Am 11.02.23 um 00:06 schrieb nospam:
> In article <ts6gvp$15olq$3@dont-email.me>, sms
>> Not everyone understands the advantages of hosts files but nospam can
>> read
>
> there you go again, resorting to ad hominem attacks.
>
> instead of digging yourself a deeper hole, you should read about the
> *disadvantages* of a hosts file and why they are obsolete as well as
> more advanced methods, before commenting further.

Hosts files are thing from a very distant past. Very unflexible and
require a lot of maintenance work.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

The Real Bev wrote:

> I have adblockplus for Chrome/linux, but I don't think there's an
> android version.

Here's another (of very many) adblocking tracking sites.
<https://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/>

See also "Ungoogled Chromium", which many on Android use instead of Chrome.
<https://uc.droidware.info/>

Note: Ungoogled Chromium is, like many useful apps, available on every
common consumer platform _except_ iOS (another example iOS is crippled).

> Hard to see why google would allow one for the desktop version.

Hmmmmm... how can you say that crazy talk when Chromium is open source?
Makes no sense what you just said.

Google open sourced the Chromium project so that _anyone_ could use it.

Anyway, I don't think The Real Bev will follow my advice, but for those who
don't want Chrome itself on our Androids, Chrome can easily be removed.
C:\> adb shell pm uninstall --user 0 com.android.chrome
No need to be rooted for this to work (I tested it myself on my Samsung).

For those who want to replace that now-deleted Chrome with Ungoogled
Chromium, as you can imagine, Google doesn't allow it in their app store
(much like Apple doesn't allow any competition in its app store too).

But it's open source so it's available all over the place.
<https://beebom.com/how-install-ungoogled-chromium/>
<https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium-android>
<https://uc.droidware.info/>
etc.

Anyone can download the APK and tap on it (something Steve tries to sound
sinister but which is something every OS can do except for Apple's IOS).
<https://uc.droidware.info/release/Ungoogled-Chromium/TrichromeChrome/TrichromeChrome_arm64.apk>

Here's the repository to add to F-Droid if you want to get it from there.
<https://uc.droidware.info/fdroid.html>

Believe it or not, only on the crippled iOS is something _that_ simple,
impossible (which is merely downloading an installer & clicking on it).

In summary, Chrome is easily removed from Android without rooting.
And, in summary, Ungoogled Chromium is, IMHO, a great replacement.

Ungoogled Chromium, like most useful functionality, is on all the common
consumer platforms (including macOS), _except_ the crippled iOS platform.

On 2/10/2023 9:50 PM, sms wrote:
>> The $9.99 iOS app says it does almost nothing except block ads in Safari.
>> The free Android app says it blocks wifi & cellular & system wide ads.
>
> Not quite. While it does block ads only in Safari, it also offers DNS
> filtering. See
> <https://adguard.com/kb/adguard-for-ios/solving-problems/system-wide-filtering/>.
> I added this to the two documents.

Yes. I know. I wrote to you about that in my other post to you on this
topic. The point I was making to the other guy is the two apps are very
different and claiming they're the same means misunderstanding them.

Essentially, one is a no-root firewall that can do ad blocking on the side.
The other isn't a firewall - but it can do its DNS filtering on the side.

> If you jailbreak an iPhone you can block Wi-Fi data from being used, on
> a per-app basis, using the Network Disabler Tweak, see
> <https://piunikaweb.com/2019/12/07/disable-network-apps-ios-13-jailbreak-tweak/>.

Personally, I don't think that requiring jailbreaking or rooting is a
feasible requirement if you're going to be comparing platform capabilities.

It's not only that jailbreaking is greatly frowned upon by Apple much more
so than rooting is frowned upon by Android manufacturers, but that most
people who jailbreak or root already know more than you we about it.

> I also added this to the two documents. There is no way to accomplish
> this without jailbreaking. This will not block ads on addresses that are
> not redirected. Of course once you Jailbreak, you can just edit your
> hosts file.

Of course I'm aware of this, but to discuss jailbreaking to get a
capability in a newsgroup where the people in the newsgroup like that other
guy don't know how a phone works to the point that he can't tell the
difference between a firewall and an ad blocker, isn't feasible.

> The issue here appears to be a lack of understanding the differences
> between ad blocking and DNS redirection (and what the purpose of a hosts
> file is) They are not equivalent. Try explaining this to a non-technical
> person and their eyes will glaze over!

That other person who claimed the two apps were similar in what they do
doesn't understand the difference between a firewall & a dns redirect.

It's like comparing a horse to a jet airplane where all he sees is that
both of them have seats, but they fundamentally do things very different.

You need to teach him what the two aps do. Not me.
--
best regards,

Neil

On 2/10/2023 5:37 PM, sms wrote:
> Whether you use a hosts file on the actual device, or use NetGuard or
> AdGuard to block domains via a VPN (adding all the domains that would be
> in your hosts file to Netguard or Adguard), the end result is the same.

You may need to be clear when you describe the two apps that both are doing
the ad blocking "on the side" and that both do that ad blocking different.

The free no-root NetGuard app is really a system wifi/data firewall which
does ad blocking on the side while the $9.99 AdGuard is a Safari ad blocker
which does dns filtering on the side. They're fundamentally different.

> The latter actually has cons, but the only con of a hosts file on the
> machine is that on Android and iOS you have to root or jailbreak to edit
> the hosts file. On Windows, MacOS, or Linux you can edit the hosts file
> directly.

If we have people on this newsgroup like that other guy who can't figure
out the difference between a firewall and an ad blocker, then talking about
rooting or jailbreaking is already over the top in terms of feasibility.

> Once Apple allows non-WebKit browsers in iOS then the need for the ad
> blocking capability of AdGuard for Safari will disappear, but the DNS
> redirection capability will still be useful.

There are advantages to dns redirection on the desktop platforms also.
> Not everyone understands the advantages of hosts files but nospam can
> read
> <https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/networking/how-to-use-a-hosts-file-to-improve-your-internet-experience/>
> to learn how hosts files work and why they are useful.

You might be interested in how Acrylic allows wildcard dns redirects.
http://mayakron.altervista.org/support/acrylic/Home.htm

"Acrylic is a local DNS proxy for Windows which improves the performance of
your computer by caching the responses coming from your DNS servers and
helps you fight unwanted ads through a custom HOSTS file optimized for
handling hundreds of thousands of domain names and with additional support
for wildcards and regular expressions."
--
best regards,

Neil

On 2023-02-11 00:06, nospam wrote:
> In article <s8ribjxum.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>> the only people who wish they had the ability to use a hosts file are
>>> living in the past and very ignorant about more effective modern
>>> methods (or they're trolls).
>>
>> Blocking hosts uses less memory and CPU (and less data transmitted). It
>> can also be done at the router.

One of the methods used by adblockers is to parse the content of the web
page and everything the browser gets, and then decide if to allow
rendering a part or not. So, that part has to be downloaded in full first.

If that part happens to be served by a host in the host block list, then
it saves time.

Also, this parsing is lineal, whereas browsers like Chrome have been
optimized for parallel download and rendering of sections. This
parallelization is broken by addblockers, making webbrowsers slower
(they claimed). I know this from a post by a Chrome developer who
explained these things quite some years ago, so I can not locate it now.

Answers are not that categorical :-)

>
> the difference in cpu usage and memory is negligible, particularly
> compared to the network query itself.
>
> putting a hosts file on a router is non-trivial or impossible for
> consumer routers, although some do have a content blocking feature
> (often called parental control), with varying levels of effectiveness.
> configurability and privacy.

For me, it is trivial :-)

Just configure the router DNS to be some other machine in the LAN, which
runs a DNS server. This is allowed by all ISP routers I have seen.

>
> a much better choice would be to use a pihole or equivalent, which is
> continually updated and far more effective at blocking a wide variety
> of stuff (not just ads), and can also be tweaked in ways not possible
> for a hosts file.
>
>> It is just a method that can be used. It has pros and cons.
>
> everything does.
>
> the trolls deliberately ignore that because it doesn't fit their
> narrative.
>
>> To each its
>> own. No need to flame.
>
> there is when trolls deliberately and continually lie about pretty much
> everything. they revel in disinformation.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2023-02-11 07:37, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 11.02.23 um 07:35 schrieb Joerg Lorenz:
>> Am 11.02.23 um 07:12 schrieb The Real Bev:
>>> I have adblockplus for Chrome/linux, but I don't think there's an
>>> android version. Hard to see why google would allow one for the desktop
>>> version.
>>
>> Use Firefox and ad the much more transparent uBlock Origin to it and you
>> will get a completely new surf-feeling. Together with NoScript - wich is
>> nothing for beginners - it is an unmatched team.
>
> Works also on Firefox on Android.
>

Unfortunately, the google bar and the news panel on the left (I always
forget the proper name) insist on Chrome in my phone.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Am 11.02.23 um 11:39 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
> On 2023-02-11 07:37, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 11.02.23 um 07:35 schrieb Joerg Lorenz:
>>> Am 11.02.23 um 07:12 schrieb The Real Bev:
>>>> I have adblockplus for Chrome/linux, but I don't think there's an
>>>> android version. Hard to see why google would allow one for the desktop
>>>> version.
>>>
>>> Use Firefox and ad the much more transparent uBlock Origin to it and you
>>> will get a completely new surf-feeling. Together with NoScript - wich is
>>> nothing for beginners - it is an unmatched team.
>>
>> Works also on Firefox on Android.
>>
>
> Unfortunately, the google bar and the news panel on the left (I always
> forget the proper name) insist on Chrome in my phone.

???
Are you using Google-Services?

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

On 2023-02-11 12:59, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 11.02.23 um 11:39 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>> On 2023-02-11 07:37, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 11.02.23 um 07:35 schrieb Joerg Lorenz:
>>>> Am 11.02.23 um 07:12 schrieb The Real Bev:
>>>>> I have adblockplus for Chrome/linux, but I don't think there's an
>>>>> android version. Hard to see why google would allow one for the desktop
>>>>> version.
>>>>
>>>> Use Firefox and ad the much more transparent uBlock Origin to it and you
>>>> will get a completely new surf-feeling. Together with NoScript - wich is
>>>> nothing for beginners - it is an unmatched team.
>>>
>>> Works also on Firefox on Android.
>>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, the google bar and the news panel on the left (I always
>> forget the proper name) insist on Chrome in my phone.
>
> ???
> Are you using Google-Services?
>

Google fails to find something called "Google-Services". It suggests
"Google Play Services". Yes, of course I use it.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Play_Services>

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article <c6fjbjxstq.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> >
> >>> the only people who wish they had the ability to use a hosts file are
> >>> living in the past and very ignorant about more effective modern
> >>> methods (or they're trolls).
> >>
> >> Blocking hosts uses less memory and CPU (and less data transmitted). It
> >> can also be done at the router.
>
> One of the methods used by adblockers is to parse the content of the web
> page and everything the browser gets, and then decide if to allow
> rendering a part or not. So, that part has to be downloaded in full first.

only certain parts need to be downloaded, not everything in full.

if an ad blocker determines something is an ad or other undesirable
content, it is skipped.

> If that part happens to be served by a host in the host block list, then
> it saves time.

except if when it uses a raw ip address, which won't be blocked by a
hosts file but can be blocked by an ad blocker.

another problem is that some sites serve both content and ads from the
same host. an ad blocker can differentiate the two, whereas a hosts
file will block both and cause the site to break, or more commonly, not
block either and you see ads with the content.

> Also, this parsing is lineal, whereas browsers like Chrome have been
> optimized for parallel download and rendering of sections. This
> parallelization is broken by addblockers, making webbrowsers slower
> (they claimed).

that doesn't break ad blockers, nor is parallelization specific to
chrome.

> I know this from a post by a Chrome developer who
> explained these things quite some years ago, so I can not locate it now.

i don't know what he explained to you and perhaps it might have been
true at the time, but it is not correct now.

> Answers are not that categorical :-)

true, something the trolls do not understand.

> > the difference in cpu usage and memory is negligible, particularly
> > compared to the network query itself.
> >
> > putting a hosts file on a router is non-trivial or impossible for
> > consumer routers, although some do have a content blocking feature
> > (often called parental control), with varying levels of effectiveness.
> > configurability and privacy.
>
> For me, it is trivial :-)
>
> Just configure the router DNS to be some other machine in the LAN, which
> runs a DNS server. This is allowed by all ISP routers I have seen.

which requires setting up that dns server, making it even more involved.

also, running your own dns server won't work for mobile devices when
not on your own lan, namely phones using cellular data or someone
else's wifi.

Am 11.02.23 um 13:10 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>
> Google fails to find something called "Google-Services". It suggests
> "Google Play Services". Yes, of course I use it.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Play_Services>

Then I would suggest you define FF as your default browser.
You can easily open FF even if it is not your default.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

On 2023-02-11 13:17, nospam wrote:
> In article <c6fjbjxstq.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>> the only people who wish they had the ability to use a hosts file are
>>>>> living in the past and very ignorant about more effective modern
>>>>> methods (or they're trolls).
>>>>
>>>> Blocking hosts uses less memory and CPU (and less data transmitted). It
>>>> can also be done at the router.
>>
>> One of the methods used by adblockers is to parse the content of the web
>> page and everything the browser gets, and then decide if to allow
>> rendering a part or not. So, that part has to be downloaded in full first.
>
> only certain parts need to be downloaded, not everything in full.
>
> if an ad blocker determines something is an ad or other undesirable
> content, it is skipped.
>
>> If that part happens to be served by a host in the host block list, then
>> it saves time.
>
> except if when it uses a raw ip address, which won't be blocked by a
> hosts file but can be blocked by an ad blocker.

Correct.

>
> another problem is that some sites serve both content and ads from the
> same host. an ad blocker can differentiate the two, whereas a hosts
> file will block both and cause the site to break, or more commonly, not
> block either and you see ads with the content.
>
>> Also, this parsing is lineal, whereas browsers like Chrome have been
>> optimized for parallel download and rendering of sections. This
>> parallelization is broken by addblockers, making webbrowsers slower
>> (they claimed).
>
> that doesn't break ad blockers,

Didn't say they do.

> nor is parallelization specific to
> chrome.

Didn't say it is.

>
>> I know this from a post by a Chrome developer who
>> explained these things quite some years ago, so I can not locate it now.
>
> i don't know what he explained to you and perhaps it might have been
> true at the time, but it is not correct now.

It certainly remains correct today.

>
>> Answers are not that categorical :-)
>
> true, something the trolls do not understand.
>
>>> the difference in cpu usage and memory is negligible, particularly
>>> compared to the network query itself.
>>>
>>> putting a hosts file on a router is non-trivial or impossible for
>>> consumer routers, although some do have a content blocking feature
>>> (often called parental control), with varying levels of effectiveness.
>>> configurability and privacy.
>>
>> For me, it is trivial :-)
>>
>> Just configure the router DNS to be some other machine in the LAN, which
>> runs a DNS server. This is allowed by all ISP routers I have seen.
>
> which requires setting up that dns server, making it even more involved.

It is trivial — if you already use Linux, as I do.

>
> also, running your own dns server won't work for mobile devices when
> not on your own lan, namely phones using cellular data or someone
> else's wifi.

I browse little out of home :-)

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article <aafkbjxfg6.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> >> Also, this parsing is lineal, whereas browsers like Chrome have been
> >> optimized for parallel download and rendering of sections. This
> >> parallelization is broken by addblockers, making webbrowsers slower
> >> (they claimed).
> >
> > that doesn't break ad blockers,
>
> Didn't say they do.

i read that backwards. chrome isn't broken either.

> > nor is parallelization specific to
> > chrome.
>
> Didn't say it is.

you mentioned chrome.

ad blockers work in chrome and other browsers, with no adverse effect
on the browser. nothing is broken.

> >> Just configure the router DNS to be some other machine in the LAN, which
> >> runs a DNS server. This is allowed by all ISP routers I have seen.
> >
> > which requires setting up that dns server, making it even more involved.
>
> It is trivial ‹ if you already use Linux, as I do.

most people don't use linux, but even for those who do, it's not as
trivial as you suggest.

> > also, running your own dns server won't work for mobile devices when
> > not on your own lan, namely phones using cellular data or someone
> > else's wifi.
>
> I browse little out of home :-)

you need to get out more :)

On 2/11/2023 1:36 AM, Neil wrote:
> On 2/10/2023 5:37 PM, sms wrote:
>> Whether you use a hosts file on the actual device, or use NetGuard or
>> AdGuard to block domains via a VPN (adding all the domains that would
>> be in your hosts file to Netguard or Adguard), the end result is the
>> same.
>
> You may need to be clear when you describe the two apps that both are doing
> the ad blocking "on the side" and that both do that ad blocking different.
>
> The free no-root NetGuard app is really a system wifi/data firewall which
> does ad blocking on the side while the $9.99 AdGuard is a Safari ad blocker
> which does dns filtering on the side. They're fundamentally different.

They are fundamentally different but the end result is similar. AdGuard
is less capable than NetGuard in multiple ways (plus costing a lot
more), but it's the best that can be accomplished for now (once Apple
permits non-WebKit based browsers things will improve).

In any case, it's clear that some people (one person?) didn't understand
how hosts files work but now hopefully he has learned. I tried to write
the document so a non-technical person could gain an understanding. I'll
try to add more to that document as things progress.

Host Files, and Alternatives, for Adware and Spyware Blocking
Now with Android and iOS information
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CtVsYszTivu_MOEHpj1JYYCHXQqgX8z6yfrZ9CxGwMw/

In article <ts9n8c$1lvfi$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> AdGuard
> is less capable than NetGuard in multiple ways (plus costing a lot
> more), but it's the best that can be accomplished for now

anyone who thinks that adguard is 'the best that can be accomplished'
on ios is either very ignorant about ios or deliberately lying.

> (once Apple
> permits non-WebKit based browsers things will improve).

that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with ad blocking. not one
bit.

> In any case, it's clear that some people (one person?) didn't understand
> how hosts files work but now hopefully he has learned.

again with the ad hominem attacks.

it's clear that the 'one person' who doesn't understand how a hosts
file works, its limitations, why it's a really bad idea along with the
many alternatives that are much better is *you*.

> I tried to write
> the document so a non-technical person could gain an understanding. I'll
> try to add more to that document as things progress.

try getting the details correct before you start explaining things to
others.

On 2023-02-10 09:18, mike wrote:
> On 10-02-2023 11:24 sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/9/2023 7:07 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Somebody (you?) pointed at the github version...
>>
>> I modified my write-up on hosts files to include how to do essentially
>> the same thing on unrooted and non-jailbroken Android and iOS/iPadOS
>> devices.
>>
>> See "Host Files, and Alternatives, for Adware and Spyware Blocking"
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CtVsYszTivu_MOEHpj1JYYCHXQqgX8z6yfrZ9CxGwMw>.
>>
>> I also added it to the document "Android and iOS features that Users
>> of the Other Operating System Wish they Had"
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JznrWfGJDA8CYVfjSnPTwfVy8-gAC0kPyaApuJTcUNE/> on page 104.
>
> I think the biggest difference between the two ecosystems is that you can
> safely download any Android app from anywhere to get anything you want to.

Where by "safely" you mean you can HOPE it doesn't come full with malware.

On 2023-02-11 14:08, nospam wrote:
> In article <aafkbjxfg6.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>>> Also, this parsing is lineal, whereas browsers like Chrome have been
>>>> optimized for parallel download and rendering of sections. This
>>>> parallelization is broken by addblockers, making webbrowsers slower
>>>> (they claimed).
>>>
>>> that doesn't break ad blockers,
>>
>> Didn't say they do.
>
> i read that backwards. chrome isn't broken either.

I didn't say that, either.

I said that the Chrome developer said parallelized, optimized, fast
loading of web pages was broken when the user decided to use an add
blocker, simply because the add blocker is (was?) not parallelized (last
sentence is mine; his explanation was way more complex).

Oh, found it.

+++····························
<https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2014/05/14/adblock-pluss-effect-on-firefoxs-memory-usage/>

<https://adblockplus.org/blog/on-the-adblock-plus-memory-consumption>

<http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/25j41u/adblock_pluss_effect_on_firefoxs_memory_usage/>

The gist:

[–]Klathmon 416 points 4 days ago

Chrome Dev here. We see this (and much more) with chrome as well.

Adblock, noscript, ghostery, and other addons like them cause 90% of the
issues we see in the forums.

At the very least, by running any of these you are:

Increasing memory usage anywhere from 10% to 30%
increasing overall cpu usage across all cores
increasing overall load time of the page by about 15% to 50%
completely screwing many of the optimizations that have gone into
the browser, effectively making the multi-threaded nature of the
browser fight itself.

This is because these programs need to interrupt any and all http calls
to check them against a big list of "no-no" domains held in memory. If
it matches, they remove the element from the dom so it doesn't load and
let the browser continue.

This has the effect of making every single thread sync up each time the
dom is updated, so these extensions can scan the new elements to ensure
they aren't loading ads/scripts. Fancy stuff like threaded compositing,
network predictors and prefetchers, and batched layout rendering are all
abandoned when any one of these is in play.

····························++-

You can find a reference to that post here:

<https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2014/12/ad-block-plus-uses-more-memory-and.html>

>
>>> nor is parallelization specific to
>>> chrome.
>>
>> Didn't say it is.
>
> you mentioned chrome.
>
> ad blockers work in chrome and other browsers, with no adverse effect
> on the browser. nothing is broken.
>
>>>> Just configure the router DNS to be some other machine in the LAN, which
>>>> runs a DNS server. This is allowed by all ISP routers I have seen.
>>>
>>> which requires setting up that dns server, making it even more involved.
>>
>> It is trivial ‹ if you already use Linux, as I do.
>
> most people don't use linux, but even for those who do, it's not as
> trivial as you suggest.

:-DDD

>
>>> also, running your own dns server won't work for mobile devices when
>>> not on your own lan, namely phones using cellular data or someone
>>> else's wifi.
>>
>> I browse little out of home :-)
>
> you need to get out more :)

I do, just not looking at my phone all the time :-p

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2/11/2023 4:46 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

<snip>

>> except if when it uses a raw ip address, which won't be blocked by a
>> hosts file but can be blocked by an ad blocker.
>
> Correct.

Netguard Pro (requires a small donation) allows you to block individual
raw IP addresses (and you can block per application).

Not sure how you would block individual IP addresses on a non-jailbroken
iOS/iPadOS device (while you can block individual IP addresses using
your router's firewall settings, this only works when you're on Wi-Fi
using that router).

If you jailbreak your iOS/iPadOS device then there are Tweaks, such as
NetFence <https://www.idownloadblog.com/2021/05/29/netfence/> that
appear to be able to do blocking by IP address (I think, have not tried
it since I don’t have any jailbroken iOS/iPadOS devices).

In article <tsasoo$1pt6n$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> >> except if when it uses a raw ip address, which won't be blocked by a
> >> hosts file but can be blocked by an ad blocker.
> >
> > Correct.
>
> Netguard Pro (requires a small donation) allows you to block individual
> raw IP addresses (and you can block per application).

which is not done via a hosts file. thanks for playing.

> Not sure how you would block individual IP addresses on a non-jailbroken
> iOS/iPadOS device

you should take the time to learn before claiming it can't be done.

> (while you can block individual IP addresses using
> your router's firewall settings, this only works when you're on Wi-Fi
> using that router).

while that's the most common case, it's not the only scenario where it
could work.

there are also other options.

In article <u66nbjxdmp.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>
> <http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/25j41u/adblock_pluss_effect_on_f
> irefoxs_memory_usage/>
>
> The gist:
>
> [­]Klathmon 416 points 4 days ago
>
> Chrome Dev here. We see this (and much more) with chrome as well.
>
> Adblock, noscript, ghostery, and other addons like them cause 90% of the
> issues we see in the forums.
>
> At the very least, by running any of these you are:
>
> Increasing memory usage anywhere from 10% to 30%
> increasing overall cpu usage across all cores
> increasing overall load time of the page by about 15% to 50%
> completely screwing many of the optimizations that have gone into
> the browser, effectively making the multi-threaded nature of the
> browser fight itself.
>
> This is because these programs need to interrupt any and all http calls
> to check them against a big list of "no-no" domains held in memory. If
> it matches, they remove the element from the dom so it doesn't load and
> let the browser continue.
>
> This has the effect of making every single thread sync up each time the
> dom is updated, so these extensions can scan the new elements to ensure
> they aren't loading ads/scripts. Fancy stuff like threaded compositing,
> network predictors and prefetchers, and batched layout rendering are all
> abandoned when any one of these is in play.
>
> ····························++-
>
> You can find a reference to that post here:
>
>
> <https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2014/12/ad-block-plus-uses-more-memory-and.html>
>

thanks for that, but it's *nine* years old. a *lot* has changed since
then.

in any event, google doesn't want ad blocking because it's a direct hit
to their revenue stream, so they have little interest in making sure
things don't break, regardless of component.

other browsers do not have that limitation, with some even including ad
and/or tracker blocking (e.g., brave, safari) into the browser itself.

<https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/08/ad_blockers_chrome_manifest_v3/>
ANALYSIS Next year, Chrome browser extensions ­ such as ad blockers
and other privacy tools ­ will stop working if they are reliant on an
API called Manifest v2 (MV2).

So far, when these extensions are rewritten to work with Chrome's new
Manifest v3 (MV3) API, you tend to end up with hobbled software that
doesn't work as well.
The cut-off date for MV2 is January 2023 though it can be used to
June via an enterprise policy.

On 2023-02-12 16:00, nospam wrote:
> In article <u66nbjxdmp.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> <http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/25j41u/adblock_pluss_effect_on_f
>> irefoxs_memory_usage/>
>>
>> The gist:
>>
>> [­]Klathmon 416 points 4 days ago
>>
>> Chrome Dev here. We see this (and much more) with chrome as well.
>>
>> Adblock, noscript, ghostery, and other addons like them cause 90% of the
>> issues we see in the forums.
>>
>> At the very least, by running any of these you are:
>>
>> Increasing memory usage anywhere from 10% to 30%
>> increasing overall cpu usage across all cores
>> increasing overall load time of the page by about 15% to 50%
>> completely screwing many of the optimizations that have gone into
>> the browser, effectively making the multi-threaded nature of the
>> browser fight itself.
>>
>> This is because these programs need to interrupt any and all http calls
>> to check them against a big list of "no-no" domains held in memory. If
>> it matches, they remove the element from the dom so it doesn't load and
>> let the browser continue.
>>
>> This has the effect of making every single thread sync up each time the
>> dom is updated, so these extensions can scan the new elements to ensure
>> they aren't loading ads/scripts. Fancy stuff like threaded compositing,
>> network predictors and prefetchers, and batched layout rendering are all
>> abandoned when any one of these is in play.
>>
>> ····························++-
>>
>> You can find a reference to that post here:
>>
>>
>> <https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2014/12/ad-block-plus-uses-more-memory-and.html>
>>
>
> thanks for that, but it's *nine* years old. a *lot* has changed since
> then.
>
> in any event, google doesn't want ad blocking because it's a direct hit
> to their revenue stream, so they have little interest in making sure
> things don't break, regardless of component.
>
> other browsers do not have that limitation, with some even including ad
> and/or tracker blocking (e.g., brave, safari) into the browser itself.

That is the best solution.

>
> <https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/08/ad_blockers_chrome_manifest_v3/>
> ANALYSIS Next year, Chrome browser extensions ­ such as ad blockers
> and other privacy tools ­ will stop working if they are reliant on an
> API called Manifest v2 (MV2).
>
> So far, when these extensions are rewritten to work with Chrome's new
> Manifest v3 (MV3) API, you tend to end up with hobbled software that
> doesn't work as well.
>
> The cut-off date for MV2 is January 2023 though it can be used to
> June via an enterprise policy.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2/12/2023 10:00 AM, nospam wrote:
> in any event, google doesn't want ad blocking because it's a direct hit
> to their revenue stream, so they have little interest in making sure
> things don't break, regardless of component.

You still don't understand how iOS or Android works when you say that.
Apparently you can only think in terms of what Apple "wants" for iOS.

With Android (or Windows for that matter) the user isn't forced to only
install the few apps that Google (or Microsoft) "wants" them to install.

The developers for Android can and do make whatever app action they want.
And the normal Android user can just download that app & easily install it.

That you still don't comprehend shows you don't understand either platform.
It's the biggest difference between them & you still don't understand it.
--
best regards,

Neil

On 2/11/2023 10:43 PM, sms wrote:
> In any case, it's clear that some people (one person?) didn't understand
> how hosts files work but now hopefully he has learned.

I don't think he understands either platform because he just said Google
doesn't 'want' ad blocking, which is completely immaterial for Android.

It's the biggest difference between the two platforms that it doesn't
matter what Google 'wants' because it only matters what the user wants.

For iOS, it doesn't matter what the user wants if Apple doesn't 'want' it.

With Android (or Windows for that matter) the user isn't forced to only
install the few apps that Google (or Microsoft) 'wants' them to install.

The developers for Android can and do make whatever app action they want.
And the normal Android user can just download that app & easily install it.

All this fear mongering over sideloading doesn't exist in this newsgroup.
Sideloading is no different than what every other operating system does.

It's by far the biggest difference between the two platforms, but that guy
still doesn't understand that it doesn't matter at all what Google 'wants'.

What's different isn't sideloading (which is just downloading a file).
What's different is the user can install the apps /they/ want to install.

It doesn't matter at all what apps Google 'wants' them to install.
Is this fundamental difference between platforms highlighted in your doc?

--
best regards,

Neil

On 2023-02-13 17:22, Neil wrote:
> On 2/12/2023 10:00 AM, nospam wrote:
>> in any event, google doesn't want ad blocking because it's a direct hit
>> to their revenue stream, so they have little interest in making sure
>> things don't break, regardless of component.
>
> You still don't understand how iOS or Android works when you say that.
> Apparently you can only think in terms of what Apple "wants" for iOS.
>
> With Android (or Windows for that matter) the user isn't forced to only
> install the few apps that Google (or Microsoft) "wants" them to install.
>
> The developers for Android can and do make whatever app action they want.
> And the normal Android user can just download that app & easily install it.
>
> That you still don't comprehend shows you don't understand either platform.
> It's the biggest difference between them & you still don't understand it.

Context, please.

nospam and I were talking of Chrome, a particular app. We were not
talking on Android.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Am 13.02.23 um 17:33 schrieb Neil:
> On 2/11/2023 10:43 PM, sms wrote:
>> In any case, it's clear that some people (one person?) didn't understand
>> how hosts files work but now hopefully he has learned.
>
> I don't think he understands either platform because he just said Google
> doesn't 'want' ad blocking, which is completely immaterial for Android.
>
> It's the biggest difference between the two platforms that it doesn't
> matter what Google 'wants' because it only matters what the user wants.

*ROTFLSTC*!
Stupid Troll!

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

On 11 Feb 2023, "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote in
comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone:

> Google fails to find something called "Google-Services". It suggests
> "Google Play Services". Yes, of course I use it.

Most people don't understand how Android updates using GPS to do it.
Even though GPS is the biggest important difference between iOS & Android.

Like most large companies, Google overuses the "google play" naming.
There are three "G" "P" "S" modules that people often are confused about.

Google Play Store com.android.vending (often called Google Play)
https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/113412

Google Play Services com.google.android.gms (often called Google Services)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.gms

Google Play System (often called Google System)
https://support.google.com/product-documentation/answer/11412553
https://support.google.com/product-documentation/answer/11462338

The Google System is what distinguishes Android from iOS the most.
https://blog.esper.io/building-a-google-play-system-update-changelog/

Google System updates Android every day without the user knowing it.
https://beebom.com/what-google-play-system-update-android/

Without Google Play System updates, Android would be like iOS is.
https://www.howtogeek.com/686927/what-are-google-play-system-updates-on-android-and-are-they-important/

The Google Play System updates are easily the biggest difference between
how iOS updates the iPhone versus how Google updates the Android phone.