YOUR software doesn't come with Windows any more than BIND comes with Windows. How is this an argument for APKs hosts files engine that BIND doesn't come with Windows? Do you expect Windows to start shipping your crapware with laptops next?
So what? Your software doesn't come with Windows either. You shouldn't expound on how you dominate people before you even win an argument, it is jumping the gun and makes you look bad.
But, can an acetylene torch, bolt cutters, or hydrofluoric acid leave you a complete lack of evidence of tampering? He didn't smash the lock, just tapped it.
Um, this method didn't leave any kind of evidence it was done, he didn't even hit it hard with the hammer, just enough to get the lock catch to release.
You know what they call people like you? Zealots. You can't see that you have already lost your argument, so you keep making the same points over and over, despite them already being proved wrong. Keep up the crusade!
BIND can run on any computer, including desktops. It therefore uses less power/resources than your hosts file, as your name resolution is sped up many fold, so you don't wait on your queries as long. It also can be setup to block the very same records, so it is still faster than your ad blocking, as it is doing that as well. So, when you have an actual argument against BIND, let me know, until then, you have lost, go home and cry into your pillow.
Less is more, I totally agree! This is why I suggest running BIND with the entries, as it is more efficient on power, and faster in processing. It uses way less power and time, and speeds up your browsing many fold over your 2 million plus record hosts file!
Learn to read, and open your mind to the possibilities! You still haven't proven me wrong, and you are just grasping at straws trying to make your same argument work when it has been dis proven.
DNS running locally is kept up to date in patches, it is not a security issue. DNS uses less resources and speeds your browsing, leading to more power savings. Why would you setup a separate system? https://www.isc.org/downloads/ The need for the locally setup DNS is the exact same need as the need for your terrible hosts file, so that argument is silly. Keep reaching and moving the goal posts.
due to your LIMITED MENTALLY DAMAGED GOOD ASSBURGERS BRAIN being only able to hold 1 of MANY variable factors in play @ a time
Stay classy.
(sub 4% of the time ONLY for me due to hardcoded favorites in hosts @ the TOP of it cached in RAM locally)? Adblocking gains me back lookup speeds if a total miss & I have to hit DNS remotely.
You mean the same ad blocking you gain with a local dns setup with the same entries? Or did your ability to hold onto only one variable catch you again?
Again, work on your reading comprehension when replying to someone talking about how:
LIMITED MENTALLY DAMAGED GOOD ASSBURGERS BRAIN being only able to hold 1 of MANY variable factors in play @ a time
while totally missing half of what I talked about. But seriously...when are you going to give up your failed crusade? Local DNS with the same records is way faster than hosts in Windows. No matter how many times you try to change what I say, it doesn't change the fact that you have been schooled.
Perhaps before arguing about someone else's limitations you should remove the plank from your own eye?
You still haven't addressed where your hosts file is blocking an ad that magically the local DNS server is allowing it through since the comment was that they both have the same records. Or did you miss that part while admiring your own lack of intelligence and coming up with all those libelous lies.
You are simply hilarious. You can't argue your way out of a wet paper bag, but you keep the same arguments going! You are persistent at least, even if you have no knowledge of computing.
Compared to your horribly inefficient Hosts file, even remote DNS comes out so far ahead it isn't even funny. But keep trying to claim your hosts file outperforms local DNS, when it flatly does not.
I don't think that the visual cortex stops being there in blind people, unless that is the cause of their blindness. It is possible though that they would have slightly larger brains due to not using the processing power for sight.
It depends on who owns the land, and if you used sunscreen. You could be paying for the doctor to treat your melanoma, you paid for the calories you are burning, the wear and tear on your clothing and shoes, the gas to get there (if you drive...not always the case).
What does that have to do with a free lunch not being free?
It would be hilarious if you actually got something right for once, but sadly no, I will now proceed to tear your argument apart.
"except on the hard coded favorites, and even then if they make calls to non hard coded sites, they will take forever" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday December 01, 2015 @10:02AM (#51033517)
See subject: 1st of all you stupid fuck, ads I block alone buys that speed back on the RARE sub 4% times I need DNS - get it? Good!
You CANNOT compare hosts to local DNS with the same records. Yet you continue to try. The ads you block are also on the DNS side, so how can you count the time you save there? If the DNS has the exact same records as your hosts file, every site will load faster. You don't make up the time with the ads you aren't loading, as they also are not loaded with the DNS example. How can you live with such a low IQ?
Slashdot Mirror
That one was pretty moo.
+5 cow pastures, would moo again.
The blind beggar's hat at that.
With Systems Engineers, and God forbid, Systems Architects shortly behind in the pay scale. :)
YOUR software doesn't come with Windows any more than BIND comes with Windows. How is this an argument for APKs hosts files engine that BIND doesn't come with Windows? Do you expect Windows to start shipping your crapware with laptops next?
Yeah, you really taught me a lesson. You taught me a lesson in what incompetence looks like.
So what? Your software doesn't come with Windows either. You shouldn't expound on how you dominate people before you even win an argument, it is jumping the gun and makes you look bad.
But, can an acetylene torch, bolt cutters, or hydrofluoric acid leave you a complete lack of evidence of tampering? He didn't smash the lock, just tapped it.
Um, this method didn't leave any kind of evidence it was done, he didn't even hit it hard with the hammer, just enough to get the lock catch to release.
You know what they call people like you? Zealots. You can't see that you have already lost your argument, so you keep making the same points over and over, despite them already being proved wrong. Keep up the crusade!
BIND can run on any computer, including desktops. It therefore uses less power/resources than your hosts file, as your name resolution is sped up many fold, so you don't wait on your queries as long. It also can be setup to block the very same records, so it is still faster than your ad blocking, as it is doing that as well. So, when you have an actual argument against BIND, let me know, until then, you have lost, go home and cry into your pillow.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You really shouldn't repeat yourself so much, it makes it look like you might have a point....until my response is found, and oh, you don't.
Keep moving those goalposts! If you move them far enough, you might win your argument versus that horrible strawman you are fighting.
Less is more, I totally agree! This is why I suggest running BIND with the entries, as it is more efficient on power, and faster in processing. It uses way less power and time, and speeds up your browsing many fold over your 2 million plus record hosts file!
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Learn to read, and open your mind to the possibilities! You still haven't proven me wrong, and you are just grasping at straws trying to make your same argument work when it has been dis proven.
No it isn't.
DNS running locally is kept up to date in patches, it is not a security issue. DNS uses less resources and speeds your browsing, leading to more power savings. Why would you setup a separate system? https://www.isc.org/downloads/ The need for the locally setup DNS is the exact same need as the need for your terrible hosts file, so that argument is silly. Keep reaching and moving the goal posts.
due to your LIMITED MENTALLY DAMAGED GOOD ASSBURGERS BRAIN being only able to hold 1 of MANY variable factors in play @ a time
Stay classy.
(sub 4% of the time ONLY for me due to hardcoded favorites in hosts @ the TOP of it cached in RAM locally)? Adblocking gains me back lookup speeds if a total miss & I have to hit DNS remotely.
You mean the same ad blocking you gain with a local dns setup with the same entries? Or did your ability to hold onto only one variable catch you again?
Again, work on your reading comprehension when replying to someone talking about how:
LIMITED MENTALLY DAMAGED GOOD ASSBURGERS BRAIN being only able to hold 1 of MANY variable factors in play @ a time
while totally missing half of what I talked about. But seriously...when are you going to give up your failed crusade? Local DNS with the same records is way faster than hosts in Windows. No matter how many times you try to change what I say, it doesn't change the fact that you have been schooled.
Perhaps before arguing about someone else's limitations you should remove the plank from your own eye?
You still haven't addressed where your hosts file is blocking an ad that magically the local DNS server is allowing it through since the comment was that they both have the same records. Or did you miss that part while admiring your own lack of intelligence and coming up with all those libelous lies.
So, how is it a fuckup that you decide to ignore the ad blocking the local DNS server is doing in your figuring? I see a fuckup, but not on my side.
You are simply hilarious. You can't argue your way out of a wet paper bag, but you keep the same arguments going! You are persistent at least, even if you have no knowledge of computing.
Compared to your horribly inefficient Hosts file, even remote DNS comes out so far ahead it isn't even funny. But keep trying to claim your hosts file outperforms local DNS, when it flatly does not.
I don't think that the visual cortex stops being there in blind people, unless that is the cause of their blindness. It is possible though that they would have slightly larger brains due to not using the processing power for sight.
It depends on who owns the land, and if you used sunscreen. You could be paying for the doctor to treat your melanoma, you paid for the calories you are burning, the wear and tear on your clothing and shoes, the gas to get there (if you drive...not always the case).
What does that have to do with a free lunch not being free?
It would be hilarious if you actually got something right for once, but sadly no, I will now proceed to tear your argument apart.
"except on the hard coded favorites, and even then if they make calls to non hard coded sites, they will take forever" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday December 01, 2015 @10:02AM (#51033517)
See subject: 1st of all you stupid fuck, ads I block alone buys that speed back on the RARE sub 4% times I need DNS - get it? Good!
You CANNOT compare hosts to local DNS with the same records. Yet you continue to try. The ads you block are also on the DNS side, so how can you count the time you save there? If the DNS has the exact same records as your hosts file, every site will load faster. You don't make up the time with the ads you aren't loading, as they also are not loaded with the DNS example. How can you live with such a low IQ?
Reduced brain size, more of the brain being devoted to sight?
Wow, you really are special.
When you try to compare hosts to remote DNS, you are missing the point. You should be comparing hosts to local DNS, and DNS is faster on every count.
Hey, if I didn't read at -1, I never would have seen the treasure that is an APK post.
You must have missed the lesson where if there is someone paying for it, it isn't free.