Leaderboard

Thank You, this one works with no problem. Dziękuję :)

try here pl.xpi

The iceapeaddon zip file for the test iceape-UXP seamonkey-suite now include: fireftp-2.0.31@iceweasel.xpi flipclock@iceweasel.xpi InternetProtection@360safe@iceweasel.xpi metal_lion_silver@icewasel.xpi nicereader-1.4@iceweasel.xpi password-backup-tool@iceweasel.xpi pinball_theme-2.53.1@iceweasel.xpi quicknote-0.7.6@iceweasel.xpi reminderfox-2.1.6@iceweasel.xpi seatab_x_2-0.3.3@iceweasel.xpi standalone_seamonkey@iceweasel.xpi uBlock0@raymondhill@iceweasel.xpi user_agent_switcher-0.7@iceweasel.xpi xpfe_classic-0.1.4@iceweasel.xpi plus some extra searchplugins iceapeplugins.zip

Not very surprising to me, because it seems to confirm what VistaLover said in his February 6 post on page 1 of this thread, i.e. that Chromium 49 is capable of displaying the polymer layout, but YouTube served the now-discontinued classic layout to Chrome 49 by default. (When it comes to browsers, VistaLover is seldom mistaken!)

I second the "just leave the names alone and quit rehashing this every few months." I say that at risk of the "other" forum member(s) who visit here will now try to get me banned from here. Because I know for a fact they ban "us" on 'their' forum! Or at very least pound out a chest-beating "Why are you even here?" Don't know how to "mend" the relationship with the "other" forum WITHOUT jumping through the branding - but I still vote for "just leave alone".

Sure, fine, you can use that, but why don't you just use xompie as you can automatise it through a bat and it's not only gonna replace the header but it's also gonna try to relink the programme to use a patched version of kernelxp.dll in order to redirect calls that have a different name but that can still work with the XP implementation of them thus increasing your chances of getting programmes to work? Xompie has been available for years now...

IMO yes; it's safe. Older, "weaker" encryption is used between the browser (IE or Chrome) and the so-called "front" server, and data is unencrypted between the "front" and "back" servers; but all this takes place within your own PC. No unencrypted or weakly-encrypted data ever leaves the PC. Thus, the connection between your PC and the Web server you're using will be as secure as the Web server is configured to make it. It's conceivable that malware could be written to exploit ProxHTTPSProxy, but the number of folks using it is pretty tiny, so I doubt anyone would bother.