Leaderboard

Hmm.. let's see. "Not doing a good job" could easily be defined as "breaking things that already work." For example existing code support for older operating systems. Nice and simple. I fail to see how roytam's software is "abused," give that he is actually fixing things you or Moonchild have broken, on purpose. See above. No one claimed they are official. In fact the About dialog in these builds clearly states they are not. "Not doing a good job" again..? See above. I'd like to see some proof of this supposed "massive confusion." If there is any confusion, it must come from those who are clueless in the first place. You cannot fault roytam for users who are too ignorant to read the About dialog or to deal with any issues here, where the builds are linked, rather than going to you or to the official PaleMoon forum. Also I'd love to see even one example where you or Moonchild or anyone else in your "group" has "cleaned up a mess when something goes wrong" that addressed the first single issue that affected these older operating systems or users of the unofficial builds on these systems. It sounds more to me like you're just a butthurt jerk who is having a tantrum because someone is making your toy work in places where you don't want it to. If you don't like it, write your own closed source program and stop "abusing" Mozilla's existing code. Without Mozilla's existing code, which once again I will remind you already provides compatibility for the systems roytam is targeting, and which you have intentionally broken, your pet projects would be nonexistent.

I actually had an "extended discussion" with Moonchild some time back and attempted to point out just how illogical his position was in regard to older OS'es. It of course fell on deaf ears and he ended the discussion without even attempting to answer any of my points. I tried to get across to him just how irrational it was to be committed to preserving an older "browser interface/UI" while at the same time being determined to discard support for any older operating system as soon as possible. With one hand he pushes the "latest and greatest" and insists people should "upgrade" and not use "outdated" operating systems; and with the other hand he promotes an "outdated" browser interface now built on "outdated" code and now using "outdated" addons (in the eyes of the same people who push similar "latest and greatest" rubbish), purposely breaking the already existing support for older systems that was already in place. How one can contort themselves into such a strange position and consider themselves as having a reasonable standpoint on the issue is beyond me. When PaleMoon eventually starts bleeding off its users who subscribe to the flawed logic of "latest and greatest"; or when those remaining are left without options for addon/plugin compatibility and compatibility with the "modern" web, then I've got a feeling those of us here will have the last laugh, and can tell Moonchild and company "Welcome to the party, pal!"

It's finally fixed. After almost a year of a major bug that prevented me from shipping, I finally got a working build! Expect 2.2 in the coming days, possibly even tonight.

New build of Serpent/UXP for XP! Test binary: Win32 https://o.rths.cf/basilisk/basilisk52-g4.1.win32-git-20190302-e64dae886-xpmod.7z Win64 https://o.rths.cf/basilisk/basilisk52-g4.1.win64-git-20190302-e64dae886-xpmod.7z source code that is comparable to my current working tree is available here: https://github.com/roytam1/UXP/commits/custom NM28XP build: Win32 https://o.rths.cf/palemoon/palemoon-28.5.0a1.win32-git-20190302-e64dae886-xpmod.7z Win64 https://o.rths.cf/palemoon/palemoon-28.5.0a1.win64-git-20190302-e64dae886-xpmod.7z Official repo changes since my last build: - WIP fix 1 (c962e2051) - Move default-enable pref to application. (c08b490c5) - Update Basilisk FE code with HTTP Auth DoS protection. (f227feb6e) - Make the Auth prompt DOS protection a browser-element opt-in feature. (c1ece93c2) - Improve the http basic auth DOS protection heuristics. (e64dae886)

@roytam1 I would like to start this post by saying that I believe SOME of my interpretations from you and reactions to me have been partly hampered by cultural and language issues.. That isn't to say I don't have my moments of being a complete a s s h o l e or anything.. Everyone knows this but perhaps we can start to correct some of that going forward. I hope you get a chance to go through your website soon but if you are working at your job and are loosing sleep over this then do take your time. Your good faith efforts will be enough for me. As for your rebranding efforts.. I want to renew my offer to help you work out all the branding points you need to deal with in the actual codebase. The one specific issue is the navigator codebase.. SeaMonkey never fully separated out branding from the rest of the main application code as Firefox and Thunderbird did over time so I have to completely rework how branding works in Navigator to accommodate that for not only my project but also people who do rebuilds and forks. As well as consistency sake. I want to help you make your selection of products for Windows XP unique to you and to be as successful as possible. You do seem to want to do your own thing past simple rebuilds and I can very much respect that.. So let's work together to make sure you and your users have products they can be proud of. @LoneCrusader As an aside, Lunaris and Draconis are AWESOME names and I am jealous I didn't think of them.

Good grief. Hyperbole much? An anti-vaxxer? Because, I guess, "everyone knows" computer viruses are still written and tested to target the 3% or so of Windows users still running XP, and "everyone knows" none of those users ever update their AV software What an ignorant statement. That quote wasn't from Matt Tobin, by any chance?

They can do whatever they want, and so do I. It is a smorgasbord and I'll pick whatever I want to my dish.

@dencorso I had my rant and anger spell.. Time for something more constructive so ye. @Dibya Vaguely. I still think using Windows XP in today's world outside of very extreme and edge cases is a bad idea but this stuff exists so I may as well be constructive rather than destructive. Obviously, @roytam1 is doing more than the shameful rebuilds for XP leeching off our names or whatever it was I said.. He is creating something unique as we have done.. SO I am committing my self to helping him succeed in whatever way I can contribute toward. That way we all get what we want and it isn't just an angry Tobin busting down the door looking for logos or whatnot. A real project or projects such as these deserve their own name and support from others just as ours do.. So that is why I am changing gears here. However, and you won't like this but if I feel the person in question is a moron I am gonna call them a moron regardless.. Call it a personality flaw. Though, that status can always be re-evaluated

Plus isn't Matt just using SeaMonkey and altering it into a browser-only product? By the way, everyone knows I'm not stuck on the continued use of XP. BUT .... BUT .... as it stands, native Seamonkey can still run on XP, can't it? Now if Borealis can't, then isn't Matt doing the same thing to the Mozilla code that he accuses Roytam1 of doing to Borealis and Interlink? Here's the way I see it. Even if I shake my head at those still using XP, I'm not going to put up intentional road-blocks, just to make life miserable for those people. So Matty Boy, why not just let Roytam1 continue compiling these applications for XP and Vista compatibility? Forget about "following the agreement to the LETTER"; what about exercising the spirit of the license. Think about it - other than your arrogant and hostile attitude, they ACTUALLY LIKE your work, and want to use it. How much bigger of a compliment can you get?

New New Moon 27 Build! 32bit https://o.rths.cf/palemoon/palemoon-27.9.6.win32-git-20190302-d0444154b-xpmod.7z 32bit SSE https://o.rths.cf/palemoon/palemoon-27.9.6.win32-git-20190302-d0444154b-xpmod-sse.7z 32bit noSSE https://o.rths.cf/palemoon/palemoon-27.9.6.win32-git-20190302-d0444154b-xpmod-ia32.7z 64bit https://o.rths.cf/palemoon/palemoon-27.9.6.win64-git-20190302-d0444154b-xpmod.7z source repo: https://github.com/roytam1/palemoon27 repo changes since my last build: - import changes from rmottola/Arctic-Fox: - Bug 1129223 - Remove local mozAfterRemotePaint events (a9aec8f51) - override -> MOZ_OVERRIDE (2de5b532c) - Bug 1129223 - Introduce new, more efficient mozLayerTreeReady event (9a363c950) - Bug 963921 - Clients of the JS API should use JS_DefineElement where appropriate (912f064c0) - Bug 1133746. Allow DOMProxyShadows to communicate to the JIT whether the shadowing is done by the expando object or not. (dbe537f12) (301eae9eb) - aboutDialog: always show build date (e2ac38931) - import changes from rmottola/Arctic-Fox: - Bug 1112164 part 0 - PrintUse: Use AnyRegister::name method for printing the name of Fixed register uses. (996f68005) - Bug 1112164 part 1 - x86/x64 lowerForFPU: Do not reuse the input register if the MIRType are different. (8722bfc62) - Bug 1112164 part 2 - Rename ReturnSimdReg to ReturnInt32x4Reg and ReturnFloat32x4Reg. (158171a74) - Bug 1112164 part 3 - Add {Float,}Register::Encoding to represent what can be decoded from the assembly. (64a7488e8) - Bug 1112164 part 4 - SimdReinterpretCast: Do not use redefine as the MIRType of the input & output are different. (441077b2b) (e9a10fb1a) - configure: remove restriction of redist DLL location (ba8924b6e) - import changes from rmottola/Arctic-Fox: - add X11 flags to allow building on NetBSD (72667df53) - Bug 1122856 - OdinMonkey: Split out the flag that says "bounds checks are unneeded because of signal handling" (36bb96c9e) - Bug 986981 - OdinMonkey: Optimize addresses with constant offsets on x86 and x64 (e0fd22c6e) - Bug 1138205 - use a reinterpret_cast instead of a static_cast after bug 986981, fixes build on OpenBSD/amd64. (5e1dd72a1) - Bug 1138180 - Make --disable-ion compilable again. (f835126ba) (d0444154b) * Notice: Due to a rewrite of git history, old git commit hashes are not matched. Please use corresponding commit message to search back the hash. Sorry for any inconvenience caused.

+1 I certainly would not be in any hurry to appease anyone who comes in here making ever-more ridiculous demands and who displays such overt hostility toward your projects and this community on other websites. But you do as you see fit; if you feel that it's best to do whatever you can to settle the issue then by all means proceed as you have been. The absurdity of all of this is mind boggling. Most normal people who write a piece of software or code wish to be credited for their work, and here instead we have Matt Tobin who is so disgruntled by the fact that someone else dares to revert some changes he made to a piece of open-source software that he didn't even write in the first place that he throws a temper tantrum, removes his project code from the public, and screams like a child until someone gives him what he wants. And what does he want? His "name" removed from these forked builds, because he might accidentally have his name associated with "us", the unwashed, the untouchables, the Luddites; in other words those who dare to disagree with his worldview. Sad.

@roytam1 Personally, if I were you, I would remove all references in your packages and compilations to Matt A Tobin and his work. He's not worth your aggravation!!!

With all due respect to the author(s) of the Binary Outcast source code and the Trademark holders of related application names and artwork, the referenced "site" provides binaries compiled from forked code, code forked from the official Binary Outcast one; even in GitHub, when you fork a repository the forked repository contains at least one reference to the original repository in the form of a link to that one... So, in practical terms, what's the great harm if the original author/official brand name the derived product is based on is mentioned just once just to inform consumers of the products they're about to download? You mentioned in one of your earlier posts the possibility of "confusing" users; I'd certainly be confused under that scenario (i.e. when no info is provided about the hosted product). Under your same logic, the Waterfox browser people should make no mention whatsoever to Mozilla and/or Firefox, the platform/app they forked from; but they do, in fact, include the following disclaimer in all of their website pages (including the download page): Are they too acting in bad faith and/or in an illegal fashion? How is this different to @roytam1 having the following disclaimer: Apologies, I am not a native English speaker, so i had to look up "snarky" : https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=snarky How you'd go and describe Roy's "actions" as "snarky" and "backhanded" is completely beyond me (???) ; all that was done was to comply to the wishes/suggestions expressed in the linked MSFN forum post; well, the screengrab of that post was added for "posterity", you know, because posts can always be edited (just like "your coneys" was subdued to "your people"; BTW, I am noone's "people", I pride in not following "flocks" but make my own mind on things in both real and digital life...). I acknowledge several legal issues were raised with regards to the BinOC forked products (this is all very apparent to me now) and, as unpleasant as legal issues may be, these DO have to be addressed properly; this should have been conducted in an amicable manner, instead it has escalated into a Cold War Era confrontation, where each party is wary of the other and one party in particular is trigger happy, ready to push the "Nuke'em All!" red button... At the end of the day, while the lawyers might be satisfied, all that remains for mere mortals is the hostility and bitterness in the atmosphere - in the long run, this is detrimental to everyone... Regards

Just saying ... https://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-new-study-shows-home-edition-users-are-baffled-by-updates/ https://insider.windows.com/en-us/articles/were-listening-to-you/ Mission Status: FAILED jaclaz

Nope. Delusions of grandeur. Guess what. A judge or jury would be the one "deem reasonable" in this case if it ever came to court. Aside from that, given in this case that you are already perfectly able to and actively "digitally distributing" the executable form, then I don't believe any judge or jury would look favorably on you purposely creating arbitrary "obstacles" in the way of accessing the source code, which could be construed as an "attempt to alter or restrict the recipients’ rights" as prohibited in Section 3.1. Also, returning to the first point, given that literally thousands of open-source programs (and even entire operating systems) today are perfectly capable of providing digital distribution of their sources, I see no reason why a judge or jury should entertain the idea of providing an exception for you. And, even in the end, if you were somehow able to pull that off, I'll pledge $100 right now toward the cost of creating more work and annoyance for you. Remember me when you're making trips to the post office.

If you and moonchild did a better job, then there would be no need for unofficial versions... Step your game up or get out of the wayyyyy.......

Hi. Now 2.9f and 2.9g (perlhaps test version 2.9h, too) have critical problems. * Certain security softwares collide with extended kernel. (It is almost resolved) * Chromium and Firefox based web browser will freeze. Regrettably I don't release English version untill fixed them. You may believe that Japanese only version is Beta Test :3 It may be released in March. You know the following article comes for correction problem reasons http://blog.livedoor.jp/blackwingcat/archives/1979072.html

@FranceBB @jumper @someguy25 @i430VX @VistaLover @rloew @Dibya @I41Mar @Mathwiz @aviator @RED-CHAMBER @Tamris @CoRoNe SOLVED! Thank you all for your troubleshooting and input. After installing a fresh Dell OEM copy of Windows XP on my Inspiron 1420, and "one step at a time" trial and error, I discovered the missing culprit: Visual Studio 2013 (VS2013): https://download.microsoft.com/download/2/E/6/2E61CFA4-993B-4DD4-91DA-3737CD5CD6E3/vcredist_x86.exe I tried several different things, one at a time. Once I installed this package, Audacity 2.3.1 immediately began working. I'm thankful for this Audacity thread which helped me FINALLY discover the culprit: https://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic.php?p=272186#p272186 Note, my Dell XP copy is SP3 RTM with IE6. So, no further updates to Windows XP or IE are needed.

2.2 is out! https://github.com/rn10950/RetroZilla/releases/tag/2.2 Edit: It turns out that Github is refusing connections from RetroZilla 2.1, so it is impossible to download RetroZilla 2.2 using RetroZilla 2.1 (and I assume any official Mozilla release for 9x and NT4 as well as IE6). This issue will only affect 2.1 and below, as the security suite was updated in 2.2 (thanks @roytam1). I will look further to see if there is a way to access github using HTTP, or find an alternative host for the 2.2 binaries. There will be no way to change this in existing 2.1 installations, so consider the updater for 2.1 a notifier. Edit 2: Link that works in RetroZilla 2.1: http://www.filedropper.com/retrozilla-22en-uswin32installer

Sorry for the delay, but here is a new BCrypt.dll I wrote three days ago with a fully functioning BCryptGenRandom: From http://www.geocities.ws/jumper: BCrypt.dll replacement library (with C source) [7z] BCrypt.7z - 4KB (C) BCryptGenRandom calls RtlGenRandom (aka SystemFunction036) as implemented by the KernelEx project.

A person can probably find common ground with any other person on at least something. Sure, no problem.

MC's post is a lot less hostile than Tobin's, and it sort of makes sense: if you're going to develop add-ons for PM, you need to test your add-ons with the "stock" PM build, because that's the version 99% of PM users will use your add-on with. And that, of course, means testing on a Win 7+ system, so that "stock" PM will run on it. It doesn't mean you have to prefer the stock build - only that you have to test with it. It's Tobin who seems to blow a gasket anytime he sees the letters "XP" together. Chill out, man! Whatever your feelings about XP, and however justified you believe them to be, it's not worth having a heart attack over. Let other folks make other choices for their own reasons. Freedom! As for MC's sig, I sort of sympathize; I often find myself rewriting some program that was cloned from another program, and in the rush to get it running, a lot of unneeded code from the "original" source code was left in. Or the programmer used a generic structure better suited to a much more complex program than the one she actually wrote. Either way, you can make the program much easier to read, understand, and debug by removing all that extra code. Where MC takes his sig too far is when he decides to remove functionality just for the sake of removing code, as in his recent decision to remove working WE APIs from Basilisk. Sure, that too can make your program easier to read, understand, and debug; but it also makes your program less useful!

It's this kind of ridiculous nonsense that, in part, has caused the situation where we only have ond or two mainstream options when it comes to browsers. If he'd be a bit more open minded and do what some other developers have done ("we don't support XP or Vista anymore; our software may still work, but it's untested, so try it at your own risk, and don't expect us to help you if anything goes wrong") PM could've been much more open. Instead, his attitude is, "I refuse to let my software run on anything not supported by MS, and anyone trying to do so is banned from any discussion". What an excellent way to push users away! c

codename. I think I have the right to choose the name of that directory, no matter it is cf69fed1697d94a058f6074ab55fd6094a200a3ec1af1e806fe537f1d115c2d283f7a083fdcb157a2abe0fda98d74f3b31ca0484aa803e48177dbb53eb1cdd34 or tVnRIF7Nvg4Ywlcv4zUffArn+LyLpeCPezvyqEXTw2RF5gU1skMG87JFy0KiaPVy or anything else. BTW for Borealis™, I can only remember this: https://www.borealisgroup.com/company/about-borealis/overview

I don't want to exaggerate now, but if you are so insecure and already want to delete certificates, then you should strictly avoid the Internet. Alternatively, only separate, secure end-to-end encryption of all data transfers that you control all by yourself would remain. You are not fully secure on internet, it was so and it will be so in future.