A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows 7 » Windows 7 Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A browser question



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16  
Old September 23rd 17, 02:53 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default A browser question

"cameo" wrote

| Thanks. Last time I remember editing the HOSTS file was in Linux. Where
| is it in Windows?
|
https://blogs.msmvps.com/hostsnews/


Ads
  #17  
Old September 23rd 17, 06:42 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,881
Default A browser question

Mayayana wrote:

cameo wrote

Thanks. Last time I remember editing the HOSTS file was in Linux. Where
is it in Windows?


https://blogs.msmvps.com/hostsnews/


Not sure that really answers the question of WHERE is the 'hosts' file
in Windows. The file is under:

C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc

It is a text file with no extension in its filename.
  #18  
Old September 23rd 17, 02:03 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default A browser question

"VanguardLH" wrote

| https://blogs.msmvps.com/hostsnews/
|
| Not sure that really answers the question of WHERE is the 'hosts' file

No. But that question only takes a moment to
search for and the answer alone provides no
solutions. And it's not clear that Cameo is absorbing
the explanations or even really interested in this
topic. So I figured it was best, for Cameo or anyone
else reading, to provide a decent link to information
where they can figure it all out for themselves.


  #19  
Old September 23rd 17, 03:07 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Thip
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 294
Default A browser question

On 9/22/2017 7:53 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? I need the extensions due to physical limitations.


Firefox. I switched to Google Chrome when Mozilla was making Firefox
slow to load. 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. Firefox was getting pretty slow to
load. 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. 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. 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. You'll have to prod those Chromium extension authors to
port to Firefox (if you can get them interested). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. They don't want to do the work. They have a good
extension but they choose to let it stagnate. They spent the time to do
all the work before but aren't doing it all over again. 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. They're looking at the size of the userbase, not at the
robustness and configurability of the web browser. [Nearly] everyone is
over in the Chromium camp. They don't want to sit at the campfire with
just a few nerds. 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. 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. 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. 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.


Thank you. Very detailed. I actually gave up on FF way back at around
3.0, although I did use it sporadically. I've gone from browser to
browser to browser ever since. As my disabilities became more
pronounced I've used Chrome because the extensions simply make life
easier (I don't leave my browser open either, just do what I have to do,
close tabs, and get off). Although I'm not looking forward to another
learning curve, I guess I'll just have to suck it up and deal with it. :-)
  #20  
Old September 23rd 17, 05:23 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Rene Lamontagne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,549
Default A browser question

On 9/23/2017 8:03 AM, Mayayana wrote:
"VanguardLH" wrote

| https://blogs.msmvps.com/hostsnews/
|
| Not sure that really answers the question of WHERE is the 'hosts' file

No. But that question only takes a moment to
search for and the answer alone provides no
solutions. And it's not clear that Cameo is absorbing
the explanations or even really interested in this
topic. So I figured it was best, for Cameo or anyone
else reading, to provide a decent link to information
where they can figure it all out for themselves.




Hi,Mayayana, I have been seeing various items about Hosts file lately
and followed your advice to download and install it and try it out.
A couple questions,
Do I need the prgram "hostman as some have suggested?
Does it slow your system down any?
Do I need to do much else to make it effective?
I have signed up for periodic updates.

Thanks, Rene


  #21  
Old September 23rd 17, 06:38 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default A browser question

"Rene Lamontagne" wrote

| Do I need the prgram "hostman as some have suggested?
| Does it slow your system down any?
| Do I need to do much else to make it effective?
| I have signed up for periodic updates.
|

I'd never heard of hostsman. It looks like it's probably
harmless, but not particularly useful. Anyone who
can edit HOSTS won't need it. Anyone who finds
that daunting is not going to do any better with a
superfluous HOSTS manager.

I think the simplest way to look at it is that HOSTS is
you personal phone book. A very simple, plain text file.
It just lists URLs and IP addresses for them.

When a browser needs to visit somewhere.com
it first checks HOSTS to see if the IP address is there.
If not, it then calls the "public phone book", a DNS
server. It sends in somewhere.com. The DNS server
sends back the real address: The numeric IP address.

All people are doing with HOSTS is to tell the browser
that somewhere.com is the local machine:

127.0.0.1 www.somewhere.com

127.0.0.1 is "here". Since the browser is already here
it doesn't go anywhere. HOSTS can also be used to
store useful IP addresses, but most people don't need
it for that.

I wouldn't expect any slowdown from HOSTS. The
MVPS file is unnecessarily bloated, but that should be
harmless. Looking for the string "somewhere.com" in
a very large file is still extremely fast. On the other
hand, it *is* extremely bloated. If you have a few
minutes it wouldn't hurt to clean it.

The only thing needed to make HOSTS effective is
to block the major trackers and advertisers. I block
3rd-party files in Pale Moon and don't in Firefox.
But I still very rarely see ads in either, because
nearly all ads are not at the site you visit. And most
come from a small number of companies. The
ad business monopoly actually helps. Google/
Doubleclick is both the biggest advertiser and
the biggest online spy operation. So just blocking
them helps a lot. Blocking just a few dozen more will
clean up most webpages. Because people no longer
sell ads on their sites. They just add code snippets
for companies like Google/Doubleclick, let them
"have their way" with site visitors, and collect the
bounty.

It's in the fine tuning that you can find a
difference. If you want to stop all possible tracking
and ads you need to keep watch on the list. I have
a HOSTS file of only about 300 lines. The MVPS HOSTS
file is nearly 15,000 lines. I don't see any ads. So
what's going on?

One factor is bloat. MVPS HOSTS has several listings
for clickonometrics.pl, for example. Do I need a Polish
tracker in my HOSTS file? I don't think so. It does no
harm, but most people don't need it unless they live
in Poland.

On the other hand, the MVPS HOSTS does not include
fonts.googleapis.com, which I have in my HOSTS file
to stop risky fonts loading and to stop Google tracking.
(Actually I block web fonts anyway, but I still block that
URL because so many sites link to Google fonts that it
serves as a tracking station.)
Some people might want those fonts. So MVPS HOSTS
doesn't list that URL.

All of which is to say that if you oversee your own
HOSTS file you might do a bit better. But even a simple
HOSTS file will greatly increase privacy, security and
webpage readability.

I also use Acrylic DNS proxy, which lets me use wildcards.
With that I block virtually everything Google except search
and maps:

127.0.0.1 *.googlesyndication.com
127.0.0.1 *.googleadservices.com
127.0.0.1 *.googlecommerce.com
127.0.0.1 *.scorecardresearch.com
127.0.0.1 *.1e100.com
127.0.0.1 *.1e100.net
127.0.0.1 *.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 *.doubleclick.com
127.0.0.1 *.googletagservices.com
127.0.0.1 *.googletagmanager.com
127.0.0.1 *.google-analytics.com
127.0.0.1 google-analytics.com
127.0.0.1 fonts.googleapis.com
127.0.0.1 googleadapis.l.google.com
127.0.0.1 ssl.gstatic.com
127.0.0.1 plusone.google.com
127.0.0.1 cse.google.com
127.0.0.1 www.google.com/cse
127.0.0.1 *.appspot.com

Have I got all the Google trackers? It's hard to
know. And new companies are regularly started.
So that's why one might want to update HOSTS.
But it you just download someone else's update
you don't know what you're getting. Some oddball
site in Poland is blocked but not Google tracking.
The MVPS file also doesn't block Google's 1e100.net.
On the other hand, if you take my list you may
run into trouble if you use Google+.

Sorry to go on so long. There are a lot of details.
At the same time, 5 minutes installing HOSTS is
arguably the single best thing for security and
privacy that one can do. I always install a basic
one for friends. It helps a lot and they don't even
need to know it's there.

I also provide a basic version of HOSTS, with
explanation and a Desktop script for adding to it.
If you're a bit handy with script you can use the
Desktop script to easily add new liostings to HOSTS.
(Though the usual caveats apply: If you run restricted
you might have problems running scripts and/or editing
HOSTS.)

http://www.jsware.net/jsware/browsertips.php5#host



  #22  
Old September 23rd 17, 06:52 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Rene Lamontagne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,549
Default A browser question

On 9/23/2017 12:38 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"Rene Lamontagne" wrote

| Do I need the prgram "hostman as some have suggested?
| Does it slow your system down any?
| Do I need to do much else to make it effective?
| I have signed up for periodic updates.
|

I'd never heard of hostsman. It looks like it's probably
harmless, but not particularly useful. Anyone who
can edit HOSTS won't need it. Anyone who finds
that daunting is not going to do any better with a
superfluous HOSTS manager.

I think the simplest way to look at it is that HOSTS is
you personal phone book. A very simple, plain text file.
It just lists URLs and IP addresses for them.

When a browser needs to visit somewhere.com
it first checks HOSTS to see if the IP address is there.
If not, it then calls the "public phone book", a DNS
server. It sends in somewhere.com. The DNS server
sends back the real address: The numeric IP address.

All people are doing with HOSTS is to tell the browser
that somewhere.com is the local machine:

127.0.0.1 www.somewhere.com

127.0.0.1 is "here". Since the browser is already here
it doesn't go anywhere. HOSTS can also be used to
store useful IP addresses, but most people don't need
it for that.

I wouldn't expect any slowdown from HOSTS. The
MVPS file is unnecessarily bloated, but that should be
harmless. Looking for the string "somewhere.com" in
a very large file is still extremely fast. On the other
hand, it *is* extremely bloated. If you have a few
minutes it wouldn't hurt to clean it.

The only thing needed to make HOSTS effective is
to block the major trackers and advertisers. I block
3rd-party files in Pale Moon and don't in Firefox.
But I still very rarely see ads in either, because
nearly all ads are not at the site you visit. And most
come from a small number of companies. The
ad business monopoly actually helps. Google/
Doubleclick is both the biggest advertiser and
the biggest online spy operation. So just blocking
them helps a lot. Blocking just a few dozen more will
clean up most webpages. Because people no longer
sell ads on their sites. They just add code snippets
for companies like Google/Doubleclick, let them
"have their way" with site visitors, and collect the
bounty.

It's in the fine tuning that you can find a
difference. If you want to stop all possible tracking
and ads you need to keep watch on the list. I have
a HOSTS file of only about 300 lines. The MVPS HOSTS
file is nearly 15,000 lines. I don't see any ads. So
what's going on?

One factor is bloat. MVPS HOSTS has several listings
for clickonometrics.pl, for example. Do I need a Polish
tracker in my HOSTS file? I don't think so. It does no
harm, but most people don't need it unless they live
in Poland.

On the other hand, the MVPS HOSTS does not include
fonts.googleapis.com, which I have in my HOSTS file
to stop risky fonts loading and to stop Google tracking.
(Actually I block web fonts anyway, but I still block that
URL because so many sites link to Google fonts that it
serves as a tracking station.)
Some people might want those fonts. So MVPS HOSTS
doesn't list that URL.

All of which is to say that if you oversee your own
HOSTS file you might do a bit better. But even a simple
HOSTS file will greatly increase privacy, security and
webpage readability.

I also use Acrylic DNS proxy, which lets me use wildcards.
With that I block virtually everything Google except search
and maps:

127.0.0.1 *.googlesyndication.com
127.0.0.1 *.googleadservices.com
127.0.0.1 *.googlecommerce.com
127.0.0.1 *.scorecardresearch.com
127.0.0.1 *.1e100.com
127.0.0.1 *.1e100.net
127.0.0.1 *.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 *.doubleclick.com
127.0.0.1 *.googletagservices.com
127.0.0.1 *.googletagmanager.com
127.0.0.1 *.google-analytics.com
127.0.0.1 google-analytics.com
127.0.0.1 fonts.googleapis.com
127.0.0.1 googleadapis.l.google.com
127.0.0.1 ssl.gstatic.com
127.0.0.1 plusone.google.com
127.0.0.1 cse.google.com
127.0.0.1 www.google.com/cse
127.0.0.1 *.appspot.com

Have I got all the Google trackers? It's hard to
know. And new companies are regularly started.
So that's why one might want to update HOSTS.
But it you just download someone else's update
you don't know what you're getting. Some oddball
site in Poland is blocked but not Google tracking.
The MVPS file also doesn't block Google's 1e100.net.
On the other hand, if you take my list you may
run into trouble if you use Google+.

Sorry to go on so long. There are a lot of details.
At the same time, 5 minutes installing HOSTS is
arguably the single best thing for security and
privacy that one can do. I always install a basic
one for friends. It helps a lot and they don't even
need to know it's there.

I also provide a basic version of HOSTS, with
explanation and a Desktop script for adding to it.
If you're a bit handy with script you can use the
Desktop script to easily add new liostings to HOSTS.
(Though the usual caveats apply: If you run restricted
you might have problems running scripts and/or editing
HOSTS.)

http://www.jsware.net/jsware/browsertips.php5#host





Thanks for all the info Mayayna, I will read all this and your Website
stuff and carry on and work on this stuff now.

Rene
  #23  
Old September 23rd 17, 10:19 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
tesla sTinker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 134
Default A browser question

Sounds like you need some lessons about what is going on
inside the internet. Google has a tendency to believe it can
follow you, by one of the three identifiers on your machine.

One is the IP numeral address, which is changeable by you the operator.
Two is the MAC address, which can also be changeable by you the operator.

And three is the name of your computer, which is also changeable by you
the operator.

However as in all things, changing any of these has its downfall if it
is needed to remain the same. Such as in softwares that you may be
using, will not work anymore with them changed.

And a webpage script once executed can do what you have said below, so
its not the browser that is doing this, unless it is one of the new ones.
The new browsers that they want everyone to upgrade to, are with
certain tell me the tale **** of where the operator goes with it amongst
other things about the user. And it does this without the consent of the
operator. The older browsers will not do this. And is why, you should
not upgrade to the newer browsers. Not if
you want to remain Anonymous.

One can also use a private network, to change the IP numerals of
what your provider provided to you with as your IP numerals.
Such as like this one.
https://zpn.im/setup

So yes, it is possible to have numerous google accounts in numerous
country's. Once you understand what you have to change of in your
machine. And which type of PN you are using. No one can trace a PN.
Not unless, they have a oodle of new softwares and knowhow of routers.
Including tracking devices. Google, is just a dummy. They know
nothing, and what will happen is they will choke themselves into
bankruptsy by trying to destroy freedom of speech. Same as many others
already have.



On 9/21/2017 10:05 AM, cameo scribbled:
It just occured me that Google's Chrome (or other browser) could
possibly identify a user who browses with an IP anonymizer, such as the
Private Internet Access (PIA) if the copy of browser carries some kind
of unique ID, such as what cell phones have (IMEI number) and that ID
was at one time linked to the real user when he/she was not using an
anonymizer. What do you think?

  #24  
Old September 24th 17, 03:39 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
cameo[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 453
Default A browser question

On 9/22/2017 10:42 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
Mayayana wrote:

cameo wrote

Thanks. Last time I remember editing the HOSTS file was in Linux. Where
is it in Windows?


https://blogs.msmvps.com/hostsnews/


Not sure that really answers the question of WHERE is the 'hosts' file
in Windows. The file is under:

C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc

It is a text file with no extension in its filename.

You're right. That's what I was after. Now that you told me, it's a
similar directory I remember in Linux.
Thanks.
  #25  
Old September 24th 17, 05:04 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,881
Default A browser question

cameo wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

Mayayana wrote:

cameo wrote

Thanks. Last time I remember editing the HOSTS file was in Linux. Where
is it in Windows?

https://blogs.msmvps.com/hostsnews/


Not sure that really answers the question of WHERE is the 'hosts' file
in Windows. The file is under:

C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc

It is a text file with no extension in its filename.


You're right. That's what I was after. Now that you told me, it's a
similar directory I remember in Linux.


Been a long time (probably 20 years) since I last used *NIX: AIX, UNIX,
Linux (Redhat), SunOS, [Open]Solaris, SCO and Unixware (which were
embedded OSes in comm controllers that customers normally aren't
supposed to touch - but then I'm often abnormal), HP-UX, and others too
long forgotten. Considering all the acronyms I've accumulated over the
decades, no wonder some folks don't understand what the hell I'm talking
about when yakking it up with my other oldie cronies. I've played with
more recent Linux distros, like Ubuntu (and derivaties), Mint, and some
others but just can't get motivated to delve back into that genre. With
Microsoft ****ing up Windows 8 and now 10, they're sure pushing me to be
a nixie pixie.

Isn't /etc a mount point so you don't care on which system volume the
path is located? Had to go check ...

http://www.tldp.org/LDP/Linux-Filesy.../html/etc.html

From that article, looks like "etc" is where the similarity ends (and
nothing to do with \windows\system32 or any parent path similar to
Windows). On *NIX, looks like the 'hosts' file is at /etc/hosts (i.e.,
directly under the /etc mount point).
  #26  
Old September 24th 17, 10:47 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default A browser question

VanguardLH wrote:
cameo wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

Mayayana wrote:

cameo wrote

Thanks. Last time I remember editing the HOSTS file was in Linux. Where
is it in Windows?
https://blogs.msmvps.com/hostsnews/
Not sure that really answers the question of WHERE is the 'hosts' file
in Windows. The file is under:

C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc

It is a text file with no extension in its filename.

You're right. That's what I was after. Now that you told me, it's a
similar directory I remember in Linux.


Been a long time (probably 20 years) since I last used *NIX: AIX, UNIX,
Linux (Redhat), SunOS, [Open]Solaris, SCO and Unixware (which were
embedded OSes in comm controllers that customers normally aren't
supposed to touch - but then I'm often abnormal), HP-UX, and others too
long forgotten. Considering all the acronyms I've accumulated over the
decades, no wonder some folks don't understand what the hell I'm talking
about when yakking it up with my other oldie cronies. I've played with
more recent Linux distros, like Ubuntu (and derivaties), Mint, and some
others but just can't get motivated to delve back into that genre. With
Microsoft ****ing up Windows 8 and now 10, they're sure pushing me to be
a nixie pixie.

Isn't /etc a mount point so you don't care on which system volume the
path is located? Had to go check ...

http://www.tldp.org/LDP/Linux-Filesy.../html/etc.html

From that article, looks like "etc" is where the similarity ends (and
nothing to do with \windows\system32 or any parent path similar to
Windows). On *NIX, looks like the 'hosts' file is at /etc/hosts (i.e.,
directly under the /etc mount point).


The /etc/hosts is the normal location for it on Linux/Unix.

Even when a lot of the other furniture has moved around.

You can create separate mounts for various subsections of slash
if you want. But a typical home installation, especially
considering the gigantic size of modern hard drives, means you
don't need to play the mounting game, and one / (slash) can
hold virtually the whole thing. Only if you wanted to
mount /tmp on RAM (TMPFS), might you meddle with the setup.
So for the most part, you'll find the "HOSTS" file in the
usual place, and on the "main" partition. We're no longer
forced to load seven 2GB hard drives, and put pieces of
slash all over the place.

Paul
  #27  
Old September 24th 17, 07:02 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Rene Lamontagne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,549
Default A browser question

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? I need the extensions due to physical limitations.


Firefox. I switched to Google Chrome when Mozilla was making Firefox
slow to load. 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. Firefox was getting pretty slow to
load. 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. 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. 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. You'll have to prod those Chromium extension authors to
port to Firefox (if you can get them interested). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. They don't want to do the work. They have a good
extension but they choose to let it stagnate. They spent the time to do
all the work before but aren't doing it all over again. 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. They're looking at the size of the userbase, not at the
robustness and configurability of the web browser. [Nearly] everyone is
over in the Chromium camp. They don't want to sit at the campfire with
just a few nerds. 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. 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. 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. 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

  #28  
Old September 24th 17, 08:35 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Rene Lamontagne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,549
Default A browser question

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
  #29  
Old September 24th 17, 08:45 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Rene Lamontagne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,549
Default A browser question

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
  #30  
Old September 24th 17, 09:32 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default A browser question

Rene Lamontagne wrote:


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


https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?...2&cid=33147664

127.0.0.1 ------------ thru_loopback_interface_to_localhost (falls on floor)
(If you have a web server on localhost,
does it answer on port 80 ???)

0.0.0.0 --X invalid address (falls on floor and doesn't reach loopback)

A suggestion here says:

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r246...0-1-vs-0-0-0-0

# Special Entries
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 # fix for traceroute and netstat display anomaly

And there are more suggestions for entries than that,
but I don't want to spoil the surprise when you do
your research :-) Each suggestion stretching credulity.
Like some sort of voodoo spell.

Best guess,
Paul
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.