Another Win For Linux

[yogi]

GPS tracking on your cell phone is an entirely different system that cell tower tracking. You can disable the GPS more or less, but not the cell tower. It's the base station that keeps an account of your air time and passes that on to the billing people, all of which is why you cannot turn it off.

I've heard about the prospects for a national wifi network but there is a lot yet to be sorted out with net neutrality before they can even begin to build that.

[Kellemora]

Comcast has public WiFi, if you RENT their Cable Modem. As a Comcast subscriber, I can use any WiFi I can connect to that is on a Comcast Rented Modem. Another major reason I have my OWN Modems.
After much ToDo, subscribers with rented modems can now Turn Off Public WiFi access using their modem!
Even so, in the downtown Knoxville business districts, and anywhere there are a few restaurants, Comcast has installed WiFi modems on utility poles. You still have to be a Comcast Subscriber in order to connect to them. And as far as I know, if you don't have Comcast at home, perhaps because you live in a Charter Cable area, you cannot subscribe to Xfinity HotSpot.
Most of the restaurants provide free WiFi already, which is why all the kids are tying up all the tables, hi hi.

[yogi]

WiFi hot spots always impressed me as being too "hot" to handle. They are way too vulnerable to attack and anyone who sends personal information over them is taking a huge risk. The same can be said bout hotels and restaurants. When we are on the road I typically try to use the Tor browser to avoid any intercepts. The only problem with Tor is that not everybody will let you on their server if they can't identify you.

[Kellemora]

Now that is something I really don't understand.
I've used the Incognito feature of my web browser when looking at a couple of things for a part of a story I was writing.
But even so, for them to fetch me the data to my browser, they have to know my IP address in order to do so.
I connect to them which forms a link for them to send data back to me.

That being said, many moons ago, I used to connect to a website that would act like a middle man so to speak.
My link was to that website only. If I made a request from another website, they would take my request and resend it out under their IP address, and when they got the message back, they would in turn send it to me.
If you were trying to do something live, like watch a short video, there was a definite delay.
However, you could wait to watch it until they got the whole thing and it was uploaded to my computer, then you could view it without it stopping every few seconds to wait for more.

[yogi]

The typical "incognito" mode doesn't hide your IP address from the server.

The Tor browser uses the Tor network, what else? LOL Any communication over the Tor network is encrypted end to end. That is the beauty of Tor. Every time you connect to a website, you are going through several relay servers that are all encrypted. Here is what it did when I looked at this famous web site:



The source IP cannot be determined plus your browser UserAgentString is made unreadable which is why many servers will not deal with Tor. Also, you can manually change the circuit any time if you are really paranoid. Tor is a fun browser to experiment with, but it's pretty useless for conventional browsing. Now, if you are interested in the Dark Web ...

[Kellemora]

Interesting Yogi!

I was surprised to see you are getting the Connection is Not Secure message.
Although I don't use HTTPS because it is stupid since I'm not collecting data on my website.
I thought all of my websites were changed to show they were INFORMATIONAL, so you should get the Letter "I" and the word Informational instead of Connection is Not Secure.

If I had a database and collected information from visitors, or sold items and collected credit card data, then I would go with HTTPS. But for a read only website, I don't see the purpose, nor being extorted out of funds to have HTTPS.

Looks like you feel the same way, my URL bar shows you as being Not Secure, nor does it have the letter "I". Hmmm.

I wonder if my Informational notice expired, or perhaps it has to be renewed each year?
If so, I don't even remember how I got it in the first place now.
Oh well.

[yogi]

Setting your site to an Informational class doesn't change the security level. Whether you are offering information or collecting data about the site visitor, it's clear that you are not using SSL via the https:// protocol. It's a pain in the butt to set up which is why I never did it, but if more people than just you visited this place I might consider learning about it. I believe it's just a matter of moving the site to a new directory on the server and coming up with a encryption key. In any case, the warning may be intimidating to some people, maybe most people, who do not know what it means. That warning only refers to the absence of SSL, which may or may not matter to people who visit. Also, I thought that warning was browser specific, but apparently it shows up everywhere. Tor users would be VERY interested in security issues which is why you see it there.

[Kellemora]

The URL bar for your website shows the lower case letter "i" inside a Circle and states Not Secure, all in black.
UNTIL I start typing a message in this box. Then it changes to a Solid Red Triangle with an Exclamation point inside, and the Not Secure message changes to Red.

Doesn't bother me one bit, because whatever I type here is for public viewing. No need for it to be encrypted.
Why pay for something you don't need? HTTPS is only a gimmick to extort money out of folks with websites.
The only time you should have it is if you collect personal data or handle banking transactions.
And most of those who do sell items, go through a 3rd party website which is highly protected.

[yogi]

I was offered the opportunity to go with SSL, and they never mentioned it would cost any extra. As I say, the directory is already on the server. All I need to do is move the site over there and supply an encryption key. About the only thing needing protection here is the password. Many people use the same password for every website on the Internet and that's a dangerous situation if a man-in-middle can grab onto it.

SSL is not a gimmick anymore than antivirus software. It has a legitimate purpose. Not everybody is interested in that purpose, but that doesn't make security any less necessary. Google and Microsoft are really getting into the security aspects of their products. Apple has been into it for a long time already. They should because the government will be on their case if they don't. The warnings you see may be overstated, but at least something is being attempted to make the Internet a safer place to browse.

I see the information circle in the address bar of my browser, but nothing changes color when I type. Perhaps you are using Chrome, by Google, which as I mentioned above is going into this security business in a big way. Waterfox is the browser I'm using to type this message and no warnings show up.

[Kellemora]

Yeppers, I use Google Chrome for nearly everything now. It's the Linux version which is a little different than the Windows version. Now we don't have to tell it every three months that we want to see non HTTPS websites.

Host providers of web sites have got to have their servers protected as best they can from hackers and malware.
Someone looking at a website on those servers does not go directly from Internet to web page, it goes through several protected links before arriving there.
And since no one can upload data to my web sites, I don't see a purpose in making it any more secure than it already is by the host provider. It's basically a Read Only website, and everything on it is open to the public to read, so what purpose would encryption serve?

[yogi]

Only you, the webmaster, can accurately assess how much security your websites need. In general I'd agree with you that no sensitive information is being passed through your domain. That makes you (and me) happy so, as you say, why bother with any proactive security? There are people who for whatever reasons won't use your site, or this one, without that extra protection. Given the kind of traffic we've been getting lately I'm with you and don't see a need to beef up security.

I've known for a long time that software which is cross platform performs differently in different environments. Take Firefox for an example. It comes pre-installed with Ubuntu and I never had reason to change it. It did everything I wanted in the past. But, now that I'm experimenting with UEFI I have reason to evaluate certain software too. It turns out the Linux version of Firefox is not capable of displaying video embedded into the Tweetdeck app. This is very odd because there is no such problem with it in Windows. After researching the problem a bit, the best solution was to not use Firefox. Any other browser will work. So I now take out Firefox early on when setting up Ubuntu and replace it with Opera. Just one more reason for me to shake my head when I think of Canonical.

[Kellemora]

Well, I'm not going to pay 200 to 5000 dollars a year to have SSL so it shows HTTPS when someone connects.
I know you can get free ones, but they need reset every 30 or 90 days. Too much trouble.

There are a couple of reasons I use Google Chrome over Firefox.
But the main one has to do with the way I use tabs each day.
In Firefox, unless they've changed, I have to click on each tab or use the keyboard combo to move between them.
On Google, all I have to do to move between tabs is use my mouse scroll wheel while the cursor is on the row of tabs, or I could use the keyboard combo. If I use the keyboard combo, then next tab I open is at the beginning instead of the end of my row of tabs, so I always use the scroll wheel to keep them in order.

It is not uncommon for me to have 10 or more tabs open, with something running in each one of them.
I have set my F6 key to move my cursor to the row of tabs. Handy because I'm using the F5 key to turn off a running function when that tab completes its task.
So, I will land on the open tab who's job has completed, hit F5 to stop the program, hit F6 to jump my cursor on the tab, close the tab and use the scroll wheel to move down the row of tabs looking for another completed job. After I closed the completed jobs, I move to tab one, which has my list of jobs yet to do open, select the next job to open in a new tab using the Ctrl key and clicking on the job. Hit F6 to jump to the tabs bar, then scroll down to the new tab, and press F5 to start the program to work that tabs contents.
I've not found a way to do that in Firefox.

The second reason is, I have all of my bookmarks for everything in the Google+ bookmarks bar.

[yogi]

I have 8 tabs open on this my default browser. I have other browsers with other sets of tab for various purposes. Thus I'm constantly switching between browsers and the tabs within them. I do it all by pointing and clicking. No fancy hot keys or macros embedded into my keyboard - although I do have the the ability to program a dozen or so macros to perform a long series of key presses if I needed it. The mouse has programmable buttons too which I don't use, but could if I had a need.

You and I are doing two different things apparently. You are running jobs and I'm just gathering information or communicating with other people. No need for me to start and stop anything in a given sequence. So, I guess that's why I don't have to be fussy about which browser I use. My only concern is functionality. The Firefox failure I described earlier may be more Linux related than browser related. However, changing browsers seems to fix the problem.

[Kellemora]

Google Chrome added a new bug to their browser six upgrades ago. So I've been downloading each new upgrade to see if they decided to fix the new bug they added. Apparently they don't care and don't plan on fixing it.
Many of us jumped back to using the last known working version of Google Chrome, but now we get a warning to upgrade or else other features of the program we are using will no longer work. So they stuck us with a knife and gave it a twist.
I've tried using Firefox and it just don't have the features I need to use, which would make it take much longer to do what I do each morning, and some evenings.

I was in for a real surprise a couple of days ago. We went to visit one of Debi's older aunts, she's in her 80s.
While we were sitting there jabbering away, she said, let me send an e-mail to my daughter, she may want to come over.
After she sat down at her computer, I heard that old familiar Dial-Up modem sound making its connection.
I didn't know anybody still had Dial-Up except for some old credit card transaction machines.
She only uses her computer for e-mail, and says if she tries to do much of anything else it tells her she needs a broadband connection to use that service.

After I got home I decided to check about Dial-Up. Would you believe there are still over 9 million people using Dial-Up.

I no longer have access to Dial-up since my St. Louis ISP who had a link for me down here at US bank shut down.
Sorta wish I still had Dial-Up available for the times Comcast is down. But I'm afraid it wouldn't work to play Farm Town, hi hi.

[yogi]

You got to wonder exactly what those 9 million dial-up people are actually doing. Maybe, like Deb's aunt, all they do is send e-mail. Up north I had DSL because I was too cheap to get anything better. Didn't need it to be honest. My ISP was a company called Earthlink and they told me a dial-up connection came with my account but I could only use it to contact them in an emergency. Don't know why I'd use dial-up to tell them my DSL is down when I could easily pick up the telephone on that line and talk to a robot live. LOL

[Kellemora]

Don't laugh, when I first got Comcast down here in TN, I still had my dial-up to access my e-mail accounts in St. Louis.
It wasn't until my St. Louis ISP shut down suddenly that I got e-mail accounts at Comcast.
Also, about a month after they shut down, my local dial-up number no longer worked.

I tried to get DSL before I signed up with Comcast, only our phone lines here were not good enough for it to work.
Even so, I kept getting calls to try DSL again, sometimes the salespeople lied and said they installed fiber optics.
The installer would stop by and just laugh when I told him what they said.

The sad thing was, my wife's father tried for 30 years to get the phone lines repaired, they never did.
The wife and I tried for another 10 years, and they still have not fixed the lines.
No biggie, I went VOIP, and no more problems, except when Comcast is down, which is quite often.

[yogi]

Our "landline" is via cable as well, from Charter. It amounts to VOIP and goes out when Spectrum is having network problems. They warned us about that when we signed up in that we won't have 911 access while the Internet is out. Our backup is the cell phone network and our clever phones which have a special emergency button for us to call 911 without charge. My DSL signal came in at a S9 up north. We were only a couple hundred yards from the telco box.

[Kellemora]

I checked into Spectrum, which is a conglomeration including Charter which most folks hate.
On the sales map that shows the area they service, they show us well covered, but if you go to their website direct it says they are not available here at all.

As far as AT&T DSL and VDSL although they show they are available in my area, including on my street. I know from the three or four times the installer was here that we just can't get it here. The phone lines are just too bad.

After all the problems I had with Comcast, the frau managed to get them to knock 20 bucks off our monthly bill. Something I never could get them to do, hi hi.

Verizon keeps advertising here, but they don't provide service here.
Perhaps I should say Verizon FIOS is not available in TN, but their Cell Phone service is.
They do not offer home Internet over the cell phone system, only from cell phones.
They do offer DSL, which as I said earlier, our phone lines here are not good enough for DSL no matter who provides it.

So, we are stuck with Comcast, no matter how you slice the pie. Can't afford Satellite, hi hi.

[yogi]

Charter came highly recommended when we first moved into O'Fallon. Maybe that's because the others (two or three) are even worse. I looked up the customer approval ratings, and sure enough, Charter came in at something like 56%. That was the highest of the bunch. Since I don't give a hoot about the television and the phone line is just for backup, my only concern was the performance of the Internet. It holds it's own at or above 100 MB/s and they don't seem to throttle as much as I saw up north. The uptime is better than I expected with maybe one outage a year on average. They also offer a mobile service but I am doing better with T-mobile.

[Kellemora]

The area of Knoxville I live in only has Comcast, the more ritzy area has Charter, and the inner city has something else Spectrum I think. We also have one called Knoxville Cable Company, hi hi, and another called Windstar.
But the city decides who gets to service what part of the city, based on how much kickback the poly-TICK-ians get, determines who gets to be where.

Between Charter, Comcast, Spectrum, KCC, and Windstar. Comcast has the highest rating here, Spectrum next, and Charter below Spectrum, the others are almost no count, It's like 52%, 34%, 12%, 1%, 1%.
But Comcast is about twice the price of Charter and Spectrum.
As far as outages go. When the frau's son lived in Charter territory, all he had was complaints about them being down or running super slow. He stayed with us for a while as he was moving to Nashville, and he just loved Comcast. If it did go down, it was only for about an hour and was back up again.
What he liked about Charter was you could get whatever the highest speed they offered no extra charge.
While with Comcast, you have to pay for the speed rating you want buy. Comcast throttles your speed back too when they are busy. And it has gotten a lot worse since they started Xfinity, which uses the Internet for their TV programming.

Although it is the same cable coming into your house.
Comcast Cable gets their TV programs in via Satellite, and send it to you on the TV cable bands.
Comcast Xfinity gets their TV programs in via the Internet, and sends it to you on the Internet cable bands.
Their input is via fiber optic cable for most of the channels, but they still send it to you over regular cable.