- This topic has 21 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated Feb 13-12:28 am by andfree.
-
Posts
-
Anonymous
Ouch, that UI is a bit confusing
I’ve modified the program so that it now “remembers”, across launches, which items were previously checkmarked…
…but that detail misses (and potentially further confuses) a couple points:These items are not “Services”. They are static copies of everchanging, remotely-maintained, blocklists.
With each “click OK” operation, the program downloads-n-installs a current, fresh, up-to-date copy of the remote blocklist(s).
• Running block-advert once (just once, ever) is non-ideal
• When run periodically, user may intentionally untick the “remembered” checkmarks due to a mistaken impression that “UNBLOCK” (unblock all) will not be effective unless the other checkmarks are removedGiven SamK’s statement that “the overhead has never been observed to be problematic”, I’m proposing to present (mutually-exclusive) radio button instead of checkboxes, and to expand the labeltext, advising the merit of periodically re-downloading.
• download & install fresh adserver blocklists
• remove blocklists (restores original /etc/hosts file)I tacked on a “first run” dialog (first run of THIS version) b/c I think it’s necessary to explain “what means original“, clarifying the fact that the new version is unaware of any previously-installed blocklists. Further, I tacked on a secondary check (filesize of the pre-existing /etc/hosts); if smaller than XX, clearly no 39kb+ blocklists are currently installed… and the “first run” dialog is suppressed.
Although antiX employs no DNS caching “as issued”, I’m sensitive to the prospect of misleading (misinfomring) anyone who has chosen to install dnsmasq, unbound, et al. In that case, “Restart your web browser to see the effect of the changes” isn’t sufficient. I plan to mention that detail in the UI’s revised onscreen text. (I’m not keen on having the adblock program automagically “pgrep dnsmasq… service dnsmasq restart”.)
SamK
The following is incorrect
Given SamK’s statement that “the overhead has never been observed to be problematic”
Greater care is needed to avoid quoting your own words (post #4867) and attributing the quotation to someone else (post #5791).
Additionally, quotations can become more useful when they contain the context in which they were made. The context of the original wording relates to the possibility of impaired performance only. As presented the incorrectly attributed quotation is not an accurate representation of the meaning of the original information.
My initial reply in this topic was muddied by mentioning both huge (observed, by me) subscribed browser plugin lists and (comparatively tiny, as you rightly pointed out) /etc/hosts lists provided via the adblock-antix utility.
I backpedaled, undermining my initial rant regarding overhead & bloat by editing it in order to include your counterpoint and, within today’s post, acknowledged my deference to your position. I’m at a loss to understand why. you’re busting my chops and claiming that I’m quoting my own words.
Full quoteback:Over the years I have run antiX on many different old low spec systems, with RAM ranging from 0.5GB to 1GB. antiX Adblock is always used on them. The prospect of performance being reduced by the use of Adblock has never been observed. If you are concerned that using Adblock might possibly invite the use of swapspace, then zram swapspace works at the speed of your RAM rather than the speed of your hard disk.
In my real world usage, the improved performance of web browsing when using Adblock far outweighs the unrealized concern of increased swapping.
A couple of ideas…
Adblock can be switched on and off as you desire, see the UNBLOCK tick box in its GUI. This might be used to enable blocking only when you want to web browse, and leave it unloaded when it will serve no purpose.
There might be value in using more than one web browser to obtain the performance strengths of each, depending upon the task you want to perform. Think of it this way, would you expect a surgeon to perform an operation using a scalpel or a dinner knife used to eat a meal. Your choice of software and the way in which you use it can pay big dividends.
The context of the original wording relates to the possibility of impaired performance only.
I typed “overhead“, whereas you had typed “prospect of performance being reduced by the use of“.
That qualifies as a misquote?A few days ago, when “SiteAdmin” took issue with my closure of a confusingly off-course topic and quipped “bad spot in the universe?”, I suppose I should have “taken the hint” that my ongoing forum participation is begrudged. Your unwarranted provocation and chastisement here, in this topic, serve to cement that impression. The silence in response to several of my staff forum posts has already indicated that we’re not a functional “team”. I’m resigning skidoo’s role:moderator; I’ll just occasionally visit the forum to post tip-n-tricks.
I’m at a loss to understand why. you’re busting my chops and claiming that I’m quoting my own words.
#4904 SamK wrote
The prospect of performance being reduced by the use of Adblock has never been observed.
#4867 skidoo wrote
edit: specific to using only the 4 blocklists provided via adblock-antix, SamK’s post, below, indicates the overhead has never been observed to be problematic.
#5791 skidoo wrote
Given SamK’s statement that “the overhead has never been observed to be problematic”…
A quote is an unmodified repeating of the content of what was said or written. Making substitutions to that content modifies it. The content is no longer a quote.
That is exactly what you did. You edited an earlier post with a modified version of my content, then in a subsequent post attributed the modified version as a quote from me, which self evidently it is not.
When the matter is pointed out, you have an absolute and unchallenged right to judge it to be unwarranted provocation and chastisement, even when such a judgement is far from the mark and stands in contradiction of the facts.
I have no interest is batting this back and forth.
andfree
I’m sorry that my topics cause all this trouble. Nothing more I can say about it.
I took some more RAM measurements (both the max and the final values) on the other laptop (toshiba, P4, 1GB RAM) for google and youtube start pages. All the corresponding values seems similar to me, either I have added the lists to host file or not. So, this doesn’t provide me with a basis to speak either for improved or reduced performance.
I’m sorry that my topics cause all this trouble. Nothing more I can say about it.
Nothing for you to apologise about. You asked a reasonable question.
I took some more RAM measurements (both the max and the final values) on the other laptop (toshiba, P4, 1GB RAM) for google and youtube start pages. All the corresponding values seems similar to me, either I have added the lists to host file or not. So, this doesn’t provide me with a basis to speak either for improved or reduced performance.
In post 4921
https://www.antixforum.com/forums/topic/how-to-choose-adblock-services/#post-4921
You have already proven that adding all blocking lists together has a negligible impact on the amount of RAM used.
In post 4923
https://www.antixforum.com/forums/topic/how-to-choose-adblock-services/#post-4923
Your findings were confirmed.When using the Adblock utility that ships in antiX, using RAM measurements is an inappropriate way to judge the performance benefit it brings. For this case looking at RAM usage is a distraction that is drawing you off target as it provides no worthwhile information.
As far as I’m aware there is no way to make an absolute measurement of the benefit of blocking ad servers from your system. It depends on where and how you browse and the capability of your system. It used to be easy to see the impact of not blocking ad servers in the former antiX forum. Ads were delivered automatically to the antiX forum home page, They ticked over in an unending cycle. They could make your browser slow to the point of being extremely difficult to use. The slow down was most obvious on old less powerful kit. Switch on Adblock supplied with antiX and the browser became speedier and more responsive. Because it was no longer bogged down with the ads the browser had less work to do resulting in a greatly improved experience.
It is this type of empirical improvement you should be looking at rather than RAM usage which you have already demonstrated to be of no significance.
It used to be easy to see the impact of not blocking ad servers in the former antiX forum. Ads were delivered automatically to the antiX forum home page, They ticked over in an unending cycle. They could make your browser slow to the point of being extremely difficult to use. The slow down was most obvious on old less powerful kit. Switch on Adblock supplied with antiX and the browser became speedier and more responsive. Because it was no longer bogged down with the ads the browser had less work to do resulting in a greatly improved experience.
It is this type of empirical improvement you should be looking at rather than RAM usage which you have already demonstrated to be of no significance.
This makes sense, and I think that I have already felt this empirical improvement in the everyday use. But the last days, I see a big ad in the yahoo mail sign-in page. Reloading blocklists to the host file doesn’t help to get rid of it. What can I do in cases like this?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
