1

    Serious question. If what you're getting is their AdWords, why should they care what or how you're set up wrt landing pages, etc? It doesn't impact their ad business. Which is to serve up your advertisements to people they've identified as potential buyers and/or interested parties. Those extra requirements are well outside any immediate considerations when it comes to serving up advertisements to the correct audience. And while Google can have requirements they want to be part of their ad program, none of those seem either germane or necessary to the basics of advertisement. You know, the service they're supposedly offering with AdWords.

    1. Re:Why is any of that Google's business? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they do not want to promote malware via AdWords.

    2. Re:Why is any of that Google's business? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Serious question. If what you're getting is their AdWords, why should they care what or how you're set up wrt landing pages, etc? It doesn't impact their ad business.

      It does, actually.

      Google gets paid when people click on the ads. That means that Google wants to maximize the chance that people will click. If people have a bad experience when they click, they'll be less likely to click in the future.

      Google actually goes well beyond the landing page requirements, and offers a lot of guidance to advertisers on how to make their sites more effective. You can advertise with AdWords if you don't follow the guidance, but your results will be less effective, which means you'll make fewer sales, which means you'll make lower bids, which means Google will make less money. So, Google invests a lot in helping advertisers to improve their sites.

      All of this, the requirements and the guidelines, is well-documented and has nothing to do with whether the advertised product competes with Google.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  55. Liar! APK loves sucking moose cock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone knows APK loves sucking moose dick
    You are right that he does no longer have a gag reflex from taking so much of it though

  56. What I do to Google... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Boycott their ads 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/

    Ads/script/malware rob speed/security/privacy/bandwidth.

    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 redirect (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + DNS requestlog tracking & lighten DNS load & resolve faster from local system RAM!

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

    APK

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

  57. APK beats off to Alex Jones and moose dick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope, APK only beats off to Alex Jones and to moose dick

    He doesn't beat anything else, especially his critics that are legion who in turn beat him daily

    APK is like a little monkey who goes and sits in corner, beats off, then flings shit everywhere

  58. Maritz let's see you do better than... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: THIS (you can't) 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/bandwidth.

    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 redirect (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + DNS requestlog tracking & lighten DNS load & resolve faster from local system RAM!

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

    APK

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

  59. RoTfLmAo @ u Maritz... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & a PRIME EXAMPLE of your typical "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. this fair challenge (1 of 4) https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11072697&cid=55140513/

    * LMAO - "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!...

    (... Which you TRIED to "downmod hide" via your many sockpuppet alternate accounts on /. - shall I post the others so everyone can see how "great" arstechnica is (laughing stocks of the internet I've utterly easily DESTROYED before many times))?

    APK

    P.S.=> Poor little arseholetechnica underachievers - MOST of arstechnica is just that - do nothing "ne'er-do-well" gasbag blowhard hotair bullshitters, lol - lots of 'talk', no substance... like you! apk

    1. Re: RoTfLmAo @ u Maritz... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that pot hit the kettle a bit too hard.

      Chill, man. Free love!

    2. Re: RoTfLmAo @ u Maritz... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Public humiliation of Maritz the big talker zero substance stooge from arseholetechnica. Priceless, hilarious he can't live up to that challenge!

  60. Vivaldi has potential by maelkum · · Score: 1

    Vivaldi is a great browser. Fast, and with innovative features. What I think is missing is functionality that would recreate "Tab Groups" from Firefox.

    My only gripe with Vivaldi is that it uses WebKit, contributing to making the Web a monoculture. Apart from that it is a great piece of software. And works on Linux, too!

  61. This answers a question I've had for years by idontgno · · Score: 1

    That question is "Where did the monopolistic swine go after they left Microsoft?" Because, let's face it, Microsoft is a creampuff compared to their good old days. The consent decree certainly seemed to affect their market behavior, and that meant there were a lot of hyper-competitive cheating dirtbags who couldn't work to their full potential at ol' MS.

    The question has been answered. "Google hired them."

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  62. Poor butthurt retarded APK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poor butthurt retarded APK is mad that he is getting spanked harder than an ugly redheaded step-child. He should be use to it by now given that he gets spanked hard every time he posts. Apparently he likes proving to the world he is a retard by making all sorts of retarded claims and furiously pounding out poorly formatted incoherent text.

    I'm sure he will post a response to this as he can't stand that someone mocked him but as usual his next post will further show everyone just how much of a retard he is. That post will be some tired post he has made 1000 time before. What is some what surprising is that APK hasn't gone on one of his little racist rants given that google was mentioned. Maybe he is worried that if he does Facebook will pass his location on to George Soros since he seems to believe that Soros has it in for him.

    Don't worry APK I'm sure some day your daddy will tell you you've made him proud but it will only be because you managed to not choke on your own tongue and not because you actually accomplished anything worth while.

  63. APK's Ads Are Dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your ads are dangerous. Why you may ask? Because you're worse than a regular advertising company! You keep a dossier on people, tracking all their posts, trying to find out their Internet history and keep records, you've been known since the 90s on the Internet as someone who contacts people's ISPs if you have sufficient details, you contact their web hosting providers, people's companies where they work to make a scene because they dared to disagree with you on the Internet.

    You ironically are the antithesis of safety online, you harass, provoke, stalk and it often starts with one of your advertisements. You have people tell you to go away and leave them alone, but you continue to pursue them, make legal threats etc. until you are satisfied. You are one of he few advertisers out there that I can actually point at and show that you are using information gathered against other people!

    In summary, the most dangerous advertisements people need to be weary of is yours, APK. Your adblocking solution does nothing to stop them either.

  64. Quoted registered /.ers disagree (want more?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional. The Host File Engine performs exactly as promised 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

    I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo

    APK your posts on this & the hosts file posts, and more, have never been in error &/or bad advice by BlueStrat

    Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising & malvertising is quite valid by JazzLad

    I like your host file system by Karmashock

    (NEED MORE? Ask!)

    * It's recommended/hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!

    APK

    P.S.=> China imitated me http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/26/boffins_supercharge_the_hosts_file_to_save_users_plagued_by_dns_outages/ ... apk

  65. That was s just APK proving he is retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry, that was just APK proving to the world how much of a retard he is. Hang around here for a few weeks and you will eventually see all of his posts and watch him got into spastic rages when ever he is called out for being a retard. Some of us just like to mock him for his disabilities even though we know we shouldn't make fun of the handicapped but will make an exception for APK. One can't have a rational conversation with APK even though many have tried in the past. His ability to construct a sentence let alone a complete argument if very limited. Even if you do decipher what he was trying to communicate you will discover that he is either changing the subject, moving the goal posts, or trying to deflect any criticism. Because of this it is best to just mock him and see if you can enrage him more. However you can get a good idea of what words Alex Jones used a bunch on his show recently as APK will include them in most of his posts as well.

  66. Vivaidi is a great browser... by evolutionary · · Score: 1

    Technically it should be illegal as their own products don't have the same requirements. but the deck is stacked. Google actually makes it a bit inconvenient to remove their stuff. And the "update server" was nuts. Nobody needs an update server. With Firefox you can remove the update service but not with Google, at least not without remove other google software packages. Consequently I don't use Google in MS Windows. "This smells funny, and I'm not eating".

    --
    "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
  67. google is the most dangerous company in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    do not use google products, please always look for an alernative... please!!!

  68. Apparently APK can't address specific points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As always APK can't address specific points of criticism so he goes and changes the subject and then makes false claims that China imitated him when in reality the Chinese have never heard of him, his software, or his advertisements. Lying stalking APK needs to just go away and take his silly software with him.

    1. Re:Apparently APK can't address specific points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apk addressed you perfectly outnumbering you. He said you're welcome to do better. You can't. As always he blew you away with proof of it from our /. peers.

    2. Re: Apparently APK can't address specific points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL this guy has lost it. APK you truly are an insufferable moron.

      -APK

  69. Illogical ad hominem attacks = best ya got? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maritz you're posting anonymously unidentifiably failing miserably against me here https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11072697&cid=55140513/ with your off topic arseholetechnica illogic logic ad hominem attacks

    Maritz the great critic with nothing he ever did that others like, use and recommend as I clearly have shown here https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11072697&cid=55141005/

    Lastly: I've been using "ne'er-do-wells" on "your kind" on slashdot for decades now!

    Far longer than Mr. Jones ever did recently. It fits "your kind" perfectly.

    Perhaps Mr. Jones reads my material and likes it. He should. Like Mr. Jones, I use provable concrete fact you can't overcome!

    APK

    P.S.=> Great minds think alike. I like his material. He's a GOOD man... apk

  70. Re: What I do to Google... apk by Brockmire · · Score: 1

    Apk, your mom just called, she said to fuck off with your spam. Go write a program that blocks apk spam ads. Hosts blocking makes sense for people like you with no friends, family, or extra computers. For every one else, using something like pi-hole is a much better solution with stats and white listing. No need to fuck around with many separate hosts files. Why even use your app? Why not use one of the half dozen open source with white listing support that doesn't require installation? Face it, hosts file has its benefits, but you're misrepresenting the benefits like a piece of shit con man.

  71. Poor job trying to "impersonate" me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poor job trying to "impersonate" me!

    * You're a serious joke...

    APK

    P.S.=> No joke... apk

  72. Re:Maritz let's see you do better than... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poor butthurt retarded APK is mad that he is getting spanked harder than an ugly redheaded step-child. He should be use to it by now given that he gets spanked hard every time he posts. Apparently he likes proving to the world he is a retard by making all sorts of retarded claims and furiously pounding out poorly formatted incoherent text.

    I'm sure he will post a response to this as he can't stand that someone mocked him but as usual his next post will further show everyone just how much of a retard he is. That post will be some tired post he has made 1000 time before. What is some what surprising is that APK hasn't gone on one of his little racist rants given that google was mentioned. Maybe he is worried that if he does Facebook will pass his location on to George Soros since he seems to believe that Soros has it in for him.

    Don't worry APK I'm sure some day your daddy will tell you you've made him proud but it will only be because you managed to not choke on your own tongue and not because you actually accomplished anything worth while.

  73. I just blow away chumps like you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: I shutdown YOUR attacks on myself like you're attempting now by shutting your puny tactics down. It's that simple.

    * It's what "your kind" in UNIDENTIFIABLE "ne'er-do-well" do-nothings do - & thank God you're so DUMB that you're easy to outsmart & outthink...

    (Who ARE you TRYING to fool other than yourself you transparent little douchebag?)

    APK

    P.S.=> How many times have I outright DUSTED you on technical topics? Obviously tons. Those are the "dossiers" you claim I keep - I'd call them trophies I LAUGH @ YOU WITH & they shut you DOWN easily (hence your UNIDENTIFIABLE ANONYMOUS attacks on myself constantly you butthurt little loser, lol - it's SO obvious)... apk

  74. Like clockwork you prove yourself a retard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like clockwork APK proves himself a retard.

    1. Re:Like clockwork you prove yourself a retard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like clockwork your unidentifiable anonymous troll self projects your own issues onto yourself as always!

  75. Like the retard APK is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like a retard APK still hasn't addressed specific points brought up but in other threads has proven that what the poster claimed is true. Instead he post something that has nothing to do with the original post because he is a retard. To further prove he is retarded APK posted as AC unsigned to make it seem like someone supports him. Then when someone mocks him APK is too retarded to figure out what is going on.

    1. Re:Like the retard APK is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your points aren't on topic points and you harass and stalk apk by unidentifiable anonymous posts. You aren't worth anyone's time.

  76. APK retardly admits the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You haven't shutdown anyone ever. You don't even deny the claims made.You can't address any points the GP made and the most egregious ones you not only embrace you show off elsewhere. I saw your post of quotes and none of them address the GP's points but I guess you want to be viewed as the retard you are. I guess it is time to spank the retard APK some more by pointing out mentally deficient you are. Maybe you should respond using more bolded text, capitalization, and random punctuation because then maybe someone might take your seriously, likely not but it is worth a try. While I know I will never shut you down, as you will keep posting, at least I can continue to mock you for being and proving to everyone that you are in fact a retard.

    1. Re:APK retardly admits the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get on topic. You have been destroyed by apk under your many fake name accounts on slashdot so you are forced to cravenly stalk him by unidentifiable anonymous posts.

  77. Not Maritz but APK is too retarded to figure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not Maritz but APK is too retarded to figure it out. Don't worry APK you can believe that there are only a few people who mock you, point out your stupidity, and general insanity but we are legion. Although I am the only person to call you are retard and point it out every chance I get. Even the people you quote mock you and point out your many flaws so why bother rehashing the same tired quotes day in and day out. I know, it is because you are a retard and learned how to debate at Retard State University where you also happened to play a sport no one fucking cares about. Like Jones your facts are easily proven wrong or insufficient but you have such a feeble mind that you can't comprehend them. You also appear to be suffering from paranoia like Jones but yours is far far worse. It is too bad that you are such a retard as a slab of concrete can come up with better arguments than you can.

    1. Re:Not Maritz but APK is too retarded to figure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You project your own retardedness and stupidity. Legions of it. All you have is illogical off topic ad hominem attacks. Nothing more.