10 Oct
2011
10 Oct
'11
2:27 p.m.
> How, exactly, is running something in a web
browser "more versatile"
> than running a purpose-built app with a GUI? WTF?
To me a "purpose built app with a GUI" is the very definition of "vendor
lock-in" and "A PC for every function".
To me "vendor lock-in" means "look you have the versatility of running it
on this one PC with a mouse and a keyboard and if you want to do it any other way you can
pay us for as many copies as you want!".
Whereas a web interface means that the display terminal and application server are now
decoupled with a strong implication of scalability up the wazoo. (I know, it's all too
easy to make it unscalable, or to embed Windows Controls in a web application and tie the
browser to a specific Windows build.) It also implies that multiple applications are
accessible simultaneously just by opening more browser windows - and means you don't
have to swap 10,000 PC's every time you upgrade the central server.
To me a web interface is way preferable to say a 3270 for filling forms. I know, the
hot-shot mainframe app people had some pretty slick user interfaces on the 3270's for
some popular mainframe applications. I've seen good ones and I appreciate them. But
the vast majority of 3270 user interfaces sucked rocks. I'm not saying there
aren't some really sucky webpages out there but custom
roll-your-own-GUI-inside-the-web-page design seems to be very much on the decline, thank
god.
Tim.
10 Oct
10 Oct
2:56 p.m.
On 10/10/2011 02:27 PM, Shoppa, Tim wrote:
What? Do you know what X11 *does*? Surely you do. I know who you
are, and I know a bit about your (gigantic) level of experience.
> How,
exactly, is running something in a web browser "more
> versatile" than running a purpose-built app with a GUI? WTF?
To me a "purpose built app with a GUI" is the very definition of
"vendor lock-in" and "A PC for every function". To me "vendor lock-in" means "look you
have the versatility of
running it on this one PC with a mouse and a keyboard and if you want
to do it any other way you can pay us for as many copies as you
want!".
I'm hearing the twilight zone theme here. X11 certainly doesn't work
that way. Windows and MacOS X DO work that way, as does the Wayland
system, which is one way in which they suck. So, to completely avoid
vendor lock-in and "a PC for every function", I've used (and will
continue to use) X11.
Whereas a web interface means that the display
terminal and
application server are now decoupled with a strong implication of
scalability up the wazoo. (I know, it's all too easy to make it
unscalable, or to embed Windows Controls in a web application and tie
the browser to a specific Windows build.) It also implies that
multiple applications are accessible simultaneously just by opening
more browser windows - and means you don't have to swap 10,000 PC's
every time you upgrade the central server.
...which is exactly what X11 achieved decades ago! Except, of
course, it's not limited to the abuse of HTML and HTTP for
other-than-intended uses, and it doesn't rely on tons of
runtime-interpreted code, and doesn't produce slow, clunky,
barely-usable interfaces like web browsers do when used for most
anything other than...well, you know, web browsing.
People used to give Richard Stallman static for directly using emacs
as his shell as specified in /etc/passwd. Shit, now people want to do
it with a web browser, and nobody seems to get why this is a patently
stupid idea on about a dozen different levels. WTF?
I'm not saying there
aren't some really sucky webpages out there but custom
roll-your-own-GUI-inside-the-web-page design seems to be very much on
the decline, thank god.
Again with the "twilight zone" theme. These interfaces are on the
rise, in a roaring way, to a tremendous degree. Google Apps and their
ilk, GWT-based apps, AJAX, "Web 2.0" etc etc etc all fall under this
category. Everything is going that way. It is a huge, bloated,
bandwidth-wasting, cycle-wasting mess.
Wow what a weird-ass thread.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
3:23 p.m.
New subject: web browsers eat planet was Re: Let's talk NeXT
Again with the "twilight zone" theme.
These interfaces are on the
rise, in a roaring way, to a tremendous degree. Google Apps and their
ilk, GWT-based apps, AJAX, "Web 2.0" etc etc etc all fall under this
category. Everything is going that way. It is a huge, bloated,
bandwidth-wasting, cycle-wasting mess.
Don't look at me, I was happy with gopherspace.
gopher://gopher.floodgap.com/
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense. --------------
3:25 p.m.
At 01:56 PM 10/10/2011, Dave McGuire wrote:
Again with the "twilight zone" theme.
These interfaces are on the rise, in a roaring way, to a tremendous degree. Google Apps
and their ilk, GWT-based apps, AJAX, "Web 2.0" etc etc etc all fall under this
category. Everything is going that way. It is a huge, bloated, bandwidth-wasting,
cycle-wasting mess.
No, it's going to be ever more weird than that, as companies have discovered
how to run an app anywhere (without insttallation) as well as newer
VNC / who-knows-what like VMware AppBlast that'll put your Windows or OS X
desktop or app in any web browser on seemingly any device.
http://goo.gl/1jrOJ
- John
3:35 p.m.
New subject: Layers and Layers of Abstraction (was Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011)
On 10/10/2011 02:56 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
People used to give Richard Stallman static for
directly using emacs
as his shell as specified in /etc/passwd. Shit, now people want to do
it with a web browser, and nobody seems to get why this is a patently
stupid idea on about a dozen different levels. WTF?
Again with the "twilight zone" theme.
These interfaces are on the
rise, in a roaring way, to a tremendous degree. Google Apps and their
ilk, GWT-based apps, AJAX, "Web 2.0" etc etc etc all fall under this
category. Everything is going that way. It is a huge, bloated,
bandwidth-wasting, cycle-wasting mess.
I imagine that's what they guys that programmed using jumpers said about
Von Neumann architecture.
I imagine that's what the switch flippers said about installing a
monitor ROM or a boot loader.
I imagine that's what the monitor users said about an operating system.
I imagine that's what the operating system users said about using a
compiler instead of coding in assembler.
I imagine that's what the static language guys said about the dynamic
languages.
etc...
It's all meta, meta, meta. How close you and I are to the silicon isn't
the same as how close Joe User wants to be.
3:49 p.m.
New subject: Layers and Layers of Abstraction (was Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011)
On 10/10/2011 03:35 PM, Ray Arachelian wrote:
I haven't been in that situation, but knowing a bit about the
history, I sincerely doubt that.
People used
to give Richard Stallman static for directly using emacs
as his shell as specified in /etc/passwd. Shit, now people want to do
it with a web browser, and nobody seems to get why this is a patently
stupid idea on about a dozen different levels. WTF?
Again with the "twilight zone"
theme. These interfaces are on the
rise, in a roaring way, to a tremendous degree. Google Apps and their
ilk, GWT-based apps, AJAX, "Web 2.0" etc etc etc all fall under this
category. Everything is going that way. It is a huge, bloated,
bandwidth-wasting, cycle-wasting mess.
I imagine that's what they guys that programmed using jumpers said about
Von Neumann architecture. I imagine that's what the switch flippers said
about installing a
monitor ROM or a boot loader.
Definitely not; I've been in that situation myself.
I imagine that's what the monitor users said about
an operating system.
Ditto.
I imagine that's what the operating system users
said about using a
compiler instead of coding in assembler.
Yes, sometimes, but not usually. (been there too)
I imagine that's what the static language guys
said about the dynamic
languages.
I'd agree with that.
etc...
It's all meta, meta, meta. How close you and I are to the silicon isn't
the same as how close Joe User wants to be.
I don't think I've ever known of anyone who WANTS everything to be in
a web browser. At least, not people who actually know what a web
browser is or when they are or aren't running one. Further, we weren't
actually talking about "Joe User".
I simply cannot fathom the notion that supposedly technically adept
and experienced people advocate the use of a web browser as the end-all,
be-all user interface.
Further, the notion that it is somehow an anti-vendor-lock-in device
is nothing short of laughable, when hordes of people are being paid to
develop websites which are only compatible with ONE proprietary web
browser from ONE out-in-left-field company that only runs on ONE
platform and is largely incompatible with the dozen or so other web
browsers out there, not to mention the friggin' STANDARDS themselves.
Fortunately that's on the wane, but it was VERY big for a long time, and
still persists in some backwaters.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
7:16 p.m.
New subject: Layers and Layers of Abstraction (was Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011)
From: Ray Arachelian
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 12:35 PM
On 10/10/2011 02:56 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
> Everything is going that way. It is a huge,
bloated,
> bandwidth-wasting, cycle-wasting mess.
I imagine that's what the operating system users
said about using a
compiler instead of coding in assembler.
Umm, compilers came long before anything that could reasonably be called
an operating system.
My first computer language was FORTRAN IV, on an IBM 1401. Very small
monitor that was part of the FORTRAN compiler separated jobs from each
other, running the compiled code for one until EOJ, then beginning the
next compile-and-execute.
I imagine that's what the static language guys
said about the dynamic
languages.
Yeah, you nailed that one...expect that the verb is "say".
Rich Alderson
Vintage Computing Sr. Server Engineer
Vulcan, Inc.
505 5th Avenue S, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98104
mailto:RichA at vulcan.com
mailto:RichA at LivingComputerMuseum.org
http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/
9:13 p.m.
New subject: Layers and Layers of Abstraction (was Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011)
On 10/10/2011 4:16 PM, Rich Alderson wrote:
From: Ray Arachelian
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 12:35 PM
On 10/10/2011 02:56 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
Umm, compilers came long before anything
that could reasonably be called
an operating system.
My first computer language was FORTRAN IV, on an IBM 1401. Very small
monitor that was part of the FORTRAN compiler separated jobs from each
other, running the compiled code for one until EOJ, then beginning the
next compile-and-execute.
1620 card deck in, punched program out (or deposit in memory sometimes).
1130 card deck in, punched out program (I never used a 1130, but was
told it would do this standalone)
Univac III had a tape header that was on each tape, and the programs
rewound and reread the "os" from each, more of a set of parameters. Not
a lot in memory. I don't even have any notes on what languages one ran
on the U3 even though I have one.
Everything is going that way. It is a huge, bloated,
bandwidth-wasting, cycle-wasting mess.
I imagine that's what the operating
system users said about using a
compiler instead of coding in assembler. I imagine
that's what the static language guys said about the dynamic
languages.
Yeah, you nailed that one...expect that the verb is "say".
Rich Alderson
Vintage Computing Sr. Server Engineer
Vulcan, Inc.
505 5th Avenue S, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98104
mailto:RichA at vulcan.com
mailto:RichA at LivingComputerMuseum.org
http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/
4:01 p.m.
Let's see - the level creation tools for the first incarnation of id's Doom
were built on a NeXT, as was Berners-Lee first web server and browser. The
interface for Mathematica was designed on NeXT as well. Modern day MacOS X
is heavily influenced by NeXTStep and it's Objective-C development
environment, as is iOS. WebObjects was a fairly popular application
framework in the late 90's and early 2000's - I know of a few major websites
that used to run it.
I'd say NeXT was relatively successful, in that it was used to create
popular products and had a direct impact on later products.
6:59 p.m.
On 10/10/11 4:01 PM, Jason McBrien wrote:
Let's see - the level creation tools for the first
incarnation of id's Doom
were built on a NeXT, as was Berners-Lee first web server and browser. The
interface for Mathematica was designed on NeXT as well.
Did Theo Gray's definitive Mac front-end pre- or post-date Mathematica
on NeXT?
The Mac version certainly out-sold it.
Modern day MacOS X
is heavily influenced by NeXTStep and it's Objective-C development
environment, as is iOS.
More than "influenced" - OS X and iOS, a lot of the widgets, utilities,
file formats, protocols and supporting applications, derive directly
from that code.
--Toby
WebObjects was a fairly popular application
framework in the late 90's and early 2000's - I know of a few major websites
that used to run it.
I'd say NeXT was relatively successful, in that it was used to create
popular products and had a direct impact on later products.
10:14 p.m.
--- On Mon, 10/10/11, William Donzelli <wdonzelli at gmail.com> wrote:
It at least had some good ideas. Heck, I'm using WindowMaker right now... and have
used it for something like ten years. I don't know if that makes it a *good*
environment, but it at least makes it pretty darn usable. Of course, my second favorite is
TWM, so perhaps I'm a poor data point.
(You KDE users can stop laughing now.)
-Ian
I'd say
NeXT was relatively
successful, in that it was used to create
popular products and had a direct impact on later
products.
So NeXT was a success like STRETCH or F S.
11 Oct
11 Oct
2:22 p.m.
On 10/10/2011 10:14 PM, Mr Ian Primus wrote:
And there were a WHOLE LOT of NeXT machines sold. Many people (like
apparently Will) haven't seen lots of them in the wild, I'm guessing
because they just haven't been in the right places. Half of the
country's colleges, and a little office building called The Pentagon
were filled to overflowing with those machines.
So NeXT was a
success like STRETCH or F S.
It at least had some good ideas. Heck, I'm using WindowMaker right
now... and have used it for something like ten years. I don't know if
that makes it a *good* environment, but it at least makes it pretty
darn usable. Of course, my second favorite is TWM, so perhaps I'm a
poor data point.
Better watch out, Firefox is going to replace it any day now, and it
will be illegal to run a windowing system! (nevermind the whole "how
will Firefox get its bits to the screen" thing...some kid will figure
out how to do that with Perl or JavaScript any day now)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
2:41 p.m.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
?And there were a WHOLE LOT of NeXT machines sold.
?Many people (like
apparently Will) haven't seen lots of them in the wild, I'm guessing because
they just haven't been in the right places. ?Half of the country's colleges,
and a little office building called The Pentagon were filled to overflowing
with those machines.
I have several. Who needs one? (I might have a Turbo Slab to spare,
but I'm keeping the Cube).
In my experience, I saw them at SIGGRAPH in the early 1990s and I saw
them in several academic settings (Ohio State and UW for sure), and,
IIRC, at NASA Ames. I never saw them in "business" settings.
-ethan
3:12 p.m.
--- On Tue, 10/11/11, Ethan Dicks <ethan.dicks at gmail.com> wrote:
I have several.? Who needs one?? (I might have a
Turbo Slab to spare,
but I'm keeping the Cube).
I need a mono monitor... Or that funny three headed cable to hook the color cube up to
it's monitor and soundbox.
I would not be opposed to a Turbo Slab (my slab is non-turbo), especially if it had a
monitor :)
-Ian
12 Oct
12 Oct
6:42 p.m.
Ethan Dicks wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Dave McGuire
<mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
Oh, I'd love one, but I suspect I can't afford it right now! I had a Cube
and a mono Slab for a while, and they're fantastic little critters :-)
Don't toss them out, anyway ;)
cheers
Jules
And there were a WHOLE LOT of NeXT machines
sold. Many people (like
apparently Will) haven't seen lots of them in the wild, I'm guessing because
they just haven't been in the right places. Half of the country's colleges,
and a little office building called The Pentagon were filled to overflowing
with those machines.
I have several. Who needs one? (I might have a Turbo Slab to spare,
but I'm keeping the Cube).
11 Oct
11 Oct
9:24 p.m.
New subject: ChromeOS - Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011
On 11/10/11 2:22 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
...
Better watch out, Firefox is going to replace it any day now, and it
will be illegal to run a windowing system! (nevermind the whole "how
will Firefox get its bits to the screen" thing...some kid will figure
out how to do that with Perl or JavaScript any day now)
You know what Google's doing, right? :)
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html
--Toby
-Dave
10:18 p.m.
New subject: ChromeOS - Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011
On 10/11/2011 09:24 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
Of course. I should point out that nobody actually USES it. This is
your idea of a supporting argument for "everything shall be a web app"?
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
Better watch
out, Firefox is going to replace it any day now, and it
will be illegal to run a windowing system! (nevermind the whole "how
will Firefox get its bits to the screen" thing...some kid will figure
out how to do that with Perl or JavaScript any day now)
You know what Google's doing, right? :)
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html
10:53 p.m.
New subject: ChromeOS - Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011
On 11/10/11 10:18 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 10/11/2011 09:24 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
Of course. I should point out that nobody actually USES it. This is your
idea of a supporting argument for "everything shall be a web app"?
Not at all. I'm only pointing out that most things already are, and
perhaps it's not quite as technically awful as you make out. :)
--T
Better
watch out, Firefox is going to replace it any day now, and it
will be illegal to run a windowing system! (nevermind the whole "how
will Firefox get its bits to the screen" thing...some kid will figure
out how to do that with Perl or JavaScript any day now)
You know what Google's doing, right? :)
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html
-Dave
11:03 p.m.
New subject: ChromeOS - Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011
On 10/11/2011 10:53 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
Of course. I should point out that nobody actually USES it. This is your
idea of a supporting argument for "everything shall be a web app"?
Not at all. I'm only pointing out that most things already are,
Really. Like all those copies of Microsoft Office, iTunes,
Thunderbird...You are so totally off your rocker that, well, I wish I
could find it entertaining. *plonk*
Better watch
out, Firefox is going to replace it any day now, and it
will be illegal to run a windowing system! (nevermind the whole "how
will Firefox get its bits to the screen" thing...some kid will figure
out how to do that with Perl or JavaScript any day now)
You know what Google's doing, right? :)
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html and perhaps it's not quite as technically awful as
you make out. :)
I guess it wouldn't be, if it...well, weren't. Perhaps I have higher
expectations, and I know what to use to have them met.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
12 Oct
12 Oct
6:55 p.m.
New subject: ChromeOS - Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011
Dave McGuire wrote:
Really. Like all those copies of Microsoft Office, iTunes,
Thunderbird...You are so totally off your rocker that, well, I wish I
could find it entertaining. *plonk*
Heck, you just run them (probably in a VM) on some box "out there
somewhere" with screen-scraping code to translate UI elements to/from a web
format, then you simply throw more hardware at the problem until it's
slightly less useful than the original product but hey it's all "webby" and
therefore the iphone generation will absolutely love it...
;-)
Sigh... remember the good old days when the web didn't exist and the 'net
was all about getting things done quickly and efficiently?
cheers
Jules
Of course. I should point out that nobody actually
USES it. This is your
idea of a supporting argument for "everything shall be a web app"?
Not at all. I'm only pointing out that most things already are, and perhaps
it's not quite as technically awful as you make out. :)
I guess it wouldn't be, if it...well, weren't. Perhaps I have higher
expectations, and I know what to use to have them met.
7:32 p.m.
New subject: ChromeOS - use of VM / GUI / remote (way off topic)
On 10/12/2011 3:55 PM, Jules Richardson wrote:
Heck, you just run them (probably in a VM) on some box
"out there
somewhere" with screen-scraping code to translate UI elements to/from
a web format,
The use of the referred to gui programs via remote access is not
useful
to me. The latency even if local is too much.
I use vnc directly, the "web" version of virtualization is not very
useful as other than a cute trick.
The thing I do do remotely is run systems on esx vm servers. I also am
working on a system which will export terminal sessions to a java based
web browser. Not because it is useful, but because it can jump a lot of
network obstacles such as firewalls with its traffic conduit.
way off topic, sorry to continue diverging.
5:19 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave McGuire" <mcguire at neurotica.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011
Again with the "twilight zone" theme. These interfaces are on the
rise, in a roaring way, to a tremendous degree. Google Apps and their
ilk, GWT-based apps, AJAX, "Web 2.0" etc etc etc all fall under this
category. Everything is going that way. It is a huge, bloated,
bandwidth-wasting, cycle-wasting mess.
Wow what a weird-ass thread.
-Dave
I completely agree.
Back in "the day" when you connected to a website, you just loaded the
website code (HTML, PHP etc.) and images from the server/s hosting the
website. Today you load all that, plus load adverts (usually flash-based)
from other websites, connect to www.googleanalytics.com
(or similar
websites) and perhaps a few other sites too. Those of you on a fast
connection may not notice it, but as I'm on dial-up (and have been for the
last 10 years) I can actually see what is going on.
Regards,
Andrew B
aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk
13 Oct
13 Oct
5:27 a.m.
New subject: Today's web is full of crap (was: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011)
On 2011-10-12 23:19, Andrew Burton wrote:
Back in "the day" when you connected to a
website, you just loaded the
website code (HTML, PHP etc.) and images from the server/s hosting the
website. Today you load all that, plus load adverts (usually flash-based)
from other websites, connect towww.googleanalytics.com (or similar
websites) and perhaps a few other sites too. Those of you on a fast
connection may not notice it, but as I'm on dial-up (and have been for the
last 10 years) I can actually see what is going on.
Do yourself a favour: <http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm>
.tsooJ
5:47 p.m.
New subject: Today's web is full of crap (was: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joost van de Griek" <gyorpb at gmail.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 10:27 AM
Subject: Today's web is full of crap (was: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve
Jobs -2011)
Thanks, that is great. I'll install it over the weekend :)
Regards,
Andrew B
aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk
On 2011-10-12 23:19, Andrew Burton wrote:
> Back in "the day" when you connected to a website, you just loaded the
> website code (HTML, PHP etc.) and images from the server/s hosting the
> website. Today you load all that, plus load adverts (usually
flash-based)
> from other websites, connect
towww.googleanalytics.com (or similar
> websites) and perhaps a few other sites too. Those of you on a fast
> connection may not notice it, but as I'm on dial-up (and have been for
the
last 10 years)
I can actually see what is going on.
Do yourself a favour: <http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm>
.tsooJ
10:27 a.m.
On 10/12/2011 05:19 PM, Andrew Burton wrote:
Back in "the day" when you connected to a website, you just loaded the
website code (HTML, PHP etc.) and images from the server/s hosting the
website. Today you load all that, plus load adverts (usually flash-based)
from other websites, connect to www.googleanalytics.com (or similar
websites) and perhaps a few other sites too. Those of you on a fast
connection may not notice it, but as I'm on dial-up (and have been for the
last 10 years) I can actually see what is going on.
That's what AdBlock+, NoScript, and Ghostery are for. Install them, and
block all that trash without mercy.
12:16 p.m.
On 13 Oct 2011 at 10:27, Ray Arachelian wrote:
That's what AdBlock+, NoScript, and Ghostery are
for. Install them,
and block all that trash without mercy.
There are also published lists of HOSTS entries that simply raedirect
to localhosts or 0.0.0.0. Browser-independent.
Does anyone know of a DNS lookup utility that accepts HOSTS entries
with wildcards? e.g., *.doubleclick.net Windoze or *nix versions,
doesn't matter.
--Chuck
12:23 p.m.
New subject: DNS utilities; was Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Does anyone know of a DNS lookup utility that accepts
HOSTS entries
with wildcards? e.g., *.doubleclick.net Windoze or *nix versions,
doesn't matter.
Do you mean a utility that will return all the records in the
doubleclick.net. domain? You can do that with dig, but mere mortals are
usually forbidden from doing zone transfers by the DNS server due to the
potential for abuse.
Alexey
1:10 p.m.
New subject: DNS utilities; was Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011
On 13 Oct 2011 at 16:23, Alexey Toptygin wrote:
Do you mean a utility that will return all the records
in the
doubleclick.net. domain? You can do that with dig, but mere mortals
are usually forbidden from doing zone transfers by the DNS server due
to the potential for abuse.
I don't want to return all the records in the domain; I want to map
all of the references to a specific domain or subdomain to something
else. So, in other words,I'd like to map all doubleclick.net
records to 127.0.0.1.
There did exist a utilitiy for Windows 4.0 that would do that, but
I've forgotten the name. It probably won't work on newer systems.
It would seem that such a thing would be trivial to implement, but I
haven't been able to find it available.
--Chuck
3:55 p.m.
New subject: DNS utilities; was Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011
Chuck Guzis wrote:
I don't want to return all the records in the
domain; I want to map
all of the references to a specific domain or subdomain to something
else. So, in other words,I'd like to map all doubleclick.net
records to 127.0.0.1.
There did exist a utilitiy for Windows 4.0 that would do that, but
I've forgotten the name. It probably won't work on newer systems.
It would seem that such a thing would be trivial to implement, but I
haven't been able to find it available.
Just run your own local nameserver and create an authoritative zone file
for the domain you want to blackhole.
Peace... Sridhar
1:10 p.m.
New subject: blocking ads (was Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011)
On 10/13/2011 12:16 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 13 Oct 2011 at 10:27, Ray Arachelian wrote:
Which is why it's better to let your browser plugins do the work for
you. Blocking *.doubleclick.net/* from within AdBlock+ is trivial to
constantly doing nslookup for whatever the hosts are and adding them to
/etc/hosts.
Since you bring up browser independent, I wonder if there's some way to
export these lists to something that squid understands?
That's what AdBlock+, NoScript, and Ghostery
are for. Install them,
and block all that trash without mercy.
There are also published lists of HOSTS
entries that simply raedirect
to localhosts or 0.0.0.0. Browser-independent.
Does anyone know of a DNS lookup utility that accepts HOSTS entries
with wildcards? e.g., *.doubleclick.net Windoze or *nix versions,
doesn't matter.
1:28 p.m.
New subject: blocking ads (was Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011)
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Ray Arachelian <ray at arachelian.com> wrote:
On 10/13/2011 12:16 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Which is why it's better to let your browser
plugins do the work for
you. Blocking *.doubleclick.net/* from within AdBlock+ is trivial to
constantly doing nslookup for whatever the hosts are and adding them to
/etc/hosts.
Since you bring up browser independent, I wonder if there's some way to
export these lists to something that squid understands?
There's also SpyBot Search+Destroy for windows - a free malware scanner that
optionally modifies your Windows host file to include blacklists for
hundreds of malware and tracking sites. I'm not 100% sure it blocks ad
sites, I don't think it does, but after running SpyBot and NoScript in
Firefox I simply don't get any malware anymore.
1:34 p.m.
New subject: blocking ads (was Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011)
On 13 Oct 2011 at 13:10, Ray Arachelian wrote:
Which is why it's better to let your browser
plugins do the work for
you. Blocking *.doubleclick.net/* from within AdBlock+ is trivial to
constantly doing nslookup for whatever the hosts are and adding them
to /etc/hosts.
I do use AdBlock+ on Firefox. Opera's ad blocking isn't quite as
good (I use Opera on older systems); for example, AdBlock for Opera
doesn't block google ads.
Ad blocker plugins are fine if you're using a browser, but how about,
say, wget or any non-browser application that references web pages?
--Chuck
2:07 p.m.
New subject: blocking ads (was Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011)
On 10/13/2011 1:10 PM, Ray Arachelian wrote:
On 10/13/2011 12:16 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
I can vouch for Adblock+ and NoScript. Adblock+ is truly great and
truly transparent. You won't even know its there --- you just wont see
any more ads. Manually adding blocks is easy.
NoScript gets installed and uninstalled frequently. I love it when it
works, and I hate it when it gets in the way. It's great for the
"right-click" blocking sites.
Keith
On 13 Oct 2011 at 10:27, Ray Arachelian wrote:
Which is why it's better to let your browser plugins do the work for
you. Blocking *.doubleclick.net/* from within AdBlock+ is trivial to
constantly doing nslookup for whatever the hosts are and adding them to
/etc/hosts. That's what AdBlock+, NoScript, and Ghostery
are for. Install them,
and block all that trash without mercy.
There are also published lists of HOSTS
entries that simply raedirect
to localhosts or 0.0.0.0. Browser-independent.
Does anyone know of a DNS lookup utility that accepts HOSTS entries
with wildcards? e.g., *.doubleclick.net Windoze or *nix versions,
doesn't matter.
7:16 p.m.
New subject: blocking ads (was Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011)
Keith M wrote:
I can vouch for Adblock+ and NoScript. Adblock+ is
truly great and
truly transparent. You won't even know its there --- you just wont see
any more ads. Manually adding blocks is easy.
Horribly OT, but I keep wondering about the overhead of that. There must be
some grunt-work involved just to see if a URL matches something in its
block list, however minor. With the enormous list of sites / domains that
it must have to filter these days, that overhead *might* be noticeable to a
user (vs. what it would be like if there weren't the offending items in the
source markup in the first place).
I suspect there might be times where it has to do some access to the remote
site too just to maintain layout, even if it's not passing all of the
resulting data back to the user (e.g. downloading an image, querying the
dimensions, and passing a 'blank' generated image of the same size to the
calling process)
I wonder what the first instance of paid advertising was? ISTR doing the
whole "adding stuff to /etc/hosts to filter it out" somewhere around the
mid-90s, but that concept got old fast as more sites hopped on the ad
bandwagon. I had a web proxy that I'd written for a job too, so I recall
tweaking that to do some filtering against the main sites that I accessed.
cheers
Jules
15 Oct
15 Oct
2:46 p.m.
New subject: blocking ads (was Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011)
On 10/13/2011 07:16 PM, Jules Richardson wrote:
Keith M wrote:
What's more noticeable? Waiting for 3-4 large bandwidth consuming ads
to load from various places while 1x1 pixel flash and images load from
3-4 other places and various tracking cookies to be set and fetched so
that animated targeted ads can bounce up and down, or processing every
HREF through a filter in memory at CPU speed?
If anything I'd bet that the CPU power wasted on displaying animated ads
is far higher than that "wasted" on a bunch regexps preventing that crap
I can vouch for Adblock+ and NoScript. Adblock+
is truly great and
truly transparent. You won't even know its there --- you just wont
see any more ads. Manually adding blocks is easy.
Horribly OT, but I keep wondering about the overhead of that. There
must be some grunt-work involved just to see if a URL matches
something in its block list, however minor. With the enormous list of
sites / domains that it must have to filter these days, that overhead
*might* be noticeable to a user (vs. what it would be like if there
weren't the offending items in the source markup in the first place). from loading in the first place.
3:07 p.m.
New subject: blocking ads (was Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011)
On 15/10/11 2:46 PM, Ray Arachelian wrote:
On 10/13/2011 07:16 PM, Jules Richardson wrote:
:)
Keith M wrote:
What's more noticeable? Waiting for 3-4 large bandwidth consuming ads
to load from various places while 1x1 pixel flash and images load from
3-4 other places and various tracking cookies to be set and fetched so
that animated targeted ads can bounce up and down, or processing every
HREF through a filter in memory at CPU speed? I can vouch for Adblock+ and NoScript. Adblock+
is truly great and
truly transparent. You won't even know its there --- you just wont
see any more ads. Manually adding blocks is easy.
Horribly OT, but I keep wondering about the overhead of that. There
must be some grunt-work involved just to see if a URL matches
something in its block list, however minor. With the enormous list of
sites / domains that it must have to filter these days, that overhead
*might* be noticeable to a user (vs. what it would be like if there
weren't the offending items in the source markup in the first place).
If anything I'd bet that the CPU power wasted on displaying animated ads
is far higher than that "wasted" on a bunch regexps preventing that crap
from loading in the first place.
Oh, ONLY by a few orders of magnitude!
--T
8:57 p.m.
New subject: blocking ads (was Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011)
Ray Arachelian wrote:
On 10/13/2011 07:16 PM, Jules Richardson wrote:
Oh yes, I don't disagree there - something like Adblock is *far* less of an
overhead than the ads themselves. But it's still an overhead. If the folks
who provide the ads in the first place appreciated that I'm never going to
buy any product whose ad appears in my browser window, then I wouldn't need
adblock and therefore there wouldn't be any overhead at all ;-)
It's the lesser of two evils - but it'd be nicer if there were no evils at
all :-)
cheers
J.
Keith M wrote:
What's more noticeable? Waiting for 3-4 large bandwidth consuming ads
to load from various places while 1x1 pixel flash and images load from
3-4 other places and various tracking cookies to be set and fetched so
that animated targeted ads can bounce up and down, or processing every
HREF through a filter in memory at CPU speed? I can vouch for Adblock+ and NoScript. Adblock+
is truly great and
truly transparent. You won't even know its there --- you just wont
see any more ads. Manually adding blocks is easy.
Horribly OT, but I keep
wondering about the overhead of that. There
must be some grunt-work involved just to see if a URL matches
something in its block list, however minor. With the enormous list of
sites / domains that it must have to filter these days, that overhead
*might* be noticeable to a user (vs. what it would be like if there
weren't the offending items in the source markup in the first place).
13 Oct
13 Oct
5:55 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Arachelian" <ray at arachelian.com>
To: <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: Let's talk NeXT - Re: Steve Jobs -2011
It's a shame they don't come built-in to browsers ;)
Regards,
Andrew B
aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk
On 10/12/2011 05:19 PM, Andrew Burton wrote:
>
> Back in "the day" when you connected to a website, you just loaded the
> website code (HTML, PHP etc.) and images from the server/s hosting the
> website. Today you load all that, plus load adverts (usually
flash-based)
> from other websites, connect to
www.googleanalytics.com (or similar
> websites) and perhaps a few other sites too. Those of you on a fast
> connection may not notice it, but as I'm on dial-up (and have been for
the
last 10 years)
I can actually see what is going on.
That's what AdBlock+, NoScript, and Ghostery are for. Install them, and
block all that trash without mercy.
4664
days inactive
4670
days old
39 comments
19 participants
participants (19)
-
alexeyt＠freeshell.org -
aliensrcooluk＠yahoo.co.uk -
cclist＠sydex.com -
ethan.dicks＠gmail.com -
gyorpb＠gmail.com -
ian_primus＠yahoo.com -
jbmcb1＠gmail.com -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
jules.richardson99＠gmail.com -
jws＠jwsss.com -
keithvz＠verizon.net -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
ploopster＠gmail.com -
ray＠arachelian.com -
RichA＠vulcan.com -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
toby＠telegraphics.com.au -
tshoppa＠wmata.com -
wdonzelli＠gmail.com