Jump to content

Mathwiz

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,873

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    51

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

  • Country

    United States

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Mathwiz

  1. Mathwiz
    I'm sure he'll consider it; in the meantime, have you tried IceDove?
  2. Mathwiz
    OK, have not done that. From your query, I take it the button icons are actually a customized character font, much the same as many Web sites (including MSFN) use to add small icons to their sites. Let me fire up the 32-bit version of St 55, which still shows the bug on my home PC, and see if a similar bug affects the icons at the top of the MSFN page. Hmm.... MSFN's icons appear normal, even though St 55's icons are fouled up: Still, I think you're onto something. Just can't quite figure it out yet.
  3. Mathwiz
    Well, no; at least, not that I know of. I'd know if I did that, right?
  4. Mathwiz
    This issue has me even more puzzled than ever. Here's what I've run into so far: I still see the problem in the latest St 55 version. On my home PC running Windows 7, both the 32 and 64 bit versions of St 55 exhibit the problem, regardless of profile, and even in "safe mode" (add-ons disabled). On my work PC, I tested the 64 bit version under Windows 7 and the 32 bit version under Windows XP. Both worked fine. The screen shot above was from my work PC. All versions (working and not) were tested with @looking4awayout's UOC patch, but removing it turned out to have no effect either. My home PC has text set at 150% while my work PC is at the default 100%. But setting my home PC text size to 100% had no effect either. I was able to regain the button icons on my home PC by replacing basilisk.exe, xul.dll, and a couple of .ini files, with the 4/29 versions of those files. Of course, that reverts many of the fixes @roytam1 made since 4/29, so it's definitely not a good solution. Reverting other files, without reverting those, doesn't help (I tried them all). Conclusion: something about my home PC, in conjunction with one of the many changes made between 4/29 and 5/6, causes this problem. Nothing else seems to matter. My home PC has an oldish AMD 2-core CPU with an integrated ATI Radeon GPU. My work PC is a Dell with a slightly newer Intel 4-core CPU; not sure about the GPU. BTW, I consider myself lucky that reverting files worked at all; I was just trying to narrow down the location of the problem.
  5. Mathwiz
    I second that motion. The change log is usually quite long and very technical; hard to understand even for those of us who dabble in programming. Putting it in a spoiler tag would let us refer to it if need be but save our scroll wheels if not.... Even better would be a plain-language "executive summary" of the changes, but I'm sure that's out of the question. It would have to come from upstream....
  6. Mathwiz
    Yes, that's correct; @UCyborg had an issue with 52; I had one with 55.... But oddly, I reinstalled the UOC Patch to start searching for the problem, and my button icons are still OK. So ... never mind? I'm so confused....
  7. Mathwiz
    I suspect @looking4awayout's UOC patch. The way it's installed (copy to defaults\pref subdirecory), it affects all profiles, including clean ones. I reinstalled the 2022/05/06 version without the UOC patch and the button icons are normal. Now I just have to find out which of the many, many prefs changed by the UOC patch suddenly started malfunctioning in the 2022/05/06 version....
  8. Mathwiz
    Yes it does: "Safe mode" doesn't solve the problem either.
  9. Mathwiz
    Some button icons seem messed up in the latest (2022-05-06) St 55: What it looks like in earlier versions (this is from 2022-04-29):
  10. Mathwiz
    Hey - I expect to be in my 3rd or 4th robot body by then!
  11. Mathwiz
    What is it with us programmers anyway? Not only do we have to mess around with a perfectly reasonable programming language, thus requiring constant browser updates, just to save a few keystrokes on occasion.... ... we also have to make up new words just to describe what we're doing!
  12. Mathwiz
    Now that I think about it, I started using this feature on St 52 (where it has always worked), because until recently, there wasn't a big need for me to launch single-process mode in St 55. (The only real use case for me was Classic Add-Ons Archive, which does the trick on its own on both 52 and 55, once patched to treat Serpent like Waterfox). It wasn't until your recent work on St 55 enabled use of the gh-wc-polyfill add-on that I had a need to launch single-process mode on St 55. By that time, the only versions I had on my PC were 4/1 and 4/15, so those were the only ones I tried.
  13. Mathwiz
    And to think many folks used to spoof FF 99 to "future-proof" their UA spoof. So, FF has finally caught up to Chrome version numbers. (Well, almost. My BlackBerry Priv is at Chrome V101.) Congratulations Does that mean they're going to slow down their version cycle now to stay in sync, or does that mean Chrome is going to speed up theirs? Oh, well; at least we can look forward to this: in another 160 years or so, both versions should catch up to the actual year, and they can finally drop all this silliness. The irony of all this is, it won't even work for its stated purpose; at least not for long. The spammers will quickly update their bots with the latest Chrome JS engines, and be able to pass the challenge. Surely Cloudflare and Gitlab know this; Chromium is open source, after all. News flash: humans (even this one) are not good at "mathematical challenges!" The only way to truly block bots is with an interactive captcha, which users understandably despise. So the only net effect will be to block folks from signing in unless they use Google's latest spyware er, "browser." (BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if common privacy protections, like canvas fingerprinting blockers, also stop you from getting past the Cloudflare "challenge." And don't even think about NoScript....) A better solution would be to just offer a captcha if the browser fails the "challenge;" that way you could still sign in with a non-evil browser, albeit with more annoyance. At least it still works (for now) in 360EE v12. I suppose there's a nonzero chance that UXP will get up to that level (and can then pass with a UA spoof) before Cloudflare updates their challenge to only work in Chrome 98+.
  14. Mathwiz
    Search bar works in the latest St 55, though, in case that helps with debugging.
  15. Mathwiz
    Here's something I never thought I'd see: e10s in NM 27? We don't even have that in NM 28!
  16. Mathwiz
    Ran into an obscure bug in the 4/1 and 4/15 Serpent 55 releases: on the about:profiles page, if you try to use any of the "Launch Profile in new browser" buttons, they don't launch the selected profile. They all launch the default profile instead. Thus, to switch profiles on Serpent 55 you much change the default profile, restart, then repeat the process if you want to go back to your original default profile. I use this as a quick way to get out of multiprocess (e10s) mode when I need to use an e10s-incompatible extension like github-wc-polyfill, so this bug makes that process rather cumbersome. The latest Serpent 52 doesn't have this bug; the "Launch Profile in new browser" buttons work correctly there.
  17. Mathwiz
    Thanks for the tip; I'll give it a try!
  18. Mathwiz
    Thanks @roytam1! That's a huge list of changes and it's only been 2 weeks since the last Moebius update! You've been very busy, it seems. I'll download and give it a try. Very recently, chase.com made some Javascript changes that (you guessed it) broke their site on both UXP and Moebius browsers. There are no visible changes to the site; it just quit working on non-Chrome browsers. (To be fair, the site's performance on 360EE is greatly improved over how it was when it did work on all these browsers, so the majority of the site's users who do use Chrome are probably pretty happy with the changes.) Edit: Just tried it, and chase.com works again! It's not as fast as it is on 360EE but it's adequate. Besides, Serpent auto-fills my user ID and password; 360EE won't for some reason.
  19. Mathwiz
    Yes; IIRC, there was no iPhone 9 either! In Apple's case, they were in a hurry to get to 10, because the Roman numeral for 10 is X, and they wanted to advertise the "iPhone X" (as in Xtreme, I suppose) But I don't recall M$ ever advertising Windows 10 as "Windows X" or some such nonsense. Anyway, I hope you're right that the 360EE version is now the year (on the Gregorian calendar) - I just wish M$, Mozilla, and Google would follow suit! <off topic>My sincere apologies for trying to dissuade @InterLinked from buying an automobile from the era when gasoline in the US still had lead in it (not to mention wishing I could buy an unGoogled EV) - that one comment once again derailed the entire thread with a raft of political propaganda. You'd think I would've learned by now!
  20. Mathwiz
    In this case, I'd urge you to rethink that position. Dependence on gasoline (or petrol, as some call it) is becoming increasingly untenable in the modern world, for many good reasons. I do, however, share the reluctance to get one of these "Google-enabled" cars, just to get an electric model. Can I get an electric car without the spyware, please? Unfortunately I think the 360EE developers have already announced that the next version won't run on XP. Heck, we're lucky it runs on Win 7, given that Google has already given up on that platform. What happened to versions 14-20?
  21. Mathwiz
    I should've used scare quotes, as you did I agree with you. Nothing made in 2015 should be unusable a mere seven years later. Heck, this thread is in a section of MSFN dedicated to OSes much older than that; yet we manage to keep them going.... Yet phones are an even bigger planned-obsolescence racket than PCs. I could go on and on about the hoops I had to jump through to keep a 7-year-old phone operating. It's AT&T-branded, yet AT&T's SIMs won't enable voice over LTE on it, which is needed now that AT&T shut down their 3G network. So I had to switch my AT&T phone to another carrier to use a feature that AT&T built into it in the first place! Yes, I was referring specifically to digital cell phones. I too have an old AT&T rotary dial phone that still works on the modern PSTN. But I'm getting way off-topic here, so I'll shut up....
  22. Mathwiz
    Could be deliberate, in order to force use of the "latest" browser versions, for "security" I feel fortunate that Chase.com still works in Serpent (52 and 55) as long as I use a user agent spoof, and of course don't try to enable "Web Components." On Android, not so lucky; I have a "vintage" 2015 Android phone which still works (even survived AT&Ts shutdown of their 3G network) except for the Chase app. The last Android 6 version of their app has been blocked for many moons. Never mind; I can still use Chrome - oh wait, Google just stopped updating Chrome on Android 6 too, so those days are numbered too. At least I got all the way up to Chrome 99 first (maybe Android 6 can't handle a 3-digit version number ) Assuming the phone continues to hold out, my last resort will be Firefox (probably FF 56 with, you guessed it, a UA spoof).
  23. Mathwiz
    Since this error appears to be related to missing Shadow DOM support, I'm testing in St 55.... BRB.... Well, that was sort of a bust. Couldn't really test anything since I'm not a Comcast customer (thank goodness), so no signing on for me! I'm guessing @Art7220 couldn't sign in with the pref disabled, got further with it enabled, but gave up because setting the pref broke YouTube (a la my experience with Chase). Be interesting for a Comcast customer to try this and see what the issues are with the pref disabled and with it enabled, not only in a UXP browser like NM but also in St 55.
  24. Mathwiz
    I had my suspicions; after all, it's intended to test whether or not a feature is implemented; it isn't an exhaustive test of whether a feature is implemented correctly. It's all I had to go on, though. So, St 52's implementation of Custom Elements is still incomplete. It's probably the best we have until Moonchild puts some effort into it, though. As for Shadow DOM, html5test.com claims St 52 has partial support, and that St 55 has full support. We'd probably need to scour Bugzilla for relevant code (and might, perhaps, find more relevant usable code in FF 54 and 55. I doubt anything later could be merged into either Serpent version though). BTW, it turns out that setting dom.webcomponents.enabled breaks Chase.com in St 52 too, although it's not as badly broken as in St 55. Apparently the site is designed to work correctly if someone disables Web Components, but otherwise it expects a complete implementation. So my advice now is to leave the pref off in both browsers. If anyone discovers a specific Web site that only works with the setting enabled, make a copy of your main profile, and just toggle that pref on in the copy, so you can use that profile for the site that requires it. (Let the rest of us know what you find too.)
  25. Mathwiz
    I don't think Mozilla got Web Components quite right until well into the Quantum era, but there is hope! Per HTML5test.com, latest St 52 has full Shadow DOM support (I'm guessing thanks to MCP) but lacks Custom Elements support, while St 55 has Custom Elements support but partial/broken Shadow DOM support, both probably inherited from FF 53. So perhaps we could port the changes for each into the other and get full Web Components support in both versions. Web Components are only one piece of the current JS issues, but it seems like it's worth a try.
×
×
  • Create New...