On 9/24/2017 2:35 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 9/24/2017 1:02 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 9/22/2017 6:53 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
Thip wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

I got rid of Chrome a while ago (took over 4 hours to clean out the
file and registry remnants and Task Schedule events and startup
programs).

What do you use instead?Â* I need the extensions due to physical
limitations.

Firefox.Â* I switched to Google Chrome when Mozilla was making Firefox
slow to load.Â* Unlike folks that spend their whole waking time on the
Web, I exit the web browser when not using it which means I load it a
lot for when I do want to use it.Â* Firefox was getting pretty slow to
load.Â* I forget which major version changed that behavior but Firefox is
now a lot speedier to load.

Since Firefox has already moved to the WebExtension API, a close
derivative of the web API used by Blink in Google Chrome, many extension
authors have ported to Firefox to have multiple platforms for their
works.Â* Firefox actually has some additional functions in its web API
that are not available in Google's web API so going from Firefox to
Google for an extension can mean losing functionality.Â* That an author
has not ported their Google Chrome extension to Firefox is due to them
not having the current resources to do so (they'll sitting on their
laurels) or they only care about focusing on the biggest marketshare of
web browsing clients, especially for mobile users.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/...rome_extension


Once Firefox got speedier to load, and because Firefox is *far* more
configurable regarding privacy and security than is Chrome, I went back
to Firefox.Â* You'll have to prod those Chromium extension authors to
port to Firefox (if you can get them interested).Â* Chrome has 60% of the
marketshare for web browsers, a lot of which is due to use of Android on
mobile devices or boobs not doing custom installs or watching the
install to NOT include a Google Chrome install when they meant to
install something else.Â* Firefox only has 8% marketshare.

https://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php

I had to prod a few extension authors to speed up or even start a WE
version of their Firefox add-on.Â* Some had a legacy extension for
Firefox while they had a WE extension for Chrome, so I kept prodding
them to port their Chrome extension to Firefox.Â* Submitting a review at
addons.mozilla.org about a legacy add-on might get your review yanked
because the author doesn't like your negativity but it does spur them to
get out the WE version of their extension they claimed to have been
working on.Â* I know the NoScript author didn't like my review stating
there was no WE version so he pointed me at some old Mozilla blog
despite the truth of my claims that he made no announcements at this web
site, in the Development section of the Mozilla add-on page, or anywhere
else.Â* Someone had to ask him in a blog and he expected users to somehow
magically divine there was such a blog but it gives not details about
actual development or schedule.Â* uBlock Origin was much more informative
about his hybrid-WE and WE development.

If you see an extension that is legacy for Firefox but also available
for Chrome, prod that author to port his Chrome extension to Firefox.
If you see an extension that is available only for Chrome, prod that
author to port to the compatible WE API in Firefox.Â* That they won't
evidences the intent of the author.

There are extension authors that have openly declared that they will not
expend additional effort to rewrite their legacy extension to convert it
to a WE extension.Â* They don't want to do the work.Â* They have a good
extension but they choose to let it stagnate.Â* They spent the time to do
all the work before but aren't doing it all over again.Â* The same
attitude can be seen of Chromium extension authors that don't want to
expend the effort to port their work to lowly Firefox with its meager 8%
marketshare.Â* They're looking at the size of the userbase, not at the
robustness and configurability of the web browser.Â* [Nearly] everyone is
over in the Chromium camp.Â* They don't want to sit at the campfire with
just a few nerds.Â* They want to join the big crowd at the big campfire.
Like spammers and malware, they focus on the biggest target for the
biggest impact.Â* To them, Firefox users are, um, irrelevant and
unimportant.

I use Firefox but I'm not stupidly going to defend my choice and my
salve my ego by trying to stay blind that Google won the browser war.
Most users are boobs.Â* They only care that it works, not how it works or
how to make it work better, and most don't give a gnat's fart about
privacy or security.Â* Talk to most MS Word users at work and most have
only visited a few of its config screens and only because they had to.


Now that I have started playing with this Hosts file thing I have a
question, in the file some entries use the localhost 127.0.0.1 numbers
and some use the 0.0.0.0 numbers.
When adding new entries which is the proper IP number to use?

Thanks, Rene


I should have mentioned that I am running Windows 10 in case there is a
difference.

Rene

That was a dumb move on my part, I added windows-10 to my post
, but there is no such thread in Win-10, (smacks head.)

Rene