MVPS HOSTS File Update January-18-2012

[siljaline]

Dustin wrote:
<snipped>

> Much more so under the win9x flavors.

The file system on Windows 9 x is not the same Kernel as
XP on up.

Regardless of file size on a 9 x PC there should be no noticeable
slowness. This is moot since no one should be running a 9 x PC these
days unless it's for running Beta software, otherwise you'd be in the Stoneage.

Silj


--
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from
-- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
- Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_

[Virus Guy]

siljaline wrote:

> > Much more so under the win9x flavors.
>
> The file system on Windows 9 x is not the same Kernel as
> XP on up.

I'm not quite sure why you're mixing the term "kernel" with file-system,
but if you are referring to the 4-GB file-size limitation of FAT32 -
I'll go out on a limb and say that Win-98 can probably handle most HOSTS
files regardless of size.

> Regardless of file size on a 9 x PC there should be no noticeable
> slowness. This is moot since no one should be running a 9x PC these
> days unless it's for ...

Does the taste of Microsoft's koolaid get better with time?

Oh, sorry, I forgot. NT is made from the finest, most expensive
threads. I must be the only one that hasn't seen the emperor's new
clothes.

Getting back to my original point -

What's the MVPS policy regarding inclusion of Google's various
ad-serving and behavior-tracking machines in the MVPS HOSTS file?

I've added every google host-name I can find to my (arguably dated) copy
of the MVPS hosts file - while still allowing the basic google search
page and google-maps to operate that is. I've also added every twitter
and feacesbook host I can find to completely rid by browser of those
web-cancers.

So I guess it's conceivable that my "enhancements" could be why I'm
seeing increasing bogging while browsing.

[Virus Guy]

I wrote:

> I've added every google host-name I can find to my (arguably dated)
> copy of the MVPS hosts file - while still allowing the basic google
> search page and google-maps to operate that is. I've also added
> every twitter and feacesbook host I can find to completely rid by
> browser of those web-cancers.
>
> So I guess it's conceivable that my "enhancements" could be why
> I'm seeing increasing bogging while browsing.

See also:

http://blog.patrickmeenan.com/

============
Browsing the broken web

For the purposes of this example I'll be "breaking" the twitter,
Facebook and Google buttons as well as the Google API server (jquery,
etc) and Google Analytics.

Now that we have a blackhole server, breaking the web is just a matter
of populating some entries in your hosts file
(C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts on windows). Go ahead and add
these entries and save the updated hosts file:


72.66.115.13 ajax.googleapis.com
72.66.115.13 apis.google.com
72.66.115.13 www.google-analytics.com
72.66.115.13 connect.facebook.net
72.66.115.13 platform.twitter.com

....and go browse the web. It shouldn't take you long to find a site
that is infuriatingly painful to browse. Congratulations, you just
experienced a Frontend SPOF - now go fix it so your users don't have to
feel the same pain (assuming it is a site you control, otherwise just
yell at the owner).
==============

The IP 72.66.115.13 is blackhole.webpagetest.org, a "server" set up by
the author such that it can be routed to, but drops all connections. I
don't know why that was necessary (or what the difference is) in using
local host (127.0.0.1) which I would think would give the same behavior.

I do have all the above host-names in my HOSTS file, BTW.

I would really appreciate it if someone here can tell me the purpose of
ajax.googleapis.com. As in - what is it designed to serve up - and how
does my web-experience change if I block it.

[Dustin]

Virus Guy <Virus@Guy.com> wrote in news:4F18BE8B.D023384C@Guy.com:

> I would really appreciate it if someone here can tell me the purpose
> of ajax.googleapis.com. As in - what is it designed to serve up -
> and how does my web-experience change if I block it.

It's a data analysis tool. For web developers. It allows them to track
more specific details about who visits the site and where they go, how
long they stayed on each page etc. It collects anonymous data, Site admins
can't identify you specifically from it.

if you block it, you deny the web developers statistical data.


--
Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too
many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by,
and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J.C. Watts

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Dustin" <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com>

| Virus Guy <Virus@Guy.com> wrote in news:4F18BE8B.D023384C@Guy.com:
|
>> I would really appreciate it if someone here can tell me the purpose
>> of ajax.googleapis.com. As in - what is it designed to serve up -
>> and how does my web-experience change if I block it.
|
| It's a data analysis tool. For web developers. It allows them to track
| more specific details about who visits the site and where they go, how
| long they stayed on each page etc. It collects anonymous data, Site admins
| can't identify you specifically from it.
|
| if you block it, you deny the web developers statistical data.
|

LOL - GOOD !
Block it ! :-)



--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[Dustin]

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
news:wPGdnVyzS_0OrIfSnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@giganews.com :

> From: "Dustin" <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com>
>
>| Virus Guy <Virus@Guy.com> wrote in news:4F18BE8B.D023384C@Guy.com:
>|
>>> I would really appreciate it if someone here can tell me the
>>> purpose of ajax.googleapis.com. As in - what is it designed to
>>> serve up - and how does my web-experience change if I block it.
>|
>| It's a data analysis tool. For web developers. It allows them to
>| track more specific details about who visits the site and where they
>| go, how long they stayed on each page etc. It collects anonymous
>| data, Site admins can't identify you specifically from it.
>|
>| if you block it, you deny the web developers statistical data.
>|
>
> LOL - GOOD !
> Block it ! :-)
>
>
>

The graph looks cool tho. LOL! From the web development screens.. It's a
cool flowchart.


--
Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too
many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and
the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J.C. Watts

[Etal]

Virus Guy wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>> I've added every google host-name I can find to my (arguably dated)
>> copy of the MVPS hosts file - while still allowing the basic
>> google search page and google-maps to operate that is. I've also
>> added every twitter and feacesbook host I can find to completely
>> rid by browser of those web-cancers.
>>
>> So I guess it's conceivable that my "enhancements" could be why I'm
>> seeing increasing bogging while browsing.
>
> See also:
>
> http://blog.patrickmeenan.com/
>
> ============
> Browsing the broken web
>
> For the purposes of this example I'll be "breaking" the twitter,
> Facebook and Google buttons as well as the Google API server (jquery,
> etc) and Google Analytics.
>
> Now that we have a blackhole server, breaking the web is just a
> matter of populating some entries in your hosts file
> (C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts on windows). Go ahead and add
> these entries and save the updated hosts file:
>
>
> 72.66.115.13 ajax.googleapis.com
> 72.66.115.13 apis.google.com
> 72.66.115.13 www.google-analytics.com
> 72.66.115.13 connect.facebook.net
> 72.66.115.13 platform.twitter.com
>
> ...and go browse the web. It shouldn't take you long to find a site
> that is infuriatingly painful to browse. Congratulations, you just
> experienced a Frontend SPOF - now go fix it so your users don't have
> to feel the same pain (assuming it is a site you control, otherwise
> just yell at the owner). ==============
>
> The IP 72.66.115.13 is blackhole.webpagetest.org, a "server" set up
> by the author such that it can be routed to, but drops all
> connections. I don't know why that was necessary (or what the
> difference is) in using local host (127.0.0.1) which I would think
> would give the same behavior.
>
> I do have all the above host-names in my HOSTS file, BTW.
>

While visiting neither googleapis.com, google.com,
google-analytics.com, facebook.net nor twitter.com my web-browser has
made /surprising/ URL requests to the above five servers (as well as to
many other servers).
When such uncalled for (by me) 3rd party requests happen and the
requests are for something i don't see any benefit from; Perhaps
something tiny like a 1*1 pixel tracking picture or a large obfuscated
JavaScript, that for all i know (to paraphrase from a recent post by
FromTheRafters) might lead to shellcode and exploits for Java, Flash,
and Adobe Reader .. then they get an honorable mention in my "hosts"
file. So, that is what has happened with the five domains PatrickMeenan
gives as example as 3rd-party web-page widgets. (In there they're
re-pointed to 127.0.0.1)
Can't say i can see many sites taking longer to load or outright
stalling, but my broadband isn't that wide in the first place so maybe i
don't notice any difference caused by this.


> I would really appreciate it if someone here can tell me the purpose
> of ajax.googleapis.com. As in - what is it designed to serve up -
> and how does my web-experience change if I block it.

As i understand Dustin's response, that server doesn't give us as a
web-client users any benefits. IMO - If a web-site designer/writer wants
to look at how his web-pages works he shouldn't send each random visitor
off to 3rd party servers without asking, but be using tools and look at
logs on the server that the web-site is located on.


--
Nah-ah. I'm staying out of this. ... Now, here's my opinion.

[Dustin]

Virus Guy <Virus@Guy.com> wrote in news:4F18B3FE.B6F77947@Guy.com:

> I'm not quite sure why you're mixing the term "kernel" with
> file-system, but if you are referring to the 4-GB file-size
> limitation of FAT32 - I'll go out on a limb and say that Win-98 can
> probably handle most HOSTS files regardless of size.

On a line by line basis, yes.

> Does the taste of Microsoft's koolaid get better with time?

Please explain... what you mean by this?

> Oh, sorry, I forgot. NT is made from the finest, most expensive
> threads. I must be the only one that hasn't seen the emperor's new
> clothes.

Well, it's hardly a secret that you don't know much about the subjects you
profess to have knowledge of.

> So I guess it's conceivable that my "enhancements" could be why I'm
> seeing increasing bogging while browsing.

It's a simple matter really. The more dummy domains you add to the file,
the more lines windows gets to scan real quick every single time you try
to visit a domain.

Why not just run firefox and noscript?


--
Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too
many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by,
and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J.C. Watts

[Dustin]

"siljaline" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in news:jf9g4q$4oa$1@dont-email.me:

> Dustin wrote:
> <snipped>
>
>> Much more so under the win9x flavors.
>
> The file system on Windows 9 x is not the same Kernel as
> XP on up.

I wasn't discussing the file system. Fat32/ntfs have no trouble with a few
hundred kilobytes. The DNS services however... Aren't so impressed.

> Regardless of file size on a 9 x PC there should be no noticeable
> slowness. This is moot since no one should be running a 9 x PC these
> days unless it's for running Beta software, otherwise you'd be in the
> Stoneage.

Again,

If you have thousands of entries redirected to loopback, it will take your
box a moment or two to resolve them. (IE: line by line reading on whatever
domain you enter to compare it to your custom hosts file.) While the
access time isn't long, it's far from "not noticable" if you have a huge
file.


--
Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too
many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and
the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J.C. Watts