Jump to content

Mathwiz

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,858

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    51

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

  • Country

    United States

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Mathwiz

  1. Mathwiz
    You're right, but it's not a matter of DoH someday becoming the "only option" because the last holdout, MCP, finally caved and supported it! DoH's mere existence threatens ad blocking at the router. Let's say you have a Roku app, which of course is completely unrelated to your computer or Web browser. The author of that app doesn't want you to block ads, so he/she/it already has a huge financial incentive to build DoH into the app so you can't. And DoH already exists, so there's nothing (besides a little development cost) to stop the author from doing so. Thanks for the suggestions, but what does it buy me? You of all people should know how much work it takes to remove all the telemetry from 360Chrome. BTW, the soon-to-be-minimum versions at chase.com are Chrome 116 and FF 115. The former won't run on W7, so it's either Supermium, Thorium, one of the 360Chrome versions above, or Mo (my new abbreviation for modern Firefox) 115 ESR. I think I trust Supermium v118 most, but in any case, there's very little true choice left among "modern" browsers. Edit: I just learned of r3dfox (pronounced "red fox"), a Win 7-compatible fork of Mo that will hopefully outlast v115 ESR. Which proves the point @VistaLover was making - that's only five versions above your current "primary" and only five versions older than the "latest and [supposedly] greatest." Google has us all on their "upgrade" treadmill now, even if you skip a handful of versions each time.
  2. Mathwiz
    Well, that explains the otherwise odd-seeming upping of the required minimum from 113 to 115, at least, if it's the last Win 7-compatible version. In any event, Chase lowered the boom rather quickly this time. I can no longer sign in using either Serpent or 360EE. There appears to be a JSON parsing error in my Chase-specific StructuredClone polyfill. @UCyborg's more sophisticated polyfill doesn't do the trick either since it doesn't handle self-referential objects (same problem as with the StructuredClone built into UXP). Also not working: Chrome 106 on Android 6.0. Edge 109 (on Win 7) still works (so, I assume, Chrome 109 would too), but for how long? It too now has the ominous "We'll stop supporting this browser soon" nag. FF 115 ESR will presumably have a somewhat longer lifespan, but the end is in sight there too. Looks like it's gonna be Thorium and/or Supermium in my future, whether I like non-unGoogled Chromium derivatives or not. I appreciate your honesty; but I daresay your "not-so-humble" opinion very likely puts you out of step with the vast majority of MSFN members. Yes, I know you "upgraded" to Windows 10 and are currently using Chromium 114, so perhaps you don't care what happens to those of us who still use earlier Windows versions (even 8.1); but there will come a day when your OS/browser will stop working too, at which point I will be overjoyed to remind you of your "not-so-humble" opinion! I just rename the folder; e.g., rename "New Moon" to "Old Moon" (delete the "Old Moon" folder first, if it still exists from the last update) and restore the new version into a new "New Moon" folder. I even wrote a batch file that automates the process. You don't lose any settings (unless you made your New Moon installation portable). Yes, I noticed that too, some time ago. It's a longstanding bug that also affects the pages shown by long-clicking the Back button. I just decided to live with it. I think their discussion was specifically about DNS over HTTPS, which wasn't a thing until long after XP EOS. Unfortunately, not likely, given MCP's position: DoH is a double-edged sword. It can be used to conceal your browsing habits from your ISP (probably a good thing) but it can also be used by apps to thwart ad blockers like Pi-Hole, which most users would consider a bad thing. But as usual, MCP fails to understand that their decision not to support DoH will have exactly zero effect on its "bad" uses coming to fruition; all it does is mean that Pale Moon users can't easily avail themselves of its "good" uses. (The apostrophe - D'OH - was clever though.)
  3. Mathwiz
    https://www.tomsguide.com/ looks to me like that stupid link rel="preload" issue we also see at Micro$oft's Web pages. Proxomitron and/or Modify HTTP Response might be able to fix it. Someday I'll find the person who came up with that "preload" nonsense and wring his neck. AFAICS it accomplishes nothing other than breaking Web pages on older browsers. OTOH, I cannot understand why MCP still hasn't addressed link rel="preload" in UXP. It's been an issue for a long time, it breaks major sites like Micro$oft's, and (although I'll admit I don't know enough to be sure) it doesn't seem like something that would be all that hard to implement.
  4. Mathwiz
    To me, that indeed sounds like the most plausible explanation, especially considering that they did not increase the minimum version for Chrome/Edge! Although if "security" is the reason, I would've expected them to require at least the WebP fix, which V115 lacks.
  5. Mathwiz
    Hi folks! My bank's site, chase.com, is once again upping the minimum browser version for Firefox. (This hasn't yet been implemented. At this point, a nag appears if your user agent reports a version that's "too old," but everything still works - for now.) The last time they did this, they raised the minimum to v113, and I changed my user agent to match that minimum. This time, they're raising it to ... v115. Setting the user agent to v115 or later removes the nag. I was flabbergasted! I half expected v117, the last version for Windows 7, at least. What's the point of raising the minimum by a mere two versions? What did FF v115 bring to the CSS/Javascript table that Chase just had to have? I'm anticipating a future breakage of chase.com with bated breath.
  6. Mathwiz
    From the r3dfox readme:
  7. Mathwiz
    I hate things like that. Whose side is the browser on, anyway? If it can download an image for display, it should be able to download the same image to disk. Win 7+ (maybe Vista too; IDK) have a "snipping tool" you can use to save images, but I don't know if there's an XP app that does something similar.
  8. Mathwiz
    Here's part of what @VistaLover wrote recently about NM 27 vs. 28. Actually this was in the context of discussing why we were getting so many NM 27 updates:
  9. Mathwiz
    Forum search functions generally suck - not just ours but every one I've ever tried. What would be really helpful is Bing's new AI search - just type in the question, et voila! But you have to be running Edge to use it and if you're able to do that, you probably aren't interested in NM 27 or 28!
  10. Mathwiz
    Agreed. I wasn't casting aspersions on the user for asking - that was the right thing to do. Just pointing out that the question does come up a lot, and will probably continue to do so. Rather than a long response, it would probably be easiest to beef up the FAQ with links to one of @VistaLover's detailed replies on those two topics. I wouldn't use it, but it (and its sister K-Meleon) are more lightweight than current UXP browsers, so they might be reasonable "first browser" choices on older hardware where UXP is unacceptably slow. If it fails to render a site properly you could always fire up Serpent, go make a cup of coffee, drink it....
  11. Mathwiz
    There's a thread on Supermium here at MSFN: https://msfn.org/board/topic/185045-supermium/
  12. Mathwiz
    That question comes up so often, it probably should be addressed in the FAQ at the beginning of this thread.
  13. Mathwiz
    Agreed; it's your Dropbox account and you can put what you want there. But folks will keep finding this thread, and this will repeat, unless you at least remove the dead links from post 1. Also, if you follow the quote above back to the original post, you'll find a link to build 2036, whose links are also dead. Please don't frustrate new would-be users! If it were me, I'd not only remove all those dead links, but also replace them with a link to the redux thread so folks can download the "newer, improved" version. Unfortunately I doubt there's much more that can done with 360EE. I'm just happy we have a reasonably modern (at least when beefed up with polyfills), lightweight, unGoogled Chromium for XP.
  14. Mathwiz
    Is this where the "Offline Web Content and User Data" shown when you go to Tools / Preferences / Advanced is stored? I think logins and passwords are stored in a different table, but I'm not sure.
  15. Mathwiz
    Wow - it's good to be back after that scary outage! Also good to see that nothing appears to have been lost. It's been 2 1/2 weeks since I posted about pdf.js; unfortunately I was stopped by a problem I couldn't resolve and had to go back to the drawing board. Although the pdf.js V2.15 I downloaded from GitHub works fine with some sites, it simply won't work with others. Problem is (or at least appears to be) that the downloaded version was intended to be hosted on a Web site, not run from within the browser (either built-in or as an extension). As a result, Serpent's cross-site scripting protection keeps kicking in if the site you're trying to download a .pdf from doesn't send the right "CORS" header saying it's OK for another "Web site" to access the pdf. I couldn't figure out how to get around it, so I gave up on the GitHub versions. Instead I started extracting pdf.js from newer versions of Firefox. This worked better, without the XSS errors I was getting with the downloaded versions. I got up to FF 79, but that was still only at version 2.6.47. (Unfortunately Mozilla shuffled everything around in FF 80 and I haven't yet found the pdf.js in that or any newer version.) So, a disappointing setback, and RL issues haven't helped. But I haven't given up yet.
  16. Mathwiz
    I hear you. But I still update more often than once every five months! I believe the 2-24 Serpent versions are stable and that's what I'm running now. There have been no updates in several weeks, long enough to identify and fix any big issues.
  17. Mathwiz
    NM 27 and NM 28 typically use the same profile folder: %appdata%\Moonchild Productions\Pale Moon. If you wish to use both NM 27 and NM 28 on the same PC, you should make one or both portable to keep their profiles separate. (I believe a portable loader is mentioned in the first post of this thread.)
  18. Mathwiz
    Found a polyfill for that and tried it. Unfortunately, I think my polyfill needs a polyfill of its own: renderView: "TypeError: ctx.getTransform(...).invertSelf is not a function" viewer.js:9719:19 "invertSelf?" Good grief....
  19. Mathwiz
    That is certainly possible. I'm sure it was part of Chase's decision to require 109 (although only 106 on Android), since Chrome 109 was the oldest version to get the WebP fix last year. But again, at least Chase can argue that they're trying to protect their customers' money; what's Science Direct trying to protect? As you noted, a Web server is at no risk from older browsers. But I bet a lot of Web developers don't understand that. I think a lot of folks, even cybersecurity experts, don't really understand cybersecurity. They just know there are "vulnerabilities" and don't delve into what exactly is "vulnerable" and what isn't - so they just blindly try to close off every "vulnerability" they can get away with.
  20. Mathwiz
    Most likely, Science Direct didn't develop their Web site at all; they just hired some Web developer to do it, and the Web developer is still doing things the old way (UA sniffing). Chase.com is guilty of this too, but at least you don't expect better from bankers. In (sort of) defense of UA sniffing, if the site wouldn't work, it's probably better to sniff the UA and give a message than to just have the Web site not work properly and frustrate the user. But in that case, they shouldn't require a newer version than what's actually needed for the site to work. Since the site apparently runs fine with Chromium 87, they don't need to be requiring (say) Chromium 109. I suspect the developers tested with 109 (or whatever version), saw that it worked, and just blindly put in the version that they tested with as the requirement. Lazy, but who's going to complain (other than us)? Anyway, thanks for the tip on a SSUAO extension for Chrome. I've been wanting one, but the user agent extensions I've seen recommended here haven't been site-specific.
  21. Mathwiz
    Yes, previous calendar month. I suppose what I really meant was, "within the past 30 days or so...." Rats. 2.16 legacy didn't work on Serpent 52 either. Web console says something about "ctx.GetTransform is not a function." 'Twas worth a try, though....
  22. Mathwiz
    Standard version of 2.14 works; legacy version of 2.15 works; neither version of 2.16 works. I actually haven't tried the standard version of 2.15 yet, so it's possible that it will work too - but as long as the legacy version works, I'm happy. These experiments were actually with the Serpent 55 build from Feb. 8, 2024 (i.e., earlier this month); I haven't tried them with UXP (Serpent 52) but I expect that, if it works with 55, it works with 52 as well. Of course I'll confirm that before I publish anything.
  23. Mathwiz
    Well, as usual, I was wrong - the first version of pdf.js that doesn't work (either regular or "legacy" version) is actually 2.16.105, the last published build of the V2 series, and by implication, the last version that does work is 2.15.349. So 2.15 appears to be the limit, at least without polyfills of some kind. Mozilla appears to have updated their "legacy" translator between those two versions: the "legacy" version of 2.16.105 is smaller than the "legacy" version of 2.15.349, even though the regular version is slightly larger, which says to me that Mozilla removed some translations and/or polyfills from their legacy translator between those versions. This may account for 2.16.105 no longer working. Still, 2.15 is five years newer than 1.7 (July 31, 2022 vs. early 2017) and supports more of the functionality of Adobe Reader, albeit with a UI resembling Mozilla's post-Australis UI, Photon. Heck, even 2.5.207 (last version with the Australis-like UI) is three years newer (June 1, 2020). So we're overdue for an update.
  24. Mathwiz
    I'm up to version 2.14.305 as of now. (The Photon-like UI works fine but looks a little "alien" to my eyes. If you're using a Photon theme, though, it may look like it fits right in.) My guess is that 3.0 will be the first version that doesn't work - but they do have a "legacy" build of 3.0 that might. I'll keep you posted. Localization "should" work - the updated pdf.js looks for its localization files in ./web/locale and should ignore the built-in en-US locale (which I didn't bother to delete). But I haven't tested it. Of course this is all with Serpent, which now supports newer JS constructs than the last XP-compatible Seamonkey version did. The extension developer may have stopped at 2.3.200 because that's all his SeaMonkey version could handle - or it could be that he just got tired of the project; I don't know. That said, an extension is much simpler and easier to install than replacing the version built into omni.ja, so I may experiment with updating that extension, @AstroSkipper style
  25. Mathwiz
    I tend to agree - but there's also no reason not to. The main reasons for making 64-bit versions of programs are to address large amounts of RAM in a single process, and to boost performance. Neither is as important for email clients as for browsers. But @Jody Thornton wants one. I could see making it a low-priority project (not much demand), but unless there's something that just won't easily compile in 64-bit mode, I see no harm in giving it to him. The only downside is that the file would be slightly larger (and of course it would only run on 64-bit machines). I made a bit of progress on this last night. The "build" folder is a drop-in replacement. The "web" folder is almost a drop-in replacement, but you do have to make some changes to viewer.js and viewer.html. I got viewer.js figured out last night. I'll see if I can get viewer.html figured out tonight, then I'll see how new the version can get before the Javascript becomes hopelessly incompatible. Edit: I got it sorted and am up to version 2.5.207 from June 1, 2020. This is the last version with the traditional UI; version 2.6 has a "Photon-like" UI. 2.5 has a couple more buttons but it looks and acts pretty much the same. Version 1.7: Version 2.5:
×
×
  • Create New...