tip: chrome and pdf

On 05/23/2017 07:02 PM, Mike S wrote:
On 5/23/2017 4:55 PM, T wrote:
On 05/23/2017 11:48 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
T wrote:

T wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

T wrote:

May it is a revision issue, but both computers today had fully
updated chromes and open PDF attachments from their eMail directly
into Acrobat Reader when I was finished. Maybe check my
directions and see if your are doing the same thing?

I don't use webmail clients unless both my desktop or smartphone are
unavailable.

Me too. I can't stand web mail clients.

I prefer Firefox over Chrome too, but I will use Chrome when I have
to.

Firefox has been getting progressively slower, even to load (and I use
about:blank as my home page), since version 49. It may have been
getting slower before that but the change was small. No, not just me
but others I know have also remarked it is getting slower. Mozilla been
putzing around with making major changes to catch up on their lag
compared to other web browsers: disable plug-ins, discard XUL and go to
web extensions (which Chromium uses), toss the menu bar and go to the
menu drop-down list (like Chrome), requires signed add-ons, removing
options from the config UI requiring to delve into about:config and then
discarding the option altogether, and going multi-process (8+ years
late) with Electrolysis (e10s) which is more piggish with just 1 process
for chrome and 1 for ALL tabs than is Chrome with 1 chrome process and
one process for each tab. And they still have their ages old problem
that exiting Firefox doesn't necessarily unload all its processes which
interferes with the next load of Firefox (less often in their 64-bit
version but still happens) -- a problem that I've yet to encounter in
Chrome. They are going to change to a different rendering engine: from
Gecko to Servo (programmed in Mozilla's Rust language) using WebRender
for faster rendering and Quantum to supposedly eliminate conflict with
the video driver. They added WebAssembly, an emerging standard from
Mozilla. Firefox has recently become and will continue to be for a
while a maelstrom of major changes. Rather than dump all that work into
Firefox, they should move forward with a new named web browser (well,
they should be called web clients since they don't just browse anymore).

Google Chrome has flaws, too, but, geez, does it load about:blank faster
and every page I go to. Yet Google are such dumbasses regarding
usability. I have to install an add-on to make new tabs come to the
front (get focus) when clicking on a hyperlink rather than load in the
background. I need an add-on to get back using Backspace to move back
through history because Google took away that key in v52. Why? Users
sometimes lost data in web forms when they mistakeningly hit the
Backspace key. That add-on is from Google to return what Google took
away. They couldn't be bothered to leave in the code and simply add a
user config option to select Backspace or Alt+LeftArrow as the history
back action. The add-on will refuse to move back when, for example,
there is input in an input element -- so why couldn't they merge that
code with what was already in Chrome for the Backspace key mapping? So
there are deficiencies and stupidities in Chrome and it has to get
locked down and is less configurable than Firefox yet I've had to move
to it. I really miss the inbuilt configurability of Firefox but speed
is addictive. When I have to use Firefox, geez, wait. I feel like Judy
Hopps at the DMV (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHVDN3M_hc8).

I thought it must be just me until I started hearing more coworkers,
friends, and other users complaining about Firefox getting slower.
Yeah, I've tried all the troubleshooting: name something and I've done
it. In the past, Firefox has had ups and down with performance but
they've been temporary. This has been worse since about Oct 2016 so
it's not just a momentary hiccup, and more severe changes are coming.


Hi Vanguard,

I have a secret weapon to speed up Chrome and Firefox. It
is an extension called "ublock orgin". Makes a YUGE difference.

I haven't noticed Firefox slowing down, but then again I
am using the Linux version. The first start of the day is
slow, but then it caches up in memory and starts in about
1-1/2 seconds after that.

My Windows customer usually start Firefox (and Chrome) and
leave it running all day, so not much of an issue.

When I set up a new Chrome or Firefox, the first thing I
do it to enable the bookmark tool bar and install uBlock
Orgin.

On Firefox, I altv and turn on the Menu Bar and
Toolbar. Then I customize the menu and add the book
barm star, the side bar icons and the printer icon,
then remove the weird media icons. I also remove the
search bar. I also install the "tabs on bottom" extension.

The search bar is a pain in my ass. You would never believe how
many of my customers do not know what the address bar is.
They search for 100% of everything. And since the address
bar can also be used as a search bar, I remove the address
bar.

Tip: have then press f6 a bunch of times and see what flashes
at you.

"enter 'fastsupport.com' into the address bar"

"which one do you want me to pick? There are hundred of
them here"

"you put it in the search bar instead of the address bar,
didn't you."

"no. what's an address bar? I don't have one"

Tip: `helpme.net` is linked to fast support and is far easier
to enter than `fastsupport.com`. Far less typos.

Had a lady using Chrome with a 70 MBit/sec Cable modem
complaining of a slow Internet connection. She was looking
up interior decorating items: tiling, flooring, curtains,
the whole nine yards. I got suspicious and installed
uBlock Orgin. I blew her away. I noticed that one
of the sites she had to using had something
like 240 hits on uBlock. Geez, no wonder she was so slow.

Running junkware removers also helps.

-T

Total agreement on uBlock Origin, awesome plugin.

The only one I have found that can not be bribed around

On 2017-05-22 18:59, T wrote:

[snip]

My Notes:

How to manage plugins in Chrome now that `aboutlugins`
has been depreciated, PDF Reader, Flash, etc.:

-- Settings ( â‹® )
-- Show advanced settings
-- Privacy
-- Content settings

PDF is at the bottom

PRIVACY! The settings for handling MIME types is under PRIVACY!
Sometimes man! We get the same nonsense in the new Win10 settings app.
Thanks for the tip, I've "starred" your message (I haven't used Chrome
yet, but it's on the ToDo list, just so I can support it later).

Regards,

--
! _\|/_ Sylvain /
! (o o) Memberavid-Suzuki-Fdn/EFF/Red+Cross/SPCA/Planetary-Society
oO-( )-Oo "All right, evil-doer, SUCK - fthoop - sushi?" -Darkwing

On 05/23/2017 08:47 PM, B00ze wrote:
On 2017-05-22 18:59, T wrote:

[snip]

My Notes:

How to manage plugins in Chrome now that `aboutlugins`
has been depreciated, PDF Reader, Flash, etc.:

-- Settings ( â‹® )
-- Show advanced settings
-- Privacy
-- Content settings

PDF is at the bottom

PRIVACY! The settings for handling MIME types is under PRIVACY!
Sometimes man! We get the same nonsense in the new Win10 settings app.
Thanks for the tip, I've "starred" your message (I haven't used Chrome
yet, but it's on the ToDo list, just so I can support it later).

Regards,



Ya, I thought that was weird too.

T wrote:

I have a secret weapon to speed up Chrome and Firefox. It
is an extension called "ublock orgin". Makes a YUGE difference.

Actually you get both speedup and slowdown. I have both uBlock Origin
and uMatrix. I configured uMatrix to only block off-domain scripts but
it is much more handy than NoScript.

The adblockers have to update themselves. No, I'm not talking about
code updates. I'm talking about those blacklist updates. They have to
connect to their DNSBL source to retrieve a newer version of the
blacklists. The more blacklists you have, the more source to which they
have to connect to get more blacklists. The downloads are quick but
they will impede the loading of the web browser.

I went to uBlock Origin because Adblock Plus was slower to load. That
was awhile ago. Adblock was slow because of some fault is design by
Mozilla in Firefox. When Mozilla made a change, Adblock Plus got a lot
faster to load itself (but the blacklists still take time).

While have a page not connect to external sources for ads, the purpose
of adblockers is to break the code in the page. This can result in the
content that you do want to see getting screwed up. It takes time for
you to decide what off-domain or restricted content to allow and which
scripts to allow at a minimum to get a page to work. So all the small
time you saved to load the unwanted content is offset by all the time
you spent configuring the adblocker. I suspect if someone were to
measure how much time we spend configuring the adblocker versus how much
time we wait for a page to render, we adblocking users are probably
losing time. However, for those of use willing to expend the effort, we
get better privacy and less noise to bother with in the pages.

There is time to load the adblocker. There is time for it to get
updated blacklists. Even in parallel, your CPU and network can only do
so much. The breakage caused by adblockers and users having to
configure the adblocker to minimally unbreak a page overshadows the time
spent loading a site many many times. But getting rid of the noise
isn't the only reason to use an adblocker.

The more add-ons you install, the more memory you consume. With
multi-process web browsers, each add-on has another instance loaded in
the tab process. If you open 10 tabs and have 10 processes for each
tab, you load 10 instances of add-on 1, 10 instances of add-on 2, and so
on. You can end up consuming so much memory with a deluge of add-ons
that your web browser will get slow and sometimes very slow. You may
even end up having to use the slow pagefile. I try to keep my add-ons
to a minimum but still have about half a dozen in each web browser.
Some users have a dozen add-ons or even a lot more. Some add-ons are
small (there is a minimum size under which an add-on will not consume
less) but some are large. Think of like having to drag more luggage at
the airport: the more bags you have to drag along the more you get
fatigued with the added weight.

I haven't noticed Firefox slowing down, but then again I
am using the Linux version. The first start of the day is
slow, but then it caches up in memory and starts in about
1-1/2 seconds after that.

Firefox has not gotten slow only to load it. It is also slower to
render web pages. Folks that load Firefox and leave it loaded and spend
most of their time at one site (and even on one page even if dynamic),
like for webmail, won't notice the slowdown. Loading Firefox, using it,
and unloading it when you do other work (yes, there is more than the
web) and doing so over and over during the day will make you realize
Firefox loads slower. If you bounce between LOTS of sites or load lots
of pages from each during each Firefox session, you'll notice it takes
longer than with Chrome.

There is also the considering of HTML5 compatibility. They've all been
grandually improving but Chrome still leads. That doesn't mean us users
really appreciate everything new in HTML5 but maybe something we want
that requires HTML5 won't work in Firefox or behave odd. Try going to
speedtest.net and do a test while watching the dial hands move around.
With Chrome, the hands are smooth and there are no remnants. In
Firefox, you'll see fragments of prior screen paints so the dial arms
look jagged and there are remnant stubs of it left in the display.
Note: This was before that site switched to the beta site which is now
forced on Chrome visitors (the link to their legacy site just bounces me
back to the beta site, probably due to some boob there using
meta-refresh or the location header incorrectly). Their legacy site
used Flash. You would think the same Flash content in Chrome would show
the same as in Firefox. Some web browsers are better at rendering
content than others. Chrome is better than Firefox.

My Windows customer usually start Firefox (and Chrome) and
leave it running all day, so not much of an issue.

The search bar is a pain in my ass. You would never believe how
many of my customers do not know what the address bar is.
They search for 100% of everything. And since the address
bar can also be used as a search bar, I remove the address
bar.

So you render the web browser useless to customers that want to specify
where they go rather than have to rely on bookmarks or hyperlinks.

If someone tells them over the phone to go to, say, forum.avast.com then
how are they going to get there?

Tip: have then press f6 a bunch of times and see what flashes
at you.

I don't use hotkeys to then have an address bar into which I can
manually input a URL. Just like I, like you, keep the menu bar
displayed so I don't have to use the Alt key to see it.

"enter 'fastsupport.com' into the address bar"

"which one do you want me to pick? There are hundred of
them here"

Just one for me. The address bar does not have to be an omnibox (i.e.,
include searches). Just turn that off in options. In Firefox, uncheck
the Options - Search category - Provide search suggestions. In Google
Chrome, I think it's the chrome://settings - Advanced link - Privacy
section - Use a prediction service to help complete searches and URLs
in the address bar.

Had a lady using Chrome with a 70 MBit/sec Cable modem
complaining of a slow Internet connection. She was looking
up interior decorating items: tiling, flooring, curtains,
the whole nine yards. I got suspicious and installed
uBlock Orgin. I blew her away. I noticed that one
of the sites she had to using had something
like 240 hits on uBlock. Geez, no wonder she was so slow.

Yes, there are extreme sites with off-domain content. In this case,
blocking the unwanted content sped up the page faster than the time to
load the add-on and update its blacklist(s).

Running junkware removers also helps.

Not installing helps more. But then you would make less money.

On Wed, 24 May 2017 04:07:17 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

T wrote:

I have a secret weapon to speed up Chrome and Firefox. It
is an extension called "ublock orgin". Makes a YUGE difference.

Actually you get both speedup and slowdown. I have both uBlock Origin
and uMatrix. I configured uMatrix to only block off-domain scripts but
it is much more handy than NoScript.

The adblockers have to update themselves. No, I'm not talking about
code updates. I'm talking about those blacklist updates. They have to
connect to their DNSBL source to retrieve a newer version of the
blacklists. The more blacklists you have, the more source to which they
have to connect to get more blacklists. The downloads are quick but
they will impede the loading of the web browser.

I went to uBlock Origin because Adblock Plus was slower to load. That
was awhile ago. Adblock was slow because of some fault is design by
Mozilla in Firefox. When Mozilla made a change, Adblock Plus got a lot
faster to load itself (but the blacklists still take time).

While have a page not connect to external sources for ads, the purpose
of adblockers is to break the code in the page. This can result in the
content that you do want to see getting screwed up. It takes time for
you to decide what off-domain or restricted content to allow and which
scripts to allow at a minimum to get a page to work. So all the small
time you saved to load the unwanted content is offset by all the time
you spent configuring the adblocker.

About once or twice a year, I run into a site that says "Hey, we see
that you're using an ad blocker. Please disable it if you want to see
our content."

At that point, I either use the "disable on this page" option, or I
temporarily disable the whole ad blocker, or I simply browse away from
that site.

What I don't do is spend time configuring the ad blocker to try to get a
page to load properly, as you described above.

--

Char Jackson

Char Jackson wrote:

On Wed, 24 May 2017 04:07:17 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

T wrote:

I have a secret weapon to speed up Chrome and Firefox. It
is an extension called "ublock orgin". Makes a YUGE difference.

Actually you get both speedup and slowdown. I have both uBlock Origin
and uMatrix. I configured uMatrix to only block off-domain scripts but
it is much more handy than NoScript.

The adblockers have to update themselves. No, I'm not talking about
code updates. I'm talking about those blacklist updates. They have to
connect to their DNSBL source to retrieve a newer version of the
blacklists. The more blacklists you have, the more source to which they
have to connect to get more blacklists. The downloads are quick but
they will impede the loading of the web browser.

I went to uBlock Origin because Adblock Plus was slower to load. That
was awhile ago. Adblock was slow because of some fault is design by
Mozilla in Firefox. When Mozilla made a change, Adblock Plus got a lot
faster to load itself (but the blacklists still take time).

While have a page not connect to external sources for ads, the purpose
of adblockers is to break the code in the page. This can result in the
content that you do want to see getting screwed up. It takes time for
you to decide what off-domain or restricted content to allow and which
scripts to allow at a minimum to get a page to work. So all the small
time you saved to load the unwanted content is offset by all the time
you spent configuring the adblocker.

About once or twice a year, I run into a site that says "Hey, we see
that you're using an ad blocker. Please disable it if you want to see
our content."

Any site can determine if you do or do not retrieve their content. Even
for off-domain content, databases are shared so they can see if you
visited the other domain to retrieve content from there when visiting
their web page.

There are some blocklists that try to unbreak those pages that will
break when an adblocker is used. I don't bother trying to unbreak a
page that refuses to give me content because they detected that I am not
retrieving all their content. I go somewhere else.

Yes, they get revenue from those ads to help offset the cost of their
web site. However, even for sites selling commercialware where overhead
should include the cost of a web site, they still push out ads. Someone
can put flyers in my mailbox, too, but that doesn't mean that I have to
read it.

At that point, I either use the "disable on this page" option, or I
temporarily disable the whole ad blocker, or I simply browse away from
that site.

What I don't do is spend time configuring the ad blocker to try to get a
page to load properly, as you described above.

With those "you are using an adblocker" who then refuse to deliver some
or all of their content to you, trying to figure out what to allow is a
waste of time. They can easily cooperate with all other domains for
their ad/off-domain content to see if you retrieved it or not. They may
not bother tracking if you visited their Google Analytics account when
you visit their web site but just their revenue-generating off-domain
content.

They could deliver all that off-domain content through their own domain.
They would pipe the content through their server to deliver to you.
Then all that off-domain content becomes on-domain content and much less
likely to get blocked. However, that means more bandwidth for them. If
they can redirect to off-domain content then that portion of the
bandwidth is handled by that other domain instead of the one that you
visited. So they are going chinzy on bandwidth and its costs to have
more to handle their current load of visitors by dumping some of that
bandwidth to their advertizers. Also, if the content came solely from
them then they would responsible for their content. When it comes from
elsewhere, they can indemnify themselves because, gee, it wasn't theirs.

The web sites shot themselves in their own collective foot. If they had
not allowed for off-domain content and instead piped it through their
own domain's server, if they monitored that content and even neutered it
to prevent "leaks", like scripts or windows running outside the
allocated frame for an ad, disabled animation and sound, preventing
interspersing it with their content (e.g., ads that are inline to the
articles), and other asshole tricks then users would not have ever
bothered with blockers. It is because they became rude and noisy that
users chose to use blinders and ear plugs.

When a site says they refuse to provide their content when they detect a
blocker, well, that's because they are a rude site. Polite sites don't
have problems with blockers. I'm not against seeing any ads. I'm
against seeing rude and noisy content that interferes with the content
that I do want to see at a site.

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 16:25:39 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:

On Wed, 24 May 2017 04:07:17 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

T wrote:

I have a secret weapon to speed up Chrome and Firefox. It
is an extension called "ublock orgin". Makes a YUGE difference.

Actually you get both speedup and slowdown. I have both uBlock Origin
and uMatrix. I configured uMatrix to only block off-domain scripts but
it is much more handy than NoScript.

The adblockers have to update themselves. No, I'm not talking about
code updates. I'm talking about those blacklist updates. They have to
connect to their DNSBL source to retrieve a newer version of the
blacklists. The more blacklists you have, the more source to which they
have to connect to get more blacklists. The downloads are quick but
they will impede the loading of the web browser.

I went to uBlock Origin because Adblock Plus was slower to load. That
was awhile ago. Adblock was slow because of some fault is design by
Mozilla in Firefox. When Mozilla made a change, Adblock Plus got a lot
faster to load itself (but the blacklists still take time).

While have a page not connect to external sources for ads, the purpose
of adblockers is to break the code in the page. This can result in the
content that you do want to see getting screwed up. It takes time for
you to decide what off-domain or restricted content to allow and which
scripts to allow at a minimum to get a page to work. So all the small
time you saved to load the unwanted content is offset by all the time
you spent configuring the adblocker.

About once or twice a year, I run into a site that says "Hey, we see
that you're using an ad blocker. Please disable it if you want to see
our content."

Any site can determine if you do or do not retrieve their content.

Yes, obviously, but the vast majority of my visited sites don't complain
about it.

At that point, I either use the "disable on this page" option, or I
temporarily disable the whole ad blocker, or I simply browse away from
that site.

What I don't do is spend time configuring the ad blocker to try to get a
page to load properly, as you described above.

With those "you are using an adblocker" who then refuse to deliver some
or all of their content to you, trying to figure out what to allow is a
waste of time.

Agreed, which I sort of implied above. Rather than figure it out, I
simply decide if I want the content or not and then take action
accordingly.

--

Char Jackson

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 16:25:39 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
There are some blocklists that try to unbreak those pages that will
break when an adblocker is used. I don't bother trying to unbreak a
page that refuses to give me content because they detected that I am not
retrieving all their content. I go somewhere else.

Especially because it's not _their_ content. It's the content of
third parties, some of whom could well be, not to put too fine a
point on it, not entirely trustworthy.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Shikata ga nai...