Managing Windows Store default apps that come with 10 - Easy!

Carlos E.R. wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

Didn't nag or block me.

It does me.

Uh Oh...Adblocker detected!

I thought I'd enabled an anti-anti-adblock list in uBO, but I can't see
one in the filters now ... was I imagining it, or did it get removed?

123456789 wrote:

On 3/29/2019 12:44 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

https://www.thewindowsclub.com/10appsmanager-windows-10

Uh Oh...Adblocker detected!
Please support us by whitelisting our site...

I refuse to comply.

In Firefox (W10) I use an add-on called "JavaScript Toggle On and Off".
With JavaScript toggled off the site doesn't complain...

Disabling Javascript is a trick to disable the adblock detectors in the
web page's script. Alas, it also disables much of the functionality of
a web site. Javascript has become ubiquitous in web pages, especially
if any content is dynamic. I noticed with uBlock Origin (which the site
didn't bitch about) that the count of blocked resources just keep
climbing. At first, it was 19 resources blocked by uBO. After around
10 minutes of loading the web page but just letting it sit idle (I
didn't click on anything), uBO had blocked over 180 resources.

I noticed uBO has an option to disable Javascript by default. That
means every site you visit would have scripting disabled. You can click
on its badge to temporarily enable scripting at the current site for the
current web browser session. You'll see it gets added to "Temporary
rules" "My rules" in uBO as a "no-scripting: domain false" (because
you temporarily disabled it there). It's a temporary change unless you
click the padlock icon to retain the temporary rule as permanent.
Unloading and reloading the web browser deletes the temporary rules, so
you're back to blocking Javascript by default.

Alas, unlike uMatrix (which I let better than NoScript), setting uBO to
disable Javascript by default and then electing to enable scripts at a
site, you enable ALL scripts at the site. In uMatrix, I have it default
to allow 1st party (on-domain) scripts (since I did choose to visit
there) and block all 3rd party (off-domain) scripts by default. I then
can choose when to temporary allow just 3rd party scripts and, after
testing, decide which to make permanent - instead of all of them.
Because of all the 3rd party scripts that web pages often use, it can
become a nuisance to keep testing which ones, if any, to allow in a web
page to get it functional. Too bad uBO's Javascript blocking was more
selective, like having uBO block Javascript by default and selectively
deciding to allow all scripts or to allow only those you choose. Guess
uMatrix gets re-installed.

VanguardLH wrote:
123456789 wrote:

In Firefox (W10) I use an add-on called "JavaScript
Toggle On and Off"

Disabling Javascript is a trick to disable the adblock
detectors in the web page's script. Alas, it also
disables much of the functionality of a web site.

I agree. It depends on your web reading habits whether the
switch is for you or not.

I mostly READ news sites so disabling JavaScript kills most
movement but usually leaves the print and still pictures. My
local newspaper and TV station's sites all stay wonderfully
silent for me. Much like the newspapers of old.

BUT if something is missing in a web page that I want (like
a video) all I have to do is hit the JavaScript on-off
button in Firefox's toolbar and the page automatically
reloads with JavaScript on and in all its original function
and glory.

BTW If you're a Chrome browser user the exact same add-on
(called Extension in Chrome) is available.

BTW2 I also use a site cookie remover button. Some sites
only let you read a certain number of pages a month for
free. Many times hitting the cookie remover button removes
the cookies for that site and resets the counter. Some might
find that cheating (which it is) so let your morals be your
guide...

On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 09:20:55 -0700, 123456789 wrote:

BUT if something is missing in a web page that I want (like
a video) all I have to do is hit the JavaScript on-off
button in Firefox's toolbar and the page automatically
reloads with JavaScript on and in all its original function
and glory.

Philosophically, I think there are TWO ways to handle this problem.

I think it's sheer hell to try to maintain a browser by browser-specific
addons and extensions, and even then, flipping switches left and right for
each desired web page.

I think it's much more elegant and usefully functional, and simpler
overall, to simply set up a single browser for a single site, where you can
flip the switches _once_ to have the minimal necessary access to your
system for each site.

In short...
1. You can do what most people do (which is constantly flip switches in any
given browser so that the desired web pages finally work), or ...

2. You can do what I do, which, after thoughtful experimentation, I found
works "reasonably well" for a simple long-term satisfying solution.

What I do is maintain a score of browsers, each set up specifically for one
web site only, e.g., one for Google News, one for Social Networking Site
#1, another for Social Networking Site #2, one specifically for YouTube,
one each specifically for each web-based forum, etc.

The "general purpose" ones are the weakest set up (such as basic browsing
of the current Brexit news), while the login-based ones are the strongest
set up, with the absolute tested _minimum_ set of switches.

Needless to say, there is absolutely no need for adding _any_ addons and
extensions, where the system is designed to _eliminate_ the need for them.

Not only do some actually enable fingerprinting, but more importantly, the
entire use model is based on SETTING IT UP ONCE AND ONLY ONCE.

That is, you don't constantly flip switches which seems to be what most do.
You also don't have to maintain a set of extensions/plugins, not all of
which work with all browsers.

In summary, I think it's sheer hell to try to maintain a browser by
browser-specific addons and extensions, and even then, flipping switches
left and right for each desired web page.

I think it's much more elegant and usefully functional, and simpler
overall, to simply set up a single browser for a single site, where you can
flip the switches _once_ to have the minimal necessary access to your
system for each site.

This has been a public service announcement.

On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 06:40:12 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

I thought I'd enabled an anti-anti-adblock list in uBO, but I can't see
one in the filters now ... was I imagining it, or did it get removed?

Personally, I think this approach of incessantly flipping switches for any
one browser to enable the minimum access for any one web site (and still
get the content), is, kind of crazy.

I've been honing a completely different (I think more sensible) approach.
o But I'm not there yet...

Hence, I opened a separate thread asking thought leaders to comment on the
philosophy of thoughtfully setting up the desktop browser ONCE and only
ONCE, so that each web site has the absolutely MINIMUM access while you
still gain all the content.
o Discussion of two different privacy-related browser philosophies
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comp.freeware/H4694--5znY

arlen holder wrote:
123456789 wrote:

BUT if something is missing in a web page that I want
(like a video) all I have to do is hit the JavaScript
on-off button in Firefox's toolbar and the page
automatically reloads with JavaScript on and in all
its original function and glory.

I think it's sheer hell to try to maintain a browser by
browser-specific addons and extensions,

Adding extensions/add-ons to a browser is easy-peasy Arlen.
I'm surprised that a man of your technical ability sees it
as "sheer hell".

and even then, flipping switches left and right for each
desired web page.

The add-on I suggested is a BUTTON. Push once to enable
JavaScript, push again to disable it. The web page
automatically reloads instantly (longer if JavaScript is
enabled) and viola...done.

1. You can do what most people do (which is constantly
flip switches in any given browser so that the desired
web pages finally work)

I just leave JavaScript off when reading my news sites and
click the BUTTON for the few sites that need it. Pretty
simple. YMMV.

What I do is maintain a score of browsers, each set up
specifically for one web site only, e.g., one for Google
News, one for Social Networking Site #1, another for
Social Networking Site #2, one specifically for YouTube,
one each specifically for each web-based forum, etc.

A SCORE of browsers? One per site. Yep that sounds lots
easier... :-/

BTW Google News is much better in the Android app. If you
haven't bought your Chromebook yet you can use an emulator.

That is, you don't constantly flip switches

BUTTON dammit...

On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 11:22:17 -0700, 123456789 wrote:

I think it's sheer hell to try to maintain a browser by
browser-specific addons and extensions,

Adding extensions/add-ons to a browser is easy-peasy Arlen.
I'm surprised that a man of your technical ability sees it
as "sheer hell".

Hi 123456789,

Rest assured we've almost all gone the "extensions" route, ever since, as I
recall, Firefox started the craze something like a decade or more ago.

Now almost all browsers "have addons, where, even I have a hierarchy of
extensions by browser version (e.g., before FF57, after FF57).

The main point is that you have two basic philosophical choices:
1. Try to make a swiss army knife out of your favorite browser, or,
2. Use the right tool for each particular browsing job.

You clearly choose approach #1 while I prefer approach #2.
o That's OK.

Adults shouldn't disagree on basic facts (facts are funny that way);
o But adults can always reasonably disagree on the logic that results

and even then, flipping switches left and right for each
desired web page.

The add-on I suggested is a BUTTON. Push once to enable
JavaScript, push again to disable it. The web page
automatically reloads instantly (longer if JavaScript is
enabled) and viola...done.

Hi 123456789,

I'm not speaking about any one addon, but all of them in general.
o I apologize for not making that clear in my prior response

Rest assured I've used many of the main privacy-based addons, where you
know many have exclusion lists, and block lists, and all sorts of settings
(e.g., remember noscript, yesscript, greasemonkey, ghacks user.js,
nukeprivatedata, scriptish, etc.?).

IMHO, philosophically, those scripts turn Firefox into a swiss army knife.
o You like the concept of a swiss army browser; I don't

Both methods are fine.

You're welcome to use any browsing philosophy you want.
o Adults often disagree on the logical implication of facts (adults are funny that way)

I'm just stating a philosophical difference, that's all:
1. Some people try to make one browser fit all purposes
2. Where I think it's sensible to set up a browser specific for a purpose

With FACTS, there's usually little disagreement among adults
o Where adults can reasonably differ is on LOGIC derived using those facts

We differ on our logic.

A SCORE of browsers? One per site. Yep that sounds lots
easier... :-/

Hmmmm... it's not hard, at least not for me.

You likely maintain a "bookmarks" file, right?
o I have absolutely no need for a bookmarks file.

Why would I need bookmarks if every browser is set up by site?

BTW Google News is much better in the Android app. If you
haven't bought your Chromebook yet you can use an emulator.

Thanks for the tip.
o I almost never use Google apps directly.

For example, the Gmail app on Android can't even do something as simple as
log out for heaven's sake, when you close it (so that the password isn't
saved).

I use K9 Mail (which has its own issues), and BlueMail (also has its own
issues) for example.

In reality, I've never found a _good_ email app for Android yet.

That is, you don't constantly flip switches

BUTTON dammit...

On 29/03/2019 23.48, VanguardLH wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 29/03/2019 08.53, Andy Burns wrote:
VanguardLH wrote:

slate_leeper wrote:

https://www.thewindowsclub.com/10appsmanager-windows-10

Too bad it is yet another site that blocks anyone using an adblocker.

Didn't nag or block me.

It does me.

Uh Oh...Adblocker detected!
Please support us by whitelisting our site in your Adblocking software.
Apart from your browser adblocker, you may have to whitelist us in your
browser's Tracking Protection settings & VPN/Security software's
adblockers as well. Once done, press CTRL+F5 to refresh this web page.
We bring Windows tutorials, tips & freeware without any cost to you and
we display only basic type of display/text ads.

I refuse to comply.

As noted in my reply to Andy, I tried both Ghostery and uBlock Origin
(uBO). With Ghostery, got the site bitching about me using an adblocker
unless I disabled Ghostery's Enhanced Ad Blocking feature. With uBO,
the site wouldn't bitch, so you and I must have uBO configured
differently.

In uBO, I selected all the blacklists except the hosts files, which a
- Dan Pollock's hosts file
- hpHosts' ad and tracking servers
- MVPS hosts
- Peter Lowe's ad and tracking server list

I've found the hosts files are overly aggressive and not updated as
often as, say, the EasyList blacklist. When I go into the blacklists in
uBO, EasyList was last updated today (29 Mar 2019) while the hosts files
had last updates of (click on the hosts file blacklist to see its
listing which should include its update datestamp):

- Dan Pollock: 27 Mar 2019
- hpHosts: unknown (no update datestamp)
- MVPS hosts: 08 Mar 2019
- Peter Lowe's: 23 Jan 2019

You get the site bitching about using uBO. I don't when using uBO. So,
are configurations differ for uBO. Even when I added all 4 of the hosts
file blacklists, the site still didn't bitch about me using an
adblocker. Something else is configured differently between your setup
of uBO and my uBO, or maybe you are using some rules under uBO's "My
filters" or "My rules", or some additional blocking other than just uBO.

I use ABP (addblock plus), with the "acceptable adds" and "only allow
ads without third party tracking". That is, I do not block all adds,
only those that are intrusive.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

arlen holder wrote:

You likely maintain a "bookmarks" file, right?

Yup. It takes maybe 10 seconds max to enter a bookmark in
the Chrome browser. And I only need to enter it ONCE because
as long as I am signed in the bookmarks are automatically
transferred to my other devices. What could be easier...

the Gmail app on Android can't even do something as
simple as log out

Why would I want to log out? Then I'd no longer get my email.

BUT...If you'd hurry up and buy that Chromebook, the Gmail
Android app is NOT included (and has to be downloaded if
wanted)...

I use K9 Mail (which has its own issues)

K9 worked fine with Gmail for me for years. But recently it
doesn't update deletes to the server. I even went
back to earlier apk versions but no luck.

Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 29/03/2019 23.48, VanguardLH wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 29/03/2019 08.53, Andy Burns wrote:
VanguardLH wrote:

slate_leeper wrote:

https://www.thewindowsclub.com/10appsmanager-windows-10

Too bad it is yet another site that blocks anyone using an adblocker.

Didn't nag or block me.

It does me.

Uh Oh...Adblocker detected!
Please support us by whitelisting our site in your Adblocking software.
Apart from your browser adblocker, you may have to whitelist us in your
browser's Tracking Protection settings & VPN/Security software's
adblockers as well. Once done, press CTRL+F5 to refresh this web page.
We bring Windows tutorials, tips & freeware without any cost to you and
we display only basic type of display/text ads.

I refuse to comply.

As noted in my reply to Andy, I tried both Ghostery and uBlock Origin
(uBO). With Ghostery, got the site bitching about me using an adblocker
unless I disabled Ghostery's Enhanced Ad Blocking feature. With uBO,
the site wouldn't bitch, so you and I must have uBO configured
differently.

In uBO, I selected all the blacklists except the hosts files, which a
- Dan Pollock's hosts file
- hpHosts' ad and tracking servers
- MVPS hosts
- Peter Lowe's ad and tracking server list

I've found the hosts files are overly aggressive and not updated as
often as, say, the EasyList blacklist. When I go into the blacklists in
uBO, EasyList was last updated today (29 Mar 2019) while the hosts files
had last updates of (click on the hosts file blacklist to see its
listing which should include its update datestamp):

- Dan Pollock: 27 Mar 2019
- hpHosts: unknown (no update datestamp)
- MVPS hosts: 08 Mar 2019
- Peter Lowe's: 23 Jan 2019

You get the site bitching about using uBO. I don't when using uBO. So,
are configurations differ for uBO. Even when I added all 4 of the hosts
file blacklists, the site still didn't bitch about me using an
adblocker. Something else is configured differently between your setup
of uBO and my uBO, or maybe you are using some rules under uBO's "My
filters" or "My rules", or some additional blocking other than just uBO.

I use ABP (addblock plus), with the "acceptable adds" and "only allow
ads without third party tracking". That is, I do not block all adds,
only those that are intrusive.

I remember a lot of users that got riled when they found ABP allowed
acceptable ads by default. I read the acceptable definition and it
seemed valid: reward advertisers that follow a respectable etiquette.
After all, only children think they should get others to labor for free
for them. Its the bad behavior that drove users to use adblockers.

On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 16:49:08 -0700, 123456789 wrote:

You likely maintain a "bookmarks" file, right?

Yup. It takes maybe 10 seconds max to enter a bookmark in
the Chrome browser. And I only need to enter it ONCE because
as long as I am signed in the bookmarks are automatically
transferred to my other devices. What could be easier...

Hi 123456789,

In the olden days, like everyone, I used bookmarks too.
But now I simply set up each browser to one site.
With that use model, there's no need to manage bookmarks.

Of course, I completely understand your bookmark-based use model.
o Lots of people use the bookmark use model (most people, in fact).

Where adults can reasonably disagree is on philosophy.
o I tried to manage a single common bookmark, much as you do
o Just like I try to manage a common hosts file to all devices on the LAN

My model has no need for bookmarks; but I understand that yours does.
o And that's OK.

the Gmail app on Android can't even do something as
simple as log out

Why would I want to log out? Then I'd no longer get my email.

Hi 123456789,

I understand your use model; it's what almost everyone uses

An example of a use model I like is the "TextNow" use model.
o You're always logged in, but the app is secured with a PIN

An example of a use model that doesn't have that feature is Talkatone
o You're always logged in, and there's no PIN securing the app

BUT...If you'd hurry up and buy that Chromebook, the Gmail
Android app is NOT included (and has to be downloaded if
wanted)...

Hehheh... I haven't really studied email all that much on Android since I
basically don't use email for the most part. The problem isn't so much the
email but the one-finger typing.

I type on a keyboard faster than some secretaries, mainly due to having
taken typing classes on those huge IBM typewriters in the sixties, where I
didn't know at the time how useful being an excellent typist would be.

I use K9 Mail (which has its own issues)

K9 worked fine with Gmail for me for years. But recently it
doesn't update deletes to the server. I even went
back to earlier apk versions but no luck.

Bummer on the K9 mail.
o I've never found a mail app that I like.

I just ran an experiment with the Gmail app on Android.
I hit the "Force stop" button, hoping it would ask for a login when
restarted; but unfortunately, it didn't ask. It just restarted.

Then I hit the Uninstall, where it said it would delete all data and revert
to the original Gmail app version that came with the phone.

It deleted the data, but clicking on the Gmail just got it all back.

So I went into the Android settings General Accounts & sync Google
I hit the three dots at top right & selected "remove account".

When I opened the Gmail app, I was surprised it _remembered" my account
name. Hmmm... But then it said "No account on this device".

So, you "can" log out, if you really want to.

arlen holder wrote:

I just ran an experiment with the Gmail app on Android. I hit the
"Force stop" button, hoping it would ask for a login when restarted;
but unfortunately, it didn't ask. It just restarted.

None of the Google apps on my devices (any OS) require a log in after
the first time. For that matter I let the Chrome browser remember the
passwords for many of my less sensitive sites.

My theory is that if lost, the DEVICE password should secure things
until I (quickly) change my Google password.

So I went into the Android settings ... and selected "remove
account". So, you "can" log out, if you really want to.

For that matter you could just smash the device to log out...

In article , arlen holder
wrote:

In the olden days, like everyone, I used bookmarks too.
But now I simply set up each browser to one site.
With that use model, there's no need to manage bookmarks.

instead, there's a need to manage dozens, if not hundreds of
individually configured browsers.

Of course, I completely understand your bookmark-based use model.
o Lots of people use the bookmark use model (most people, in fact).

because it's the only one that makes any sense.




Hehheh... I haven't really studied email all that much on Android since I
basically don't use email for the most part. The problem isn't so much the
email but the one-finger typing.

nothing prevents someone from using more than one finger or even using
an external keyboard.

I type on a keyboard faster than some secretaries, mainly due to having
taken typing classes on those huge IBM typewriters in the sixties, where I
didn't know at the time how useful being an excellent typist would be.

apparently you failed that class.

On 31/03/2019 01.06, VanguardLH wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 29/03/2019 23.48, VanguardLH wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 29/03/2019 08.53, Andy Burns wrote:
VanguardLH wrote:

slate_leeper wrote:

https://www.thewindowsclub.com/10appsmanager-windows-10

Too bad it is yet another site that blocks anyone using an adblocker.

Didn't nag or block me.

It does me.

Uh Oh...Adblocker detected!
Please support us by whitelisting our site in your Adblocking software.
Apart from your browser adblocker, you may have to whitelist us in your
browser's Tracking Protection settings & VPN/Security software's
adblockers as well. Once done, press CTRL+F5 to refresh this web page.
We bring Windows tutorials, tips & freeware without any cost to you and
we display only basic type of display/text ads.

I refuse to comply.

As noted in my reply to Andy, I tried both Ghostery and uBlock Origin
(uBO). With Ghostery, got the site bitching about me using an adblocker
unless I disabled Ghostery's Enhanced Ad Blocking feature. With uBO,
the site wouldn't bitch, so you and I must have uBO configured
differently.

In uBO, I selected all the blacklists except the hosts files, which a
- Dan Pollock's hosts file
- hpHosts' ad and tracking servers
- MVPS hosts
- Peter Lowe's ad and tracking server list

I've found the hosts files are overly aggressive and not updated as
often as, say, the EasyList blacklist. When I go into the blacklists in
uBO, EasyList was last updated today (29 Mar 2019) while the hosts files
had last updates of (click on the hosts file blacklist to see its
listing which should include its update datestamp):

- Dan Pollock: 27 Mar 2019
- hpHosts: unknown (no update datestamp)
- MVPS hosts: 08 Mar 2019
- Peter Lowe's: 23 Jan 2019

You get the site bitching about using uBO. I don't when using uBO. So,
are configurations differ for uBO. Even when I added all 4 of the hosts
file blacklists, the site still didn't bitch about me using an
adblocker. Something else is configured differently between your setup
of uBO and my uBO, or maybe you are using some rules under uBO's "My
filters" or "My rules", or some additional blocking other than just uBO.

I use ABP (addblock plus), with the "acceptable adds" and "only allow
ads without third party tracking". That is, I do not block all adds,
only those that are intrusive.

I remember a lot of users that got riled when they found ABP allowed
acceptable ads by default. I read the acceptable definition and it
seemed valid: reward advertisers that follow a respectable etiquette.
After all, only children think they should get others to labor for free
for them. Its the bad behavior that drove users to use adblockers.


Indeed. But may sites block users using addblockers, even those of us
using the Acceptable list. And of course, no comment button to complain.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 06:01:11 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder
wrote:

In the olden days, like everyone, I used bookmarks too.
But now I simply set up each browser to one site.
With that use model, there's no need to manage bookmarks.

Isn't there a practical limit to the number of browsers you can set up,
and thus a practical limit to the number of sites you can visit?

Second, what do you do when you're on browser A and you want to click a
link that would take you to a site that belongs to browser B? Do you
copy the link and paste it into browser B?

Third, what do you do when you're hovering over a link that you'd like
to visit, but it's not a link for which you have a browser configured?
Do you just say no, or do you go set up yet another browser?

Fourth, many people tend to revisit certain sites over and over, which
would lend itself to your use model, but I'm guessing that the revisit
percentage is somewhere around 30-70%. What do you do with the other
30-70% of sites that are new, never before visited, and only visited
once?

We have more questions, but we'll stop there to begin our evaluation
into this new use model to see if it makes sense for us.