Searching \ for '[OT]:Blocking annoying ads with Linux' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=blocking+annoying
Search entire site for: 'Blocking annoying ads with Linux'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]:Blocking annoying ads with Linux'
2005\07\26@190509 by John Nall

picon face
OK guys (and gals), you got me all convinced that I should seriously
think in terms of using Linux instead of Windows XP.  Hey, I am easy!  
So I have done the things that needed to be done, and can now (after a
lot of sweat and blood and tears) dual-boot either Linux or XP.  I will
readily admit that Linux has some advantages.  But I am absolutely
astounded to find that XP apparently offers better protection from
annoying advertisements than Linux does!  Why?  One would think that
that Linux would do a better job, not a worst job.  Am I missing
something?  Educate me!!!  :-)

2005\07\26@191900 by Alex Harford

face picon face
On 7/26/05, John Nall <spam_OUTjwnallTakeThisOuTspamgmail.com> wrote:
> OK guys (and gals), you got me all convinced that I should seriously
> think in terms of using Linux instead of Windows XP.  Hey, I am easy!
> So I have done the things that needed to be done, and can now (after a
> lot of sweat and blood and tears) dual-boot either Linux or XP.  I will
> readily admit that Linux has some advantages.  But I am absolutely
> astounded to find that XP apparently offers better protection from
> annoying advertisements than Linux does!  Why?  One would think that
> that Linux would do a better job, not a worst job.  Am I missing
> something?  Educate me!!!  :-)

A couple of ways to do it:

1) Through Firefox, right click on the images you want to block, and
select 'Block Images from ...'

2) Through your /etc/hosts file.  Replace it with something like this:
http://everythingisnt.com/hosts

Although now that I think of it, similar methods could be used for XP.

Alex

2005\07\26@194029 by Terry Moore-Read

flavicon
face
There's all kinds of fun ways to filter ads with Linux.   Take a look at
privoxy or squid.  Both are http proxies with excellent filtering
capabilities.


>>> .....jwnallKILLspamspam@spam@gmail.com 7/26/2005 4:04 PM >>>
OK guys (and gals), you got me all convinced that I should seriously
think in terms of using Linux instead of Windows XP.  Hey, I am easy!

So I have done the things that needed to be done, and can now (after a

lot of sweat and blood and tears) dual-boot either Linux or XP.  I will

readily admit that Linux has some advantages.  But I am absolutely
astounded to find that XP apparently offers better protection from
annoying advertisements than Linux does!  Why?  One would think that
that Linux would do a better job, not a worst job.  Am I missing
something?  Educate me!!!  :-)

2005\07\26@194353 by Philip Pemberton

face picon face
In message <f9d2dfc50507261619590c6e4bspamKILLspammail.gmail.com>>          Alex Harford <.....harfordKILLspamspam.....gmail.com> wrote:

> 1) Through Firefox, right click on the images you want to block, and
> select 'Block Images from ...'

Better way: Grab the AdBlock extension from mozdev.org. I've got a nice
adblock control file that blocks most of the ads and nearly all of the
Flashverts. If anyone wants a copy, reply to the PIClist and I'll see about
putting it on my website.

Later.
--
Phil.                              | Acorn RiscPC600 SA220 64MB+6GB 100baseT
EraseMEphilpemspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTphilpem.me.uk              | Athlon64 3200+ A8VDeluxe R2 512MB+100GB
http://www.philpem.me.uk/          | Sony MZ-N710 NetMD Minidisc
... RAM DISK is NOT an installation procedure!

2005\07\26@205136 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
John Nall wrote:

> One would think that that Linux would do a better job, not a worst job.
> Am I missing something?  Educate me!!!  :-)

I don't think either WinXP or Linux (the operating systems) do anything to
block ads. It's probably either your email program (there are different
ones on both platforms) or your browser (there also are different ones on
both platforms) or maybe your hosts configuration (which actually is a
system thing, but it's the same on both platforms and not default on
either) that do something about it -- or some filters in the pop3 or http
protocol path (which are not really part of the system).

To get better help, you probably should tell us which ads in what program
you want to get rid of.

Gerhard

2005\07\26@215712 by Matthew Miller

flavicon
face
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 04:40:00PM -0700, Terry Moore-Read wrote:
> There's all kinds of fun ways to filter ads with Linux.   Take a look at
> privoxy or squid.  Both are http proxies with excellent filtering
> capabilities.

I second the recommendation for privoxy, but only consider squid if you need
a caching proxy, otherwise privoxy is much easier to setup IMO. Firefox is
great help whether you run linux or windows...

Matthew

--
Why do you necessarily have to be wrong just because a few million people
think you are?  -- Frank Zappa

2005\07\26@215831 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 19:04 -0400, John Nall wrote:
> OK guys (and gals), you got me all convinced that I should seriously
> think in terms of using Linux instead of Windows XP.  Hey, I am easy!  
> So I have done the things that needed to be done, and can now (after a
> lot of sweat and blood and tears) dual-boot either Linux or XP.  I will
> readily admit that Linux has some advantages.  But I am absolutely
> astounded to find that XP apparently offers better protection from
> annoying advertisements than Linux does!  Why?  One would think that
> that Linux would do a better job, not a worst job.  Am I missing
> something?  Educate me!!!  :-)

Use Firefox, it by default blocks all popups. To block ads right click
on the ad and click "block images from...".

To block all flash add the extension "Flashblock", it turns all flash
into a "play" button which you have to click on to activate that flash
panel.

I barely ever see ads anymore.

TTYL

-----------------------------
Herbert's PIC Stuff:
http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

2005\07\27@155452 by John Nall

picon face
Thanks for all the suggestions.  There was a lot of good information
there, and I followed up on it.  As a result, am using privoxy and it
seems to do the trick.  I am (and was) using Firefox, both with Linux
and Windows, but ad block doesn't seem to co-exist with the version of
Firefox that I am currently using with Linux.  I could go back to an
older version, I suppose, but prefer not to do that.  And anyway,
privoxy seems to work fine for me.  Thanks again.

John

2005\07\27@165832 by Hector Martin

flavicon
face
Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 04:40:00PM -0700, Terry Moore-Read wrote:
>> There's all kinds of fun ways to filter ads with Linux.   Take a look at
>> privoxy or squid.  Both are http proxies with excellent filtering
>> capabilities.
>
> I second the recommendation for privoxy, but only consider squid if you need
> a caching proxy, otherwise privoxy is much easier to setup IMO. Firefox is
> great help whether you run linux or windows...
>
> Matthew
>

I use both. Squid caches my home network, and runs everything through
privoxy to clean it up.

--
Hector Martin (hectorspamspam_OUTmarcansoft.com)
Public Key: http://www.marcansoft.com/hector.asc

2005\07\27@185836 by Josh Koffman

face picon face
On 7/27/05, John Nall <@spam@jwnallKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for all the suggestions.  There was a lot of good information
> there, and I followed up on it.  As a result, am using privoxy and it
> seems to do the trick.  I am (and was) using Firefox, both with Linux
> and Windows, but ad block doesn't seem to co-exist with the version of
> Firefox that I am currently using with Linux.  I could go back to an
> older version, I suppose, but prefer not to do that.  And anyway,
> privoxy seems to work fine for me.  Thanks again.

Check for an upgrade to Firefox. There was a release (1.04 maybe?)
that broke a lot of extensions. There was a 1.05 (or something) that
came out later that week and fixed that problem.

Josh
--
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools.
       -Douglas Adams

2005\07\28@122021 by Peter

picon face


On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Josh Koffman wrote:

{Quote hidden}

1.0.5 still had broken extensions. 1.0.6 is ok

Peter

2005\07\28@130116 by John Nall

picon face
Peter wrote:

>> Check for an upgrade to Firefox. There was a release (1.04 maybe?)
>> that broke a lot of extensions. There was a 1.05 (or something) that
>> came out later that week and fixed that problem.
>
>
> 1.0.5 still had broken extensions. 1.0.6 is ok


I am currently using 1.0.6 and when I try to load the Ad Block extension
from the site it gives me an error message.  Don't recall exactly what
it i, but something to the effect that the version of Ad Block has to be
between 0.7 and 1.0.4.   I'll check it again, however, and see if
perhaps I have made an error somewhere.  That would not be all that
rare.  :-)

John

2005\07\28@141238 by Paul Hutchinson

picon face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTspammit.edu On Behalf Of John Nall
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 1:00 PM
>
<snip quoted text>
>
> I am currently using 1.0.6 and when I try to load the Ad Block extension
> from the site it gives me an error message.  Don't recall exactly what
> it i, but something to the effect that the version of Ad Block has to be
> between 0.7 and 1.0.4.   I'll check it again, however, and see if
> perhaps I have made an error somewhere.  That would not be all that
> rare.  :-)

No, you did not make a mistake, the AdBlock installer has not been updated
so it gives a message saying it will only work with "Firefox versions from
0.7+ to 0.10+". Extension installers not getting updated has been a problem
for me for so long that I've gotten into the habit of just fixing the
installers when I need to.

To fix an extension installer:
1. Download the extension to your local PC (right click link "Save Link
As...").
2. Rename the extension from *.xpi to *.zip (it's just a zip file).
3. Inside the zip file you'll find a few files, open the one named
"install.rdf" in a text editor (it's an XML file).
4. In the file find "<em:maxVersion>.10+</em:maxVersion>" and change it to
"<em:maxVersion>1.10+</em:maxVersion>".
5. Save the edited file back into the zip archive.
6. Rename the zip archive back to *.xpi.
7. Click the *.xpi file to install it.

Paul Hutch

2005\07\28@153359 by John Nall

picon face
Paul Hutchinson wrote:

>> No, you did not make a mistake, the AdBlock installer has not been updated
>so it gives a message saying it will only work with "Firefox versions from
>0.7+ to 0.10+". Extension installers not getting updated has been a problem
>for me for so long that I've gotten into the habit of just fixing the
>installers when I need to.
>  
>
Well, it is the first time for me, so thanks for showing me how to do
it.  Except  . . . (read on)

>7. Click the *.xpi file to install it.
>  
>
Everything was going fairly good down until Step 7 (although I have to
say that it is not exactly intuitive).  When I click on the *.xpi file
to install it, it merely wants to extract it (that is, it treats it the
same as a .zip file).  Apparently the .xpi file type is being associated
with the archive manager.  :-(

John

2005\07\28@161221 by Paul Hutchinson

picon face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: spamBeGonepiclist-bouncesspamBeGonespammit.edu On Behalf Of John Nall
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 3:33 PM
>
> >
> Everything was going fairly good down until Step 7 (although I have to
> say that it is not exactly intuitive).  When I click on the *.xpi file
> to install it, it merely wants to extract it (that is, it treats it the
> same as a .zip file).  Apparently the .xpi file type is being associated
> with the archive manager.  :-(

In that case, right click it and choose "Open with..." and then choose
Firefox. (note: in Win9x you need to hold shift while right clicking to see
that option)

Paul Hutch

2005\07\28@165926 by John Nall

picon face
Paul Hutchinson wrote:

>> In that case, right click it and choose "Open with..." and then choose
>Firefox. (note: in Win9x you need to hold shift while right clicking to see
>that option)
>  
>
OK, that worked fine.  All is done.  Muchas gracias.

John

2005\07\29@153405 by Peter

picon face


On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, John Nall wrote:

> I am currently using 1.0.6 and when I try to load the Ad Block extension from
> the site it gives me an error message.  Don't recall exactly what it i, but
> something to the effect that the version of Ad Block has to be between 0.7
> and 1.0.4.   I'll check it again, however, and see if perhaps I have made an
> error somewhere.  That would not be all that rare.  :-)

I use 1.0.6 upgraded from 1.0.5 with adblock and no problems (adblock
was installed under 1.0.1 afair). Adblock is v.5 d2 nightly 39 (whatever
that means), as shown by clicking Tools->Extensions.

Peter

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2005 , 2006 only
- Today
- New search...