Leaderboard

Update for root certificates: New: CN = Autoridade Certificadora Raiz Brasileira v5 OU = Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia da Informacao - ITI O = ICP-Brasil C = BR CN = NAVER Global Root Certification Authority O = NAVER BUSINESS PLATFORM Corp. C = KR CN = RCSC RootCA O = VI Registru centras- i.k. 124110246 OU = RCSC C = LT Those using heinoganda's Cert_Updater.exe should run it ASAP. Others needing a redistributable rootsupd.exe should follow his instructions for creating their own, or PM at 5eraph for an updated EXE file.

Yeah, it's definitely fully intentional. Microsoft is known for trying all sorts of tricks to enforce the newest browser and OS versions (with maximized spying tools) on all people, if any possible. So the first thing they did after getting their hands on github was to enforce a newer TLS version, even for simply *reading* public pages. In one scoop kicking out all users of really old browsers knowing max TLS1.0 (perhaps 1.1 too, don't know), and even worse, also making it impossible for them to download anything from github anymore. Countless useful apps developed for OLD browsers now inaccessible, and updates to those, and even Linux builds. And shortly after people here reported that Microsoft now also blocked access to a few of the advanced github-features for members, by enforcing really latest greatest javascript and the most modern browsers on them, if I got that right. That fits also perfectly to this discovery that Microsoft-Github now only allows full access for the current Firefox ESR 60 version too, by intentionally using most modern JS code, and even the previous FF-esr is already ignored! They clearly do this by design. Trying to enforce as much as they can their latest systems and browsers with maximized spying build-in and minimized customizing possibilities for users. Like others too of course (e.g. Mozilla deleting ALL xul-addons which makes no other sense at all, instead of simply keeping a frozen archive, and Opera deleted all Presto-addons long since too) Regarding really old browsers again, luckily one of them could already handle some TLS1.2 and html5: Opera Presto 12.02. The prob is, that's not widely known, sadly I learned this only last year. And meanwhile, what hardly anyone knows, there's also retrozilla (FF2) and a few old gecko builds with added TLS1.2 by roytam1, working miracles in modern web, even on 98se with kernelex: you wouldn't believe how many sites become at least readable again simply by being allowed access. Without frills and only limited functions of course, but blocking css sometimes works the next miracle, revealing input boxes, text content, many images, making some broken links clickable. BTW also making some too heavy css-overloaded pages scrollable again, fast. For miracle step #3 fiddling with userstyles+scripts often helps (for this forum too) All that stuff doesn't help always, but well enough in most cases. Point being: Yes they are fully intentionally trying to kick out users of even slightly older browsers versions, for their own hidden agendas, without real need.

That makes perfect sense: The coders use some if-rules for certain defined alternative browsers, and all the "unknown" rest gets the "default" value - for current modern code. In my old KM-version I've also noticed that spoofing as IE7 gives very often better results as spoofing as FF3.5, matching the real engine. For example on amazon spoofing IE7 makes the article's main image show up, otherwise it's invisible. My theory is that quite some website-devs still just keep inherited ancient if-rules for IE7 from old times, when it was the most important browser, by simply not touching those lines, and despite some rendering quirks the result in old gecko browsers is now a lot better as the modern "default" code for newer Firefoxes. Who would have thought that one day it would be a good thing that old IE wasn't strictly standard :-) For old Firefox-versions such if-rules were not necessary at the time, so today they land in the big pot who gets just modern default code.

I bet GitHub actually works on "real" FF 64. They probably send the FF64-compatible JS to any FF browser except 60.x and maybe a few other recent versions in that range. FF 52, NM, & Serpent can't use the FF 64 code, but if the browser is "too old" for GitHub's taste, it just sends the FF 64 code anyway (along with the out-of-date browser banner). So you have to use a spoof that's "old enough," but not "too old"

@Mathwiz don't be ridiculous. These are technical forums, people don't do that here. @glnz the simplest way to move those 61 years of accumulated emails is to just use pencil and paper and a little transcription time; then simply re-construct the data manually.

Google Earth Web not working in Chrome 49, but the Google Earth 7 software still works fine and is satisfactory enough for me:

+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.

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.

nope, but instead, I'll make it always show build date in about dialog.