Jump to content

Mathwiz

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,728

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    49

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

  • Country

    United States

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Mathwiz

  1. Mathwiz
    Hmm.... Only one .css file I can find, in /chrome/skin, and it doesn't specify much: #ua-status-toggle {width: 24px; height: 24px;} toolbar[iconsize="small"] #ua-status-toggle {width: 16px; height: 16px;} Looks like it just makes the add-on's icon 24x24, unless it's in a toolbar with small icons, in which case it's 16x16. There's a bunch of .xul code in this thing though! I assume that's where the "secret" lies. Unfortunately I know nothing about xul, so I'm pretty much stuck at this point.
  2. Mathwiz
    Looks like a great extension! Unfortunately there's another theme compatibility problem: I'm using the FT DeepDark 14.3 theme and almost nothing is visible! I could give up on the theme, but first I thought I'd ask: is there any way to adjust the add-on's color scheme to accommodate a black background?
  3. Mathwiz
    I realize this is beating a mostly-dead horse, but I wonder if the author included the fix for the WebP vulnerability in his code? I don't believe it was incorporated into Chromium until V117 (although Google and Micro$oft both back-ported it into V109 for the benefit of Win 7 users).
  4. Mathwiz
    I agree, although I think it's important to note that the biggest difference is between 480p ("ED") and 720p ("HD"). Going from 720p up to 1080p ("FHD") isn't as noticeable, and going from there to 2160p ("4K") is even less noticeable unless you have a really big screen or you sit really close to the screen you have. But while each increase in resolution gives less noticeable results, it requires a greater increase in your download speed and/or processing power (for those more efficient codecs like AV1). So you have to expend ever-greater effort for ever-diminishing returns. For me personally, the cutoff point is 1080p, but I can certainly see someone being perfectly happy with 720p or even 480p. That said, I can see an advantage of having a 4K display even if I don't bother watching 4K video. Both 720p and 1080p scale up to a 4K screen smoothly.
  5. Mathwiz
    BTW there's a dedicated thread for this new browser now: Perhaps the discussion should be continued over there, but first let me note that the beta version is free, but has a "time bomb" and will quit working in August 2024 (although, due to a bug, it will start working again in January 2025 and will quit working again in August 2025, and again in 2026, etc.)
  6. Mathwiz
    Confirmed. There's also a banner I don't understand: I'm guessing it's trying to install the latest Widevine or some such (which of course it can't do), but I have no idea why DropBox would try to play DRM'ed audio, video, or whatever the heck it's doing!
  7. Mathwiz
    Of course the final decision is yours, but I'd encourage you to at least try uBlock Origin. If you hate it, you can always uninstall it. It was written for efficiency, so it's likely you'll find that it actually speeds up your browsing more than slowing it down, since your browser will no longer try to download oodles and gobs of unwanted garbage. The latest non-WE version of uBO that I have is 1.16.4.31b2, which IIRC was posted by @AstroSkipper in his thread: There may be a later version by now; I haven't checked recently.
  8. Mathwiz
    With CSS, sometimes partial/incomplete support is worse than no support! Try setting layout.css.is-where-pseudo.enabled to false. With that setting, those Web sites at least pull up, although I didn't test their functionality, so some things may still be broken.
  9. Mathwiz
    Thank you for checking; it sounds like the problem I had isn't a simple bug, but more likely, it seems, a conflict between something in the 10.26 build and one of my add-ons or custom settings. (It works in earlier builds, even with all the same add-ons and settings.) These kinds of problems are a bear to debug. Maybe I'll get lucky and the 11.10 version will just work; otherwise, it's try with a clean profile; try safe mode; try disabling half my add-ons, etc., etc. Hmm... methinks upstream must have "fixed" something else which wasn't broken. Mozilla may have too (I haven't tried a modern FF build). Exe's aren't my main concern, but St 55 has always been able to open them (if I'm feeling lucky) or save them.
  10. Mathwiz
    My example was the .exe installer on the main page, but I ran into the bug regardless of the file type being downloaded. Sorry; it wasn't entirely clear. It's actually the "Open with" option, although, when downloading an .exe, the program to be used to "open" the file is blank: Then click the "Save File" button. The file will download to your temporary files folder and then be "opened" (run, in the case of an .exe). That is certainly "best practice" and should be followed if there's any doubt, but with reasonably trustworthy sites like 7-zip.org, I've learned that one can safely get away with a few "shortcuts." With 7-Zip it's not actually necessary to close all other apps, including the browser, before installing; therefore one can have the browser run the installer and disaster won't strike. The trick, of course, is to know when it's safe to do this, and when it's more risky - and I don't have a perfect record on this myself! At any rate, as I mentioned, this bug wasn't limited to executables; that just happened to be the (perhaps ill-advised) example I gave to reproduce it.
  11. Mathwiz
    I often wonder in these cases, is Chase fearmongering, or are they a victim of fearmongering by Google, Micro$oft, Mozilla, etc.? All those companies are constantly telling us that a dire fate awaits anyone who doesn't stay on the very latest version of their browsers. Did Chase just buy into the hype? I thought it odd that Chase will accept Chrome 106 on Android, but require Chrome 109 in the UA if it admits the OS is Windows. I suppose it's possible there's a vulnerability in Chrome 106-108 that only affects Windows, but it seems more likely they're just requiring the latest versions that will run on Android 6 or Windows 7. And what's up with rejecting Edge 109 if Chrome 109 is OK? None of it makes much sense to me.
  12. Mathwiz
    I tried 2023.10.19 (the 20231021 file) today and it too works fine. So the issue: ... appears to have started with the 2023.10.26 build.
  13. Mathwiz
    It could, but we do allow editing posts, and that can also be abused. Just takes a bit longer.
  14. Mathwiz
    They could offer it with a time limit (of, say, an hour).
  15. Mathwiz
    Unfortunate. I would give it a try myself, but I have neither the equipment nor the expertise. I expect Tobin will release an update eventually, and you'll have a 64-bit version then. But he's quite unpredictable as you know.
  16. Mathwiz
    Actually I think @roytam1 should release a 64-bit build of MailNews. After all, as you said, Tobin releases 64-bit builds of Interlink, and modern hardware is all 64-bit nowadays. I think by the time you get to Win 11, there isn't even a 32-bit version of the OS available anymore. It may be simply that there hasn't been any demand for a 64-bit build until now. After all, a lot of his followers are still running on old hardware, and very few folks are using the 64-bit version of Windows XP. But he does release many other builds in 64-bit versions, so you might just ask Roytam and see what he says. I was just saying that, if a 32-bit program met my needs, I wouldn't let mere bitness stop me from using it! "It's perfect, and it runs fine on my system, but it's a 32-bit program, so I refuse!" That's where I would be getting a bit religious IMO.
  17. Mathwiz
    This vulnerability is interesting. The idea behind it is, someone sends you a malicious HTML document in (say) an email. You open it, thinking HTML documents should be safe - but the document uses Javascript to read other files in the folder the HTML document was downloaded to, and upload them to their server. For this to work, the malicious document has to know (or guess) the names of other files in the directory it gets downloaded to. If the email client (say) creates a unique directory for each email, then you're safe - the only thing in the download directory would be the email and attachments the attacker himself sent. But apparently some email clients and messaging apps aren't so careful, and put data from different emails into the same directory. Worse, they use easily-guessed file names, so a malicious HTML page can read your mail with some Javascript. This looks to me more like a vulnerability in certain email and messaging apps than a browser issue; nevertheless, Mozilla decided to "fix" the problem at the browser end, by treating every file:// URL as a unique origin. (I'm sure Chromium did the same.) That's why @luweitest's site didn't work when downloaded (until he changed the pref) - the browser blocked any Javascript from accessing anything in any other file! I presume it's also why @grey_rat recommended the "SingleFile" extension - if it had worked, it would've put the whole site in one big file, and the Javascript code would have been allowed to access it.
  18. Mathwiz
    Dude - the entire code tree is here: https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/tree/main/ The license is just the Chromium license, here: https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/blob/main/LICENSE GitHub users have forked Supermium already: https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/forks So I don't see what you think is stopping anyone from creating an "unGoogled" fork.
  19. Mathwiz
    I think that's news! AIUI when GMail announced the OAuth2 mandate, Tobin threw a fit and removed the early OAuth2 support he had written for Interlink. (Sort of understandable; since when did email providers get to require every email client developer to register their apps with them? Since Google, that's when.) @roytam1 kept it in his version, so there was a period when his version had (at least some) OAuth2 support but the official version didn't. At any rate, it sounds like Tobin eventually relented. No matter what you think of Google, you aren't going to make any money with an email client that doesn't work with GMail. So I guess OAuth2 is no longer an advantage for Roytam's version.
  20. Mathwiz
    This is a nitpick, but it's not x86 "emulation." Emulation is what you do when your CPU doesn't understand another CPU's instruction set: you use a program that reads the machine code written for the other CPU and does what the other CPU would have done, usually much more slowly. In contrast, the x64 processors do understand the x86 instruction set and execute x86 instructions natively, so x86 programs run at the same speed they would on a "true" x86 processor. Of course it still won't be as fast as x64 code, because you're manipulating data 4 bytes at a time vs. 8. So there's still a speed penalty compared to a 64-bit app. (Plus, 32-bit code also has that pesky 4GB addressable RAM limit.) So I can understand why you generally prefer 64-bit apps, even if your terminology was a bit wrong. OTOH, we're talking about an email client here, not an AI engine. How much RAM and speed could it need? Your preference for 64-bit apps is understandable, but I wouldn't make it into a religion.
  21. Mathwiz
    That's pretty good advice if it's just the cost of a new system that's holding you back. I think that's true for some. But I also know several XP users just prefer the XP UI to more recent Windows versions, and they don't even want to switch to Win 7 (to say nothing of 10!) I doubt they'd be very comfortable with a Linux UI; those folks may be willing to go to more extreme measures to stay on XP. There's also the intangible "thrill factor" of making XP (or even Vista or 7) run programs that Micro$oft, Google, etc. have tried very hard to keep them from running (like modern Chromium)
  22. Mathwiz
    I tried to install QT 7.7.9 on my Win 7 SP1 system, but for some reason it won't install! The prerequisite apps, Apple Application Support and Apple Software Update, both install (even if I uncheck the box to install the latter ) without problems. But installation of QuickTime itself always fails. The installer dialog just says "The installer encountered errors before the requested operations for QuickTime 7 could be completed." Not very helpful at all. Even unpacking the .exe and trying to install QuickTime.msi directly encounters the same problem. Running msiexec /i QuickTime.msi /l* QuickTime.log gives a bit more info. I get the same failure, but see the following in the log file: Action 21:32:25: CheckAndGrantAccessToRegistryKeys. Verifying registry key security Action start 21:32:25: CheckAndGrantAccessToRegistryKeys. CheckAndGrantAccessToRegistryKeys entered. Exception 80000003 executing DoCheckAndGrantAccess(hInstall, REGISTRYTABLE) Exception 80000003 executing DoCheckAndGrantAccess(hInstall, REMOVEREGISTRYTABLE) CheckAndGrantAccessToRegistryKeys exiting. ==>1723L DEBUG: Error 2769: Custom Action CheckAndGrantAccessToRegistryKeys did not close 6 MSIHANDLEs. The installer has encountered an unexpected error installing this package. This may indicate a problem with this package. The error code is 2769. The arguments are: CheckAndGrantAccessToRegistryKeys, 6, CustomAction CheckAndGrantAccessToRegistryKeys returned actual error code 1603 (note this may not be 100% accurate if translation happened inside sandbox) Action ended 21:32:25: CheckAndGrantAccessToRegistryKeys. Return value 3. Action ended 21:32:25: INSTALL. Return value 3. So apparently there's something funky about my registry. Of course it doesn't tell me which registry key(s) it's having trouble accessing. Oh, well, I don't really need it; I just wanted to try to help @luweitest....
  23. Mathwiz
    I tried 2023.10.12 today and it too works fine. So that narrows the issue down to one of the last two versions. I'll try the remaining version as time permits.
  24. Mathwiz
    @roytam1: I seem to have encountered a small bug in Serpent 55, version 2023.10.26. File downloads never complete when using the "open file" option. The file seems to download, but once it "should" be completely downloaded, the download freezes. The downloaded file shows 0 bytes in the temporary directory. You can't even cancel the download except by closing the browser. "Open file" is one of the conveniences FF-derived browsers like Serpent provide over Chromium-based browsers. It downloads to your temporary directory, opens the file, then (if the file isn't still open) deletes it for you when you close the browser, so it would be nice if this worked. Downloads via an add-on, such as DownThemAll, work fine. Serpent 55 version 2023.10.06 also works fine, so the bug seems to have crept in quite recently. Trying to download the 7-Zip installer is a simple way to reproduce the bug. On 2023.10.06 the installer downloads, runs, and installs 7-Zip. On 2023.10.26 the installer downloads, but then the download freezes as described above.
  25. Mathwiz
    I'm no Javascript expert, but I think all that code does is write out an HTML page. The key, I think, is in these snippets from the HTML page it writes: <OBJECT CLASSID="clsid:02BF25D5-8C17-4B23-BC80-D3488ABDDC6B" WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="16" CODEBASE="http://www.apple.com/qtactivex/qtplugin.cab"> <embed src=',Sound,' height="16" width="200" autoplay="true" PLUGINSPAGE="http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/"> That looks to me like it uses Apple's QuickTime plug-in to play the audio - hence the message you reported getting. (It's also very old code: http: not https:.) At one time, QuickTime was very popular, but I haven't seen it used in years. Seeing this today is about as surprising as seeing a site that still uses Adobe Flash. Apple still provides QuickTime but no longer supports it, and the latest version requires Windows Vista or 7. If you have XP, I'm not sure where you might find the last XP-compatible QuickTime version appears to be version 7.6: https://support.apple.com/kb/dl762?locale=en_US Now, why VLC works, I have no idea, unless it emulates the QuickTime plug-in somehow. Nevertheless that sounds to me like your best option.
×
×
  • Create New...