Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Right to protest (Score 1) 333 333

I like the convenience of knowing how much my ride will cost beforehand.

I've had no problem booking a taxi on the fly and getting a fixed price set over the phone before the Taxi even arrived.

I like the payment to be something that I don't need to personally give the driver.

Outside of cash, I'm able to pay taxis by phone app, card in the cab and even cab over the phone to an operator.

Comment: Re:Spending money on more = good? LOL! (Score 1) 290 290

Post 2/2, stupid lameness filter:

It's not HOSTS' problem

It's still resulted in a broken part of the OS.

TURNING IT OFF SAVES CPU CYCLES + RAM & OTHER FORMS OF I/O WASTED ON A FAULTY SERVICE stupid!

You know, one of the few cases where I would genuinely consider using hosts file blocking is on a device that moves around a lot, across different networks like a laptop (and this is because some hotspots prevent doing DNS lookups outside of using their DNS server). However, breaking the DNS cache is a no go when you have to deal with connectivity issues of various wireless networks and mobile phone signal issues.

P.S.=> You're FAV COLOR = 'transparent' since you're SO EASY TO SEE THROUGH!

I don't think 'transparent' can be defined as a colour.

Well, I "SEE YOU" troll

If I really wanted to get a rise out of you repeatedly, I could go on about how I noticed you seemed to have no responses regarding the other devices in my house hold that can't use hosts files, I also noticed you didn't have a response regarding the efficiency points I had. Nor have you acknowledged that there is no issue nor provided any data to counter what I found.

But, I don't need to in the course of this conversation, because I am not attempting to do so and I already know exactly why you haven't.

Comment: Re:Spending money on more = good? LOL! (Score 1) 290 290

Post 1/2, stupid lameness filter:

AshFox piles on/spends "moar" more = good? Inefficient! More moving parts complexity for breakdown + SPENDING MONEY to do it ENTAILS THAT!

DD WRT is just a free opensource firmware firmware for a good chunk of Linux based consumer routers that numerous consumers likely already own, often providing better firmware than the original firmware.

Ahem:When you do a STUPID THING LIKE YOU DID, blocking COMPLETE DOMAINS when limited subdomains are the problem ONLY

I'd rather block entire domains that I know are under the control of malicious entities, risking them creating a new subdomain seems pointless considering how trivial it is with DNS.

(+ your datalists for the SAME data in blocking ARE LARGER & MORE COMPLEX for "deny" rules in DNS tables by far)

There are actually less rules because I set the domain (or subdomain) in question to have an invalid zone file, so the DNS server won't even store any information about it and just returns NXDOMAIN since it doesn't have any zone data at all. I don't need multiple entries for multiple subdomains if I cover an entire domain as well, thanks to the hierarchy nature of DNS.

Comment: Re:Questions (answer them) ... apk (Score 1) 290 290

1.) Does everyone have a router of a nature you describe?

DD WRTs? They're just consumer routers.

2.) Does everyone have a hosts file?

No. There are devices in my home that do not provide access to a hosts file, such as the Logitech harmony, PS3, Wii, Wii U, the 3DSes, unrooted Android and iOS devices we have here. Do they all benefit from my DNS setup which redirects certain traffic through US proxies to get access to US-only content? Yes. Do they benefit from my DNS setup which blacklists certain really 'bad' advertisements and malware sites? Yes.

Pretty certain these other devices exist with numerous other consumers too.

3.) Do custom hosts files have less "moving parts" complexity/programs to run vs. other "so-called" (BRIBED) "solutions"?

And, they take up more memory than my solution. I have a TTL of 1 minute for blacklisted domains and they don't need to pre-loaded into all the PCs on the network, therefore reducing memory consumption on all systems involved. There isn't even setup effort at all involved for any system connected, any guest on our network automatically obtains these benefits.

4.) Do custom hosts files do MORE w/ LESS?

Nope, see what I'm doing with DNS. I don't need to waste memory or CPU of multiple systems in my house to pull it off.

5.) Have YOU incorrectly claimed I "broke services" using hosts?

Yes, your method actually breaks parts of windows that you have t turn off to make it function again, you can't deny it.

P.S.=> Lastly - Those aren't 'ad hominem attacks'

An ad hominem attack involves deviating from the current argument by attacking the person's character, rather the content of their arguments. That is exactly what you were doing with that point.

Comment: Re:"Rinse, Lather, & Repeat": K.I.S.S. ... apk (Score 1) 290 290

* You saying that ADDING ON 'MoAr' (DNS or routers that MAY NOT HAVE ENOUGH RAM ONBOARD TO DO A COMPLETE LIST)

If physical memory is an issue, setting up swap isn't an issue, Linux is particularly good at storing memory that doesn't get changed frequently on swap.

P.S.=> Besides Ash-Fox: Here's YOU telling us ALL ABOUT YOU & YOUR CHARACTER ONLINE

Resorting to ad hominem attacks is genuinely the sign of someone who isn't able to handle a discussions.

Comment: Re:Hosts does it more efficiently + natively (Score 1) 290 290

Everyone has a host files but not routers w/ big RAM to do what you do

I mentioned I could do a similar setup on some crap DD-WRT router.

See subject again: FACT: You "BOLT-ON 'MOAR'", needlessly to *try* to do what I do from a SINGLE FILE in hosts, operating in kernelmode efficiency!

I don't try to do what you do, which is make things resolve to an IP address to block sites. I actually announce NXDOMAIN, there is no IP address.

SECONDLY: Using 127.0.0.1 is STU-PID vs. 0.0.0.0, & YES, for reasons you noted, incurring overheads in MANY ways!

127.0.0.1 was an example. The browser will still allocate a socket in order to attempt to connect to 0.0.0.0, even if the OS rejects it immediately. With NXDOMAIN, it doesn't even bother.

E.G.-> Larger file on disk = SLOWER loading @ the OS filesystem level (in my case, up to 30% so) vs. using the smaller 0.0.0.0!

I don't need large files to use DNS to block whole domains, unlike with hosts.

For internal parsing by the IP stack itself during initial loads into memory, NOT just file load by 4k segments usually by the logical filesystem)!

No loading for any computer on my network, it's all handled by the router.

P.S.=> Before you "give me guff" ever again? Realize something, ok?? I've been @ this stuff since 1982 on MOST every level there is, & done VERY WELL @ it (you already know this) - & I've FULLY + COMPLETELY thought this out!

Your claimed there was more electricity usage, my wattage measurements showed otherwise. You need to update your metrics.

Ever seen the film "LIMITLESS"?

No, the fact it was perpetuating the urban legend (people just using 20% of their brains) was a turn off for me.

"No scenario? I see every scenario: I see 50 scenarios! That's WHAT IT DOES, Karl - it puts ME 50 moves ahead of you..." ... apk

Easy come back: I don't need a 50 move head start.

Comment: Re:It's most unlike everyone elses (Score 1) 290 290

It's most unlike everyone elses

Of course it isn't, most people don't fiddle around with their own DNS servers.

P.S.=> Hilarious: 1 single file operating @ kernelmode level does ALL you can do, more efficiently

Not really, blacklisting entire domains doesn't work without generating multi-terabyte hosts files (of which I wasn't even able to fully test because I ran out of disk space). I also setup a cname record for every .onion record to point to an IP address that has proxypass to tor client setup to access onion URLs. I have something similar for hulu.com, adultswim.com and a few other domains to point to another LAN IP that routes those connections through a VPS I have located in the US. This is all transparent to the browser connecting to these sites on my network. As for efficiency, for black listed domains, I return NXDOMAIN, no browser even tries to connect to establish a connection to 127.0.0.1 and fails which in my experience is more instantaneous and more efficient due to the browser not bothering to even try to allocate a socket to make a connection.

Comment: Re:1 file (hosts) does it more efficiently (Score 1) 290 290

You need SLEWS of ADDED THINGS vs. myself using what I already have that's easy to manage, less complex, & more efficient + natively a part of the IP stack itself in KERNELMODE

My router is not unlike a custom setup you would get in a medium or large organisation. It works well on my network and for the users and devices of my network.

Quibble ALL YOU LIKE, & *try* to NOW tell us "oh I never said that" & your OWN WORDS trapped you!

You're mixing complexity arguments. Regardless, my router which is running 24/7 is not showing any particular wattage differences when the DNS server/daemon/service (whatever you want to call it) is turned on or off. Nor is my personal PC when toying around with a local DNS server on it. This is the point that you're trying your best to ignore.

So, how is that wondrous solution working out for the FurAffinity users?

Comment: Re:Funny you didn't use a router before (Score 1) 290 290

To be blunt: I don't think you're telling it how it is over there or the truth actually by this point: Based on those quotes of YOUR WORDS? Seems You're just vainly reaching for straws to "try get the 'better' of me" only, via lies. Your past is your undoing, read it above...

I think you're confusing my use of 'server'. In this context, it was in regard to 'server software', not 'server hardware'.

Plus, by using a router?

Indeed. Mine is however heavily customized, but that's just because I like to tinker and do a whole slew of interesting things to me personally.

Your blocklist would be too small to be TRULY effective due to small amounts of RAM on them (unless you spent TONS on say, a CISCO unit - making it costly, those are NOT CHEAP)

You might want to take at Mikrotik router boards (Linux based routers that run a custom userland), you can custom build routers to do as you like. You might want to take a look at a pre-build one like the CCR1009-8G-1S which has 1GB memory. When comes to building these boards yourself, they're generally not even close to the pricing of routers from companies like Cisco or Juniper (affordability is based on the specs you choose, they're much cheaper than building a full blown PC to do the same task here).

You ASSUME an ENTIRE DOMAIN is corrupted. That's not usually the case. Usually it's subdomains.

And numerous circumstances, it's obvious that certain domains are entirely malware ridden and shouldn't be trusted. I'm not stating that we should block relatively rare dyndns service provider domains that often have a few subdomains on blacklists.

So, are you going to go about and provide a solution to the users of FurAffinity? I would be interested to see how 'current' your solution really is.

Comment: Re:You run more, you use more... apk (Score 1) 290 290

YOU IN PARTICULAR ACTUALLY USE ANOTHER SYSTEM: THAT CERTAINLY MEANS MORE POWER CONSUMED IN & OF ITSELF!

Yes, that other system is my router. Without it, I would have no Internet at home.

When you run my program, it starts you out with between a 3-11mb hosts file (on average) - that's not "massive" & it's absolutely CURRENT data.

I've already told you, I'd rather block the entire domain owned by malware operators.

You don't NEED it resident (though it's great for protecting hosts that way if left resident) - even I don't leave it resident since the next run of it refreshes hosts from a PRISTINE copy of NEW data (unless you merge it with older data, which I DO, do (experimenting how FAR I can push hosts file data size for years now)).

Why don't you promote your solution on FurAffinity right now? The user base are having a crisis with the advertising, see comments on:

https://www.furaffinity.net/jo...

They have already done numerous changes with site updates that works around 'fixes' people keep coming up with.

Comment: Re:Switching DNS to TCP vs. UDP (Score 1) 290 290

Which also in turn, means YOU WILL USE MORE ELECTRICAL POWER just by running more parts (if not a separate system for DNS which really tears up more power)!

No discernible increase in power usage was detected at all in my wattage meters. The system I run DNS off for my LAN is still taking only 20watts average, even after turning the DNS server on. On my own PC, the a similar is true (no discernible difference) when turning on or off a DNS daemon/service as well. No discernible difference is seen either when using DNS requests, even when doing a simple loop in DNS resolution like:

http://pastebin.com/gP3QSc9K

Which right there, is again, LESS efficient than hosts which are a NATIVE part of any OS bearing a BSD derived IP stack (most all, if NOT all do)!

This could be true for a specific entry, but not true where you stick a massive hosts file in, where you had to generate every single possible subdomain to a domain in order block the whole domain, assuming you even had the space for over one terabyte worth of entries to do so verses a very simple zone file to block an entire domain in DNS.

You also introduce complexity (especially vs. hosts single file easy internal design) + room for breakdown - & don't even *TRY* tell us DNS "never breaks down" either (that'd be complete bullshit).

How about, I don't observe any issues with my setup. The DNS server never crashed, the DNS server went down on me, the DNS server never started resolving something I specifically blackholed.

P.S.=> You are stupid if you actually *BELIEVE* "bolting on more moving parts" is more efficient smarter design (especially for a single user system or small home LAN)... apk

If we're in the situation of blocking malicious domains, I would rather use DNS than hosts files where it takes over 1 terabyte of entries to just fully block one domain (as you have to generate every possible subdomain combination for a domain in the hosts file otherwise).

God damn this lameness filter, can't write posts now.

Comment: Re:A PhD agrees w/ me on hosts Ash-Fox (Score 1) 290 290

Just like you didn't have proof to back up your bluster of creating successfully sold commercial code to your name/credit independently!

Remember how your original argument years ago was evidence about programming something significant and I provided, now it's changing to selling commercial code. You do like changing the argument when it suits you, don't you? Of course, you will do your usual spiel of dismissing things that don't agree with your 'proof'. This by the way, is why I am not too fussed about proving anything with you any more.

I could provide the evidence, but, what difference does it make when this argument is really just an off topic attempt to dismiss me because you have more 'worthy credentials'?

It's absurd that after all this time, you have still failed to address key points I have made in the past such as blocking entire domains (I even generated giant hosts files to do it and in turn it broke parts of the operating system in the process to (dis)prove the reality of hosts files being 'more efficient'), the vulnerabilities you mention are a non-issue for the DNS server setup I have and don't seem to have any notable difference in electricity supply through wattage monitoring when the DNS daemon/service is turned on verses not.

Comment: Re:Tell us about your "NDA" bullshit again (Score 1) 290 290

I have successfully commercially sold code to my name with proof of it right in that link, & you don't..

In that post you link, I point out some good reasons, such as, you harassing people's ISPs. If I were to provide my real life details to you, it doesn't seem unlikely that you would harass me in other ways. Do not fret though, I have delivered numerous commercial solutions and I know from experience, that showing you evidence of any work delivered just ends up being ignored through one of your many excuses. After all, I was kind enough to show you one of the open source projects I am involved in that didn't have have my work's usual NDA stuff (because it's not a work related project). It isn't surprising though that you wouldn't know about such things.

P.S.=> I had no problems whatsoever showing anyone reading here that you're a "ne'er-do-well" bullshitter that hasn't done squat - prove otherwise (OH, THAT'S RIGHT - YOU? CAN'T!)... apk

As displayed in the linked thread, you weren't too interested in being shown otherwise. I'm sure you would find a mired of excuses to not accept anything shown to you.

Comment: Re:Nope, fair enough, apologies... apk (Score 1) 290 290

However, the TRUE dimwit that's stalked & harassed me MANY TIMES here (Ash-Fox)

I don't stalk you APK and I don't harass you any more than you harass me and others. You did however tell me once to Google you and were quite unhappy with what I turned up, which made me wiser to some of your claims. You've made a reputation for yourself and you've done it with your real name. The repercussions you've had surprisingly has had little harassment. When I got doxed for implementing a piece of software to detect copyright theft software in a game, I had death threats in the form of comics and letters sent to my home address. Then again, I don't think people get that emotional about hosts files, present company excluded of course.

I am genuinely surprised that after all this time, trolling groups haven't discovered you and started some obsessive Wiki about everything you do similar to what they have done to Chris Chan. I am somewhat concerned you do draw the attention of these people, while you do say some ridiculous things and have an ego, your interests are not typically nefarious (outside of maybe 'winning arguments').

myself as I literally have shown in replies to him which you are free to examine (which admittedly has me worked up since it never ends from that little prick) will NOT admit what YOU have stated

I've already told you, you have reading comprehension issues in our previous threads. You constantly think you have won an argument when you post until the other person stops responding, you haven't won, that's just argumentum ad nauseum. I'll admit when I believe I'm wrong (most of the time), the fact you haven't got me to admit it, means I genuinely don't believe I am wrong in this matter.

Your good nature will bring you unbounded happiness.

Working...