Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/13/2022 in all areas

  1. i get it, you want to get your things working, but i've seen this question so many times that it looks like spam now (nothing personal) i mean it would've been easier to buy an old laptop or use a vm if you don't want to spend money (your time is more precious than 30 bucks)
    2 points
  2. I have reported to his forum now. Just waiting to confirm my topic because I just signed up.
    2 points
  3. UXP and other descendants based on old Firefox are in the wrong because that behavior contradicts the specs. Fixed in Firefox 80. "z-index" has an effect on transformed content in Firefox, but not in Edge/Safari/Chrome
    1 point
  4. @UCyborg : It's well past midnight here and I had a rough day today (rusty plumbing caused a water leak in one wall of my flat ), so I'll review the linked documentation tomorrow, when, hopefully, I'll be more lucid , but, put in layman's terms, who is right and who is wrong here? Is UXP doing the right thing by taking into account "z-index=-2", resulting in the image being hidden, or is Chromium doing the right thing by ignoring "z-index=-2" and, thus, displaying the "story-image"? Thanks in advance ! From file https://cdn.tunwalai.com/lib/bootstrap5/bootstrap.min.css , L96-L104: .story-image { margin: 0; border-radius: 8px; display: block; height: 292px; min-width: 100%; width: 292px; z-index: -2; }
    1 point
  5. Firefox dev tools lets you know the property z-index is ignored if the element isn't positioned; its position is not set to something other than static, which is default if not specified (it isn't specified in this case). Chromium seems to do the same, but doesn't warn. W3Schools also suggests it shouldn't work for statically positioned elements. Also here:
    1 point
  6. https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=28972 More about "z-index" here ; still, Moonchild didn't say why Chromium displays such an image fine ...
    1 point
  7. The image problem you're discussing looks like a layout issue. Try the following CSS: @-moz-document url-prefix("https://www.tunwalai.com/story/") { .story-image { z-index: unset !important; } } Interesting that unsetting filter on the image (which sets contrast in this case) also makes it display, but then it obviously doesn't display with intended contrast.
    1 point
  8. I think the problem is more with the website itself. browsers using chromium display correctly.
    1 point
  9. That can't be it. uBO and eMatrix both disabled; still no image:
    1 point
  10. I just found out. Free Serif is used here to display "Omegaverse" in both Pale Moon and Basilisk (official) 2022-09-28. Only Firefox used Cambria Math. I tested on my Linux system. Sorry about that . On Windows XP Cambria is used. BTW, why is the image on the left not displayed?
    1 point
  11. yes it's cambria math fonts thanks for the info and the solution on Windows XP and Windows 10 show it right. But I can't see it. It's okay.
    1 point
  12. My ideas about win32k in 2000/XP are very speculative, but based on what Vista/7 do; in the latter two, graphics drivers call dxgkrnl through win32k through gdi32 to do things like initialize Vulkan. If anything needs to be added to win32k in 2000, I think BWC has covered it. But there are other things that win32k in 2000 needs to have, like raw input support (that's why PCem/86box/Blender have issues with keyboard input).
    1 point
  13. No, someone mentioned it on another forum I don't recall. Didn't know about the official article. I took care of that in UBO: ! https://learn.microsoft.com learn.microsoft.com##.has-default-focus.header-holder This cuts off more than just the unsupported banner. I personally use: ||learn.microsoft.com/_themes/docs.theme/master/*/_themes/global/*.deprecation.js$script This script specifically removes hidden attribute of the banner if the browser doesn't support certain features.
    1 point
  14. I added WerUnregisterRuntimeExceptionModule and got Firefox 106 running. So it should not be too long.
    1 point
  15. The CPython 3.7.x branch is the LAST that can launch under Vista SP2 fully updated (until Vista's EoS; that is "vanilla" Vista, i.e. no ExtKernel ). The 3.7 branch is currently under "security-fix" maintenance ONLY by the PSF (Python Software Foundation), as such they have ceased releasing themselves Windows binaries at version 3.7.9: https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-379/ The current 3.7 source-only release is v3.7.13 https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-3713/ A third-party (i.e. not the PSF) are providing Windows binaries for that version at: https://github.com/adang1345/PythonWindows/tree/master/3.7.13 Python 3.7.x will become EoL in ca. a year (23-07-2023) but, sadly, many Python projects are already considering dumping support for it , also due to the small number of actual Vista users... PSF have also dropped support for Win7SP1 (and Win8.0) in Python 3.9.x; with Win8.1's "demise" come next Jan 23rd, CPython will move to supporting only Win10+...
    1 point


×
×
  • Create New...