4 ms·

I took this screenshot yesterday. This was a page showing a news article (text). http://i.imgur.com/hmFaW3M.png http://i.imgur.com/hmFaW3M.png

by coldpie 11y ago

dredmorbius 11y ago
Most of those are on my /etc/hosts blocklist. Or would be were I aware of them. Worthless crap. BTW: /etc/hosts + dnsmasq, for Linux, is amazing. (dnsmasq reads /etc/hosts and will block entire domains if listed as same).
- coldpie 11y ago
  For Firefox users, is this better than NoScript for any reason?
  - burkaman 11y ago
    I think it could make pages load marginally faster, because NoScript only stops scripts from executing, where a hosts blocklist would stop the scripts from ever being downloaded. I think, not totally sure how NoScript works.
    - coldpie 11y ago
      Nah, NoScript blocks them at load-time, too.
  - romland 11y ago
    I can't say whether it's better or worse. It's different. With NoScript you still hit "remote" servers when it comes to other resources, like images.
  - keeperofdakeys 11y ago
    For Firefox, the real comparisons are Request Policy and ublock (origin) in advanced mode (for chrome, umatrix). These do full third-party host whitelisting per domain. So every time you visit a website on a new domain, by default all requests to third parties are blocked. Then you spend a few minutes working out which ones are required. By comparison, noscript simply blocks javascript from third parties. It does include a number of anti-xss heuristics though.
    - dredmorbius 11y ago
      uBlock and uMatrix are two separate extensions. Both are available for both Chrome and Firefox.
  - dredmorbius 11y ago
    Putting hosts (and domains) under control of /etc/hosts and dnsmasq means that there's little likelihood of traffic reaching them from your browser (though Web hosts could provide back-end data transfers). It's also possible to directly address hosts by IP, though unlikely (Web protocols such as virtualhosts would fail). I'm strongly favouring uMatrix for now. It takes some tuning, but you have fine-grained control over CSS, images, scripts, XHR, frames, and other bits, by domain or host. Aggregators and CDNs confound things a bit (Akamai, Amazon's cloudy thing.)
currysausage 11y ago
Oh, why are you blocking them? They are trying to enhance your experience on that website. /s
chestervonwinch 11y ago
This is the problem exactly - it doesn't have anything to do with the language ... too many damn bells and whistles and too many damn analytics / ad libraries. If you're delivering content, you should focus on delivering the content. My computer shouldn't nearly freeze trying to read a recipe, or the weather, or a simple news article, etc ...

I took this screenshot yesterday. This was a page showing a news article (text). http://i.imgur.com/hmFaW3M.png http://i.imgur.com/hmFaW3M.png

by coldpie 11y ago

I took this screenshot yesterday. This was a page showing a news article (text). http://i.imgur.com/hmFaW3M.png http://i.imgur.com/hmFaW3M.png

dredmorbius 11y ago

Most of those are on my /etc/hosts blocklist. Or would be were I aware of them. Worthless crap. BTW: /etc/hosts + dnsmasq, for Linux, is amazing. (dnsmasq reads /etc/hosts and will block entire domains if listed as same).

coldpie 11y ago
For Firefox users, is this better than NoScript for any reason?
- burkaman 11y ago
  I think it could make pages load marginally faster, because NoScript only stops scripts from executing, where a hosts blocklist would stop the scripts from ever being downloaded. I think, not totally sure how NoScript works.
  - coldpie 11y ago
    Nah, NoScript blocks them at load-time, too.
- romland 11y ago
  I can't say whether it's better or worse. It's different. With NoScript you still hit "remote" servers when it comes to other resources, like images.
- keeperofdakeys 11y ago
  For Firefox, the real comparisons are Request Policy and ublock (origin) in advanced mode (for chrome, umatrix). These do full third-party host whitelisting per domain. So every time you visit a website on a new domain, by default all requests to third parties are blocked. Then you spend a few minutes working out which ones are required. By comparison, noscript simply blocks javascript from third parties. It does include a number of anti-xss heuristics though.
  - dredmorbius 11y ago
    uBlock and uMatrix are two separate extensions. Both are available for both Chrome and Firefox.
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  Putting hosts (and domains) under control of /etc/hosts and dnsmasq means that there's little likelihood of traffic reaching them from your browser (though Web hosts could provide back-end data transfers). It's also possible to directly address hosts by IP, though unlikely (Web protocols such as virtualhosts would fail). I'm strongly favouring uMatrix for now. It takes some tuning, but you have fine-grained control over CSS, images, scripts, XHR, frames, and other bits, by domain or host. Aggregators and CDNs confound things a bit (Akamai, Amazon's cloudy thing.)

currysausage 11y ago

Oh, why are you blocking them? They are trying to enhance your experience on that website. /s

chestervonwinch 11y ago

This is the problem exactly - it doesn't have anything to do with the language ... too many damn bells and whistles and too many damn analytics / ad libraries. If you're delivering content, you should focus on delivering the content. My computer shouldn't nearly freeze trying to read a recipe, or the weather, or a simple news article, etc ...