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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|