Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [linux] Whatever happened to "Linux Magazine"?

Expand Messages
  • Duce
    For several years I subscribed to Linux Magazine.  Suddenly, last August, I started getting a monster magazine called Linux Pro Magazine with no indication
    Message 1 of 25 , Mar 31, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      For several years I subscribed to Linux Magazine.  Suddenly, last
      August, I started getting a monster magazine called "Linux Pro
      Magazine" with no indication of what had happened.  I noticed that I
      had not received a July, 2008 issue of Linux Magazine, so I suspect
      that Linux Magazine went belly up and the remaining portion of my
      subscription went to Linux Pro.  There was no note about an impending
      change in the last few issues of Linux Magazine, so I assume that
      whatever happened, happened quickly.


      Well, what happen to Linux Magazine is that it's now strictly online. Same great articles, but it cuts down on paper waste. I do like the physical paper ones though, because I don't like to stare at a screen all day if I really like to read something. *shrugs*

      I'm guessing all print will be strictly in digital format in years to come, and "books," "magazines" and "newspapers" will be talked about by us, then, Old Timers. We'll see. I say kill a whole forest if you have to, just as long as I don't have to stare at an electronic screen.





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • ed
      ... Hash: SHA1 ... It s not so easy to tear out the adverts in digital copies... - -- The dirt trail to the moon pop is reporting 100% packet loss because of
      Message 2 of 25 , Apr 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
        Hash: SHA1

        On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 03:33:51PM -0700, Duce wrote:
        > I'm guessing all print will be strictly in digital format in years to come, and "books," "magazines" and "newspapers" will be talked about by us, then, Old Timers. We'll see. I say kill a whole forest if you have to, just as long as I don't have to stare at an electronic screen.

        It's not so easy to tear out the adverts in digital copies...

        - --
        The dirt trail to the moon pop is reporting 100% packet loss because of Windows 95.
        Tech Support is watching IP theater.
        :: http://www.s5h.net/ :: http://www.s5h.net/gpg.html
        -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
        Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

        iEUEARECAAYFAknTF5QACgkQ4dyr7s6PRYiwLACXcOR/8tAD8cc4T30Q+fIJ0Hws
        gQCeLx9n3FHarP4rjqJa8bjuRi1V40I=
        =t5RU
        -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
      • Godwin Stewart
        ... Hash: SHA1 ... No, but it *is* easy to craft a useful /etc/hosts file.... 0.0.0.0 ad.doubleclick.net or set up BIND as a simple caching nameserver with a
        Message 3 of 25 , Apr 1, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
          Hash: SHA1

          On 01/04/09 08:28, ed wrote:

          > It's not so easy to tear out the adverts in digital copies...

          No, but it *is* easy to craft a useful /etc/hosts file....

          0.0.0.0 ad.doubleclick.net

          or set up BIND as a simple caching nameserver with a useful /etc/named.conf
          file pointing nuisance domains to an empty zonefile...

          It always makes me laugh how my partner, who doesn't want to use Linux,
          always has a screen full of ads when browsing while I can actually see the
          content of the page I'm trying to read :)

          - --
          G. Stewart - grs.ygroups@...

          Frisbeetarianism, n.:
          The belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and
          gets stuck.
          -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
          Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
          Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

          iD8DBQFJ0zTVQFKNtNdpr3YRArugAJ9TH38PvtQ7VhNnyPj9m+oSNgGn7gCeJvM6
          Ho4o/dBGYZAyWVmJfA0cU/c=
          =Pci1
          -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
        • Brad Rogers
          ... Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 07:28:20 +0000 ed wrote: Hello ed, ... Prt Scr, assigned to KSnapshot works quite nicely. :-) - -- Regards _
          Message 4 of 25 , Apr 1, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
            Hash: SHA1

            On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 07:28:20 +0000
            ed <ed@...> wrote:

            Hello ed,

            > It's not so easy to tear out the adverts in digital copies...

            Prt Scr, assigned to KSnapshot works quite nicely. :-)

            - --
            Regards _
            / ) "The blindingly obvious is
            / _)rad never immediately apparent"

            Early morning when I wake up, I look like Kiss but without the make up
            Strong - Robbie Williams
            -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
            Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

            iEYEARECAAYFAknTd2MACgkQlKeS34uB62mC/ACffdDS5stO2F+YwcYr4GclYKUe
            kLYAnA/Id30y12XS5OAXb3DE8DrbgE+X
            =FLIC
            -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
          • Thad Floryan
            ... Now *THAT* (using /etc/hosts) is one of the most useful tips I ve seen in ages! Many thanks! As a payback, assuming your partner is using, ahem, Windows,
            Message 5 of 25 , Apr 1, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In linux@yahoogroups.com, Godwin Stewart <grs.ygroups@...> wrote:
              >
              > On 01/04/09 08:28, ed wrote:
              >
              > > It's not so easy to tear out the adverts in digital copies...
              >
              > No, but it *is* easy to craft a useful /etc/hosts file....
              >
              > 0.0.0.0 ad.doubleclick.net
              >
              > or set up BIND as a simple caching nameserver with a useful
              > /etc/named.conf file pointing nuisance domains to an empty
              > zonefile...
              >
              > It always makes me laugh how my partner, who doesn't want to use
              > Linux, always has a screen full of ads when browsing while I can
              > actually see the content of the page I'm trying to read :)

              Now *THAT* (using /etc/hosts) is one of the most useful tips I've seen
              in ages! Many thanks!

              As a payback, assuming your partner is using, ahem, Windows, there has
              been an /etc/hosts equivalent on Windows OSs for at least 10 years now
              (Win2K, WinXP, Vista, Win7) per:

              C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts

              Yes, "hosts" (without ".txt"). Its format is identical to Linux/UNIX
              for some POSIX compatibility.
            • Godwin Stewart
              ... Hash: SHA1 ... Indeed, but it is far from as effective as the DNS trick. - -- G. Stewart - grs.ygroups@horwits.com Sign in a Chinese pet store: Buy one
              Message 6 of 25 , Apr 2, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
                Hash: SHA1

                On 02/04/09 01:28, Thad Floryan wrote:

                > As a payback, assuming your partner is using, ahem, Windows, there has
                > been an /etc/hosts equivalent on Windows OSs for at least 10 years now
                > (Win2K, WinXP, Vista, Win7) per:

                Indeed, but it is far from as effective as the DNS trick.

                - --
                G. Stewart - grs.ygroups@...

                Sign in a Chinese pet store: "Buy one dog, get one flea..."
                -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
                Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
                Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

                iD8DBQFJ1GgDQFKNtNdpr3YRArT1AJ9/07NDgrz2jux50/E+jPgr2zPVxwCfQGAB
                2W+PlQIh2u8leKmzRUFurzE=
                =fTfG
                -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
              • Matt Bailey
                ... ... Yes, and it works just great. Yet another example of a Windows capability that no one uses/is aware of. As much as Windows sucks,
                Message 7 of 25 , Apr 2, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Wednesday 01 April 2009 17:28:18 Thad Floryan wrote:
                  > --- In linux@yahoogroups.com, Godwin Stewart <grs.ygroups@...> wrote:
                  <snippage in effect>
                  >
                  > Now *THAT* (using /etc/hosts) is one of the most useful tips I've seen
                  > in ages! Many thanks!
                  >
                  > As a payback, assuming your partner is using, ahem, Windows, there has
                  > been an /etc/hosts equivalent on Windows OSs for at least 10 years now
                  > (Win2K, WinXP, Vista, Win7) per:
                  >
                  > C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts
                  >
                  > Yes, "hosts" (without ".txt"). Its format is identical to Linux/UNIX
                  > for some POSIX compatibility.

                  Yes, and it works just great. Yet another example of a Windows capability that
                  no one uses/is aware of. As much as Windows sucks, in some ways it actually
                  doesn't suck quite so much as we usually see, because of configuration
                  changes that can be made or little features like the hosts file, but no one
                  cares to actually go try stuff and figure out these features. Hosts is a good
                  example.....rather than actually editing the hosts file, people rely on
                  cheesy ad-blockers (certain Firefox plug-ins exempt here) and the cliche
                  nearly-useless canon of overly simplistic firewall (usually the one that
                  comes with Windows), IE's pop-up blocker, and an overpriced "anti-spyware"
                  and anti-virus + e-mail scanner ("because I use Outbreak Excess and can't be
                  trusted to screen my e-mails") + link scanner ("because I am a gullible
                  clueless user of the Web and will click on just about anything unless it has
                  a red flag or some other sort of cheesy warning on it") + real-time
                  protection "agent" that slows the machine to a crawl. Actually, since Windows
                  users love point-and-click so much, you know what would make a lot of sense?
                  For someone to write a handy graphical utility or browser plug-in to block
                  websites using hosts (ergo, you see an advertisement website, so you tell the
                  app it's bad and the app gives that domain an IP to nowhere in hosts).
                  Instead, software writers give us an endless supply of junk "registry
                  cleaners" and system cleanup utilities. The ONLY security app of any sort
                  I've ever seen that uses hosts is Spybot Search and Destroy. It has a list of
                  hundreds of known bad sites that it puts in hosts, redirected to
                  localhost/127.0.0.1. What's sad is I worked with this program myself for
                  several weeks at my first PC repair job before I actually noticed/realized
                  what it was doing by putting those entries in there.

                  People love The Big Button. Rather than actually assume even a cursory
                  understanding of computers and basic fundamental functionality, they just
                  want their security app or whatever to only say "this and that are wrong or
                  out of date" and a big ol' button next to it that says "Fix All" that will
                  automagically shush all their problems away and reward them with a nice green
                  check mark for that status-quo false sense of security...sort of like the
                  current US cultural climate and government policy, come to think of it.

                  K, rant over. Caught me on a semi-bad day. :P

                  Matt
                • Jeff Lane
                  You know... this is the first lecture I give in the Intro to Linux class I teach at the local community college. The nutshell version is that, on a scale of 1
                  Message 8 of 25 , Apr 2, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    You know... this is the first lecture I give in the Intro to Linux
                    class I teach at the local community college.

                    The nutshell version is that, on a scale of 1 to 100, with 100 being highest...

                    Prior to 1995, the average skill level of computer users, be they
                    Dos/Windows 1,2,or 3.x, Unix, MacOS, or whatever was around 75-80 on
                    the scale. After the advent of Windows 95, that average skill level
                    dropped to about 35. The law of averages. The reason being that
                    after 95, everyone and their brother could point and click their way
                    around a computer and not have to understand anything at all, hence
                    the worst tech support line ever: I can't get my AOL.

                    This was both a Good Thing[tm] in that now everyone could have access
                    to the power of computers, and a Bad Thing[tm] because those same
                    people had no clue. Add on to that Microsoft's stragegy of
                    monopolization in the desktop/home-user space and we get what we have
                    today. MS dominating those markets with nearly 95% ownership, and the
                    virus of the day being spread because the people who write virii and
                    worms target the most number of systems with the least amount of work.

                    But I'm just preaching to the choir, here. We all know this, and know
                    it well. And I share in your frustration over this (try teaching
                    Linux to a group of people who have never known anything BUT Windows
                    95 or later). The students I get that have some Unix or pre Win9x
                    experience are usually the ones that do well, and the ones that have
                    never left a GUI have that idiot mindset.

                    But the same can be said for any other piece of technology too. How
                    many people could actually tell you HOW a car works? Even in the
                    basic terms... and how many of those would just go insane trying to
                    wrap their minds around the fact that an internal combustion engine is
                    really nothing more than a powerful air pump, because in reality,
                    that's all it is. And how many of them could even tell you how to do
                    basic things like changing oil, rotating tire, or hell, even putting a
                    spare tire on? Not too many...

                    So the point is, I am in agreement with you and hate Windows for this
                    very reason. On the other hand, I also use Windows for certain tasks
                    because, quite honestly, it is the best tool for some jobs. I'm a
                    mechanic... and I have lots of tools, and I use the right one when I
                    need to, but...

                    My windows Host files are usually several thousand lines long and
                    route most all ad servers I know of to localhost. speeds up surfing,
                    and no popups. Firefox's popup blocker catches the rest ;-)

                    Cheers
                    Jeff
                  • Harold Williams
                    ... At the risk of looking really dumb...Could someone explain what using /etc/hosts means? If it is better than using Adblock plus in Firefox then I would
                    Message 9 of 25 , Apr 2, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In linux@yahoogroups.com, "Thad Floryan" <thad@...> wrote:

                      > Now *THAT* (using /etc/hosts) is one of the most useful tips I've seen
                      > in ages! Many thanks!
                      >
                      > As a payback, assuming your partner is using, ahem, Windows, there has
                      > been an /etc/hosts equivalent on Windows OSs for at least 10 years now
                      > (Win2K, WinXP, Vista, Win7) per:
                      >
                      > C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts
                      >
                      > Yes, "hosts" (without ".txt"). Its format is identical to Linux/UNIX
                      > for some POSIX compatibility.

                      At the risk of looking really dumb...Could someone explain what using /etc/hosts means?

                      If it is better than using Adblock plus in Firefox then I would like to implement it.

                      Thanks,
                      Harold
                    • Godwin Stewart
                      ... Hash: SHA1 ... /etc/hosts contains the IP addresses of domain names. The resolver goes through it when looking to resolve a domain name before asking DNS.
                      Message 10 of 25 , Apr 2, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
                        Hash: SHA1

                        On 02/04/09 14:48, Harold Williams wrote:

                        > At the risk of looking really dumb...Could someone explain what using
                        > /etc/hosts means?

                        /etc/hosts contains the IP addresses of domain names. The resolver goes
                        through it when looking to resolve a domain name before asking DNS.
                        Therefore, if you have a line stating that, for example, ads.doubleclick.net
                        is on IP address 127.0.0.1, your browser will use that address and redirect
                        requests for that host to localhost instead of looking up the domain via DNS.

                        It's a quick and dirty way of making ads hosted on domains "redirected" this
                        way impossible for your browser to find and therefore display, but it does
                        have two drawbacks:

                        1) You need to have a line for every subdomain under a domain that you want
                        to conceal. So, if you want to conceal, say, host1.exmple.net,
                        host2.example.net all the way through host1000.example.net, you'd need to
                        add 1000 such lines to /etc/hosts.

                        2) It causes your networking subsystem to waste time trying to open a
                        connection on your own machine.

                        The DNS method is preferable because:

                        1) You can make the whole "example.net" domain disappear in one go with one
                        simple directive in your local nameserver's configuration file.

                        2) Domains concealed in this way really do disappear. The resolver is fed
                        information that the hostname you're trying to resolve simply doesn't exist.
                        No attempt to open a connection on your machine will take place.

                        - --
                        G. Stewart - grs.ygroups@...

                        The quickest way to double your money is to fold it in half and put it
                        back in your pocket.
                        -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
                        Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
                        Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

                        iD8DBQFJ1MXPQFKNtNdpr3YRAhbyAKCU+bhYExUA3dGBchAVTo18AdddWQCfX3yD
                        AhrThlceYWHCHT1i5jIzQRI=
                        =+7gX
                        -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
                      • Raquel
                        On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:48:56 -0000 ... I never even thought of using /etc/hosts this way, although, I use it for DNS on all our machines here. A good place to
                        Message 11 of 25 , Apr 2, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:48:56 -0000
                          "Harold Williams" <hh6199@...> wrote:

                          > --- In linux@yahoogroups.com, "Thad Floryan" <thad@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > > Now *THAT* (using /etc/hosts) is one of the most useful tips I've
                          > > seen in ages! Many thanks!
                          > >
                          >
                          > At the risk of looking really dumb...Could someone explain what
                          > using /etc/hosts means?
                          >
                          > If it is better than using Adblock plus in Firefox then I would
                          > like to implement it.
                          >
                          > Thanks,
                          > Harold
                          >

                          I never even thought of using /etc/hosts this way, although, I use it
                          for DNS on all our machines here.

                          A good place to look for information on how to use /etc/hosts is to
                          read 'man hosts'.

                          "hosts - The static table lookup for host names"

                          "This file is a simple text file that associates
                          IP addresses with hostnames, one line per IP address. For
                          each host a single line should be present with the following
                          information:

                          IP_address canonical_hostname [aliases...]"

                          --
                          Raquel
                          http://www.byraquel.com
                          ============================================================
                          Oppression can only survive through silence.

                          --Carmen de Monteflores
                        • Raquel
                          On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:03:59 +0100 ... Okay, dumb question. Is it advisable to setup a caching nameserver on a laptop that wanders around? -- Raquel
                          Message 12 of 25 , Apr 2, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:03:59 +0100
                            Godwin Stewart <grs.ygroups@...> wrote:

                            > The DNS method is preferable because:

                            Okay, dumb question. Is it advisable to setup a caching nameserver
                            on a laptop that wanders around?

                            --
                            Raquel
                            http://www.byraquel.com
                            ============================================================
                            Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a
                            victim. Accept no one's definition of your life; define yourself.

                            --Harvey Fierstein
                          • Godwin Stewart
                            ... Hash: SHA1 ... If it has enough RAM to run BIND without making it eat into swap space all the time, there s no reason why not. - -- G. Stewart -
                            Message 13 of 25 , Apr 2, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
                              Hash: SHA1

                              On 02/04/09 16:34, Raquel wrote:

                              > Okay, dumb question. Is it advisable to setup a caching nameserver
                              > on a laptop that wanders around?

                              If it has enough RAM to run BIND without making it eat into swap space all
                              the time, there's no reason why not.

                              - --
                              G. Stewart - grs.ygroups@...

                              The only person to get all of his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe
                              -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
                              Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
                              Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

                              iD8DBQFJ1NuZQFKNtNdpr3YRAjgQAJ0VG5F6kGO/oUDi/qjsrcwfIgIeRQCfX5cv
                              f435PDTuYzemdKNavefMIdY=
                              =13qM
                              -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
                            • Raquel
                              On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:36:58 +0100 ... My guess is that 3GB is enough. ;-) I just wasn t sure that a laptop under different network conditions would benefit
                              Message 14 of 25 , Apr 2, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:36:58 +0100
                                Godwin Stewart <grs.ygroups@...> wrote:

                                > On 02/04/09 16:34, Raquel wrote:
                                >
                                > > Okay, dumb question. Is it advisable to setup a caching
                                > > nameserver on a laptop that wanders around?
                                >
                                > If it has enough RAM to run BIND without making it eat into swap
                                > space all the time, there's no reason why not.
                                >
                                > - --
                                > G. Stewart - grs.ygroups@...
                                >

                                My guess is that 3GB is enough. ;-) I just wasn't sure that a
                                laptop under different network conditions would benefit from the
                                caching server. Thank you, Godwin!

                                --
                                Raquel
                                http://www.byraquel.com
                                ============================================================
                                Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a
                                victim. Accept no one's definition of your life; define yourself.

                                --Harvey Fierstein
                              • Thad Floryan
                                ... speeds up surfing, ... An email correspondent revealed this URL to me last night: Their present (March 15,
                                Message 15 of 25 , Apr 2, 2009
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In linux@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Lane <sundowner225@...> wrote:
                                  > [...]
                                  > My windows Host files are usually several thousand lines long and
                                  > route most all ad servers I know of to localhost.
                                  speeds up surfing,
                                  > and no popups. Firefox's popup blocker catches the rest ;-)

                                  An email correspondent revealed this URL to me last night:

                                  <http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm>

                                  Their present (March 15, 2009) hosts file is 16,500 lines long.

                                  With trepidation (given its size), I tested it on one of my Windows
                                  systems and it works fine. It's a pleasure not seeing ads or having
                                  a page load stalled due to an ad site's problems. :-)

                                  Contrary to some instructions at the above URL, the system does not
                                  need to be rebooted to use the modified hosts file.

                                  16+K lines in a hosts file is really pushing it, though, and is
                                  reminiscent of the old hosts file(s) at SRI during ARPANET days.

                                  A DNS-based solution should be considerably more efficient than a
                                  sequential search of the hosts file.
                                • ed
                                  ... Hash: SHA1 ... Oh that s ok when the ads are not embedded in the pdf. I subscribe to linux format, and they include the ads sometimes in the spreads, as if
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Apr 3, 2009
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
                                    Hash: SHA1

                                    On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 07:28:20AM +0000, ed wrote:
                                    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
                                    > Hash: SHA1
                                    >
                                    > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 03:33:51PM -0700, Duce wrote:
                                    > > I'm guessing all print will be strictly in digital format in years to come, and "books," "magazines" and "newspapers" will be talked about by us, then, Old Timers. We'll see. I say kill a whole forest if you have to, just as long as I don't have to stare at an electronic screen.
                                    >
                                    > It's not so easy to tear out the adverts in digital copies...

                                    Oh that's ok when the ads are not embedded in the pdf.

                                    I subscribe to linux format, and they include the ads sometimes in the
                                    spreads, as if it went to print.

                                    I could move windows over the top of evince so I don't see it I suppose.

                                    - --
                                    The DS3 to the playstation is dropping packets because of the terrible acting by the kid who played anakin.
                                    Netscape is reorganizing into small business units.
                                    :: http://www.s5h.net/ :: http://www.s5h.net/gpg.html
                                    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
                                    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

                                    iEYEARECAAYFAknV7sUACgkQ4dyr7s6PRYgnPQCggOQM82PgYG94OaexxHYBwi01
                                    aEAAn3avl1D+NtbxSB3/6lPVmE7cMunu
                                    =UZQF
                                    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
                                  • Herbert R Coburn
                                    ... At the risk of sounding even dumber, I forgot there was a time when I didn t know about /etc/hosts. Somewhere, I came to believe everyone was born with the
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Apr 3, 2009
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Harold Williams wrote:
                                      > --- In linux@yahoogroups.com, "Thad Floryan" <thad@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      >> Now *THAT* (using /etc/hosts) is one of the most useful tips I've seen
                                      >> in ages! Many thanks!
                                      >>
                                      >> As a payback, assuming your partner is using, ahem, Windows, there has
                                      >> been an /etc/hosts equivalent on Windows OSs for at least 10 years now
                                      >> (Win2K, WinXP, Vista, Win7) per:
                                      >>
                                      >> C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts
                                      >>
                                      >> Yes, "hosts" (without ".txt"). Its format is identical to Linux/UNIX
                                      >> for some POSIX compatibility.
                                      >
                                      > At the risk of looking really dumb...Could someone explain what using /etc/hosts means?
                                      >
                                      > If it is better than using Adblock plus in Firefox then I would like to implement it.
                                      >
                                      > Thanks,
                                      > Harold
                                      >

                                      At the risk of sounding even dumber, I forgot there was a time when I
                                      didn't know about /etc/hosts. Somewhere, I came to believe everyone
                                      was born with the knowledge. I looked and couldn't find it in the RUTE.
                                      So, it must be common knowledge, eh?

                                      The best explanation, IMHO, is at http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/

                                      This is my explanation.

                                      Computers speak in numbers. To get on the Internet, a computer has to
                                      have a unique name (a number) somewhere. People like me don't remember
                                      numbers, so we give computers names (words). For example, google.com
                                      is really 209.85.171.100 under IPv4. When you tell your computer to
                                      connect to another computer, using a name, it looks in /etc/hosts to
                                      find the number. If the number is not there, it starts asking your
                                      DNS hosts (or your IP) for the number. They, in turn, do the same
                                      until eventually, someone returns a number.

                                      A long time ago, before the Dead Sea got the sniffles and I used to
                                      genuflect at the feet of greybeards, nobody had thought of using
                                      names to connect to another computer. Then somebody flipped a switch,
                                      a lightbulb came on inside their head and a hosts file was born.

                                      The first, so to speak, DNS. Soon, every computer had a list of URL's
                                      and their associated domain names. Well, until the greaybeards
                                      decided that updating hundreds of hosts files (even with a script)
                                      was too time-consuming. Then someone invented IPv4 with the idea that
                                      if a name wasn't in the hosts file, go ask until someone answered.

                                      Since your computer looks in the hosts file first, you can assign
                                      any number you want to any name you want. Now, 127.0.0.1 points
                                      back to your computer (localhost). If I put a line in /etc/hosts
                                      that reads

                                      127.0.0.1 google.com

                                      whenever I try to connect to google.com, I will connect to myself
                                      instead of google.com.

                                      Adverts, tracking, spyware and other things I do not care for are
                                      usually just linked from the webpage I actually want to see. By
                                      associating the unwanted links to 127.0.0.1, when the page tells
                                      my computer to link to the unwanted, it looks in /etc/hosts, sees
                                      127.0.0.1 and obediently connects to itself and displays nothing.
                                      Voila! My personal ad-blocker!

                                      /herbc
                                    • Allen Schultz
                                      ... Godwin: This is the method I want to learn. Allen.
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Apr 3, 2009
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Godwin Stewart <grs.ygroups@...> wrote:
                                        > The DNS method is preferable because:
                                        >
                                        > 1) You can make the whole "example.net" domain disappear in one go with one
                                        > simple directive in your local nameserver's configuration file.
                                        >
                                        > 2) Domains concealed in this way really do disappear. The resolver is fed
                                        > information that the hostname you're trying to resolve simply doesn't exist.
                                        > No attempt to open a connection on your machine will take place.

                                        Godwin:

                                        This is the method I want to learn.

                                        Allen.
                                      • Allen Schultz
                                        ... Even though this is a cross-post, I ll add that someone was planning on creating said DNS host tutorial to use over the hosts file as soon as he s ready
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Apr 3, 2009
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Thad Floryan <thad@...> wrote:
                                          > 16+K lines in a hosts file is really pushing it, though, and is
                                          > reminiscent of the old hosts file(s) at SRI during ARPANET days.
                                          >
                                          > A DNS-based solution should be considerably more efficient than a
                                          > sequential search of the hosts file.

                                          Even though this is a cross-post, I'll add that someone was planning
                                          on creating said DNS host tutorial to use over the hosts file as soon
                                          as he's ready due to the number of people interested.

                                          Allen
                                        • Allen Schultz
                                          ... Or you can have a server at home set up so that all you need your laptop to do is call home to get the same service. Allen
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Apr 3, 2009
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Raquel <raquel@...> wrote:
                                            >> If it has enough RAM to run BIND without making it eat into swap
                                            >> space all the time, there's no reason why not.
                                            >
                                            > My guess is that 3GB is enough. ;-) I just wasn't sure that a
                                            > laptop under different network conditions would benefit from the
                                            > caching server. Thank you, Godwin!

                                            Or you can have a server at home set up so that all you need your
                                            laptop to do is call home to get the same service.

                                            Allen
                                          • Harold Hitchcock
                                            ** Moderator note: proper trimming applied and quoting corrected. ** Please do so yourself in future. ... I am interested, Please add me to your list of
                                            Message 21 of 25 , Apr 3, 2009
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              ** Moderator note: proper trimming applied and quoting corrected.
                                              ** Please do so yourself in future.

                                              On Friday, April 03, 2009 6:03 PM, Allen Schultz wrote:

                                              > Even though this is a cross-post, I'll add that someone was planning
                                              > on creating said DNS host tutorial to use over the hosts file as soon
                                              > as he's ready due to the number of people interested.

                                              I am interested, Please add me to your list of interested people.../harold
                                            • Raquel
                                              On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 16:30:49 -0600 ... I m already considering that one. And, it would be better that way so that both laptops can use it. -- Raquel
                                              Message 22 of 25 , Apr 3, 2009
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 16:30:49 -0600
                                                Allen Schultz <allen.schultz@...> wrote:

                                                > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Raquel <raquel@...>
                                                > wrote:
                                                > >> If it has enough RAM to run BIND without making it eat into swap
                                                > >> space all the time, there's no reason why not.
                                                > >
                                                > > My guess is that 3GB is enough. ;-) I just wasn't sure that a
                                                > > laptop under different network conditions would benefit from the
                                                > > caching server. Thank you, Godwin!
                                                >
                                                > Or you can have a server at home set up so that all you need your
                                                > laptop to do is call home to get the same service.
                                                >
                                                > Allen
                                                >

                                                I'm already considering that one. And, it would be better that way
                                                so that both laptops can use it.

                                                --
                                                Raquel
                                                http://www.byraquel.com
                                                ============================================================
                                                Often we Christians constitute the worst obstacle for those who try
                                                to become closer to Christ; we often preach a gospel we do not live.
                                                This is the principle reason why people of the world don't believe.

                                                --Mother Teresa
                                              • Michael Kjorling
                                                ... Hash: SHA1 ... The obvious downside of a setup like that is that unless you are willing to reconfigure the server every time you want to use it from a new
                                                Message 23 of 25 , Apr 4, 2009
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
                                                  Hash: SHA1

                                                  On 3 Apr 2009 16:30 -0600, by allen.schultz@... (Allen Schultz):
                                                  >>> If it has enough RAM to run BIND without making it eat into swap
                                                  >>> space all the time, there's no reason why not.
                                                  >
                                                  > Or you can have a server at home set up so that all you need your
                                                  > laptop to do is call home to get the same service.

                                                  The obvious downside of a setup like that is that unless you are
                                                  willing to reconfigure the server every time you want to use it from a
                                                  new location (IP address), you risk offering recursive name resolution
                                                  services to all and sundry. Potentially opening the barn door to
                                                  everything from cache poisoning to outright abuse.

                                                  As I recall, BIND can also be configured with a maximum amount of
                                                  memory to use for the resolver cache, so even on low-RAM systems, it
                                                  can very well be doable to run a name server locally.

                                                  - --
                                                  Michael Kjörling .. michael@... .. http://michael.kjorling.se
                                                  * ..... No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings ..... *
                                                  * ENCRYPTED email preferred -- OpenPGP key ID: 0x 758F8749 BDE9ADA6 *
                                                  * ASCII Ribbon Campaign: Against HTML mail, proprietary attachments *

                                                  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
                                                  Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

                                                  iD8DBQFJ12CXdY+HSb3praYRAoyYAJ9eUwwk/Qr6FXr9n9HHJVPtWcVxFgCdHp7Y
                                                  EbGVFUJ+efiDzBz8lX0jPGQ=
                                                  =QuXa
                                                  -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
                                                • Harold Williams
                                                  ... Thanks Herb. Very good explanation that even I can understand. Sometimes even I forget that what little I know about computers, everyone else doesn t know.
                                                  Message 24 of 25 , Apr 6, 2009
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    > Harold Williams wrote:

                                                    > > At the risk of looking really dumb...Could someone explain what using /etc/hosts means?
                                                    > >
                                                    > > If it is better than using Adblock plus in Firefox then I would like to implement it.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Thanks,
                                                    > > Harold

                                                    --- In linux@yahoogroups.com, Herbert R Coburn <cidhus@...> wrote:
                                                    > At the risk of sounding even dumber, I forgot there was a time when I
                                                    > didn't know about /etc/hosts. Somewhere, I came to believe everyone
                                                    > was born with the knowledge. I looked and couldn't find it in the RUTE.
                                                    > So, it must be common knowledge, eh?
                                                    >
                                                    > The best explanation, IMHO, is at http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
                                                    >
                                                    > This is my explanation.

                                                    Thanks Herb. Very good explanation that even I can understand. Sometimes even I forget that what little I know about computers, everyone else doesn't know.

                                                    thanks
                                                    Harold
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.