Jump to content

VistaLover

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,253

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    93

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

  • Country

    Greece

 Content Type 

Everything posted by VistaLover

  1. VistaLover
    @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; }
  2. VistaLover
    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 ...
  3. VistaLover
    ... or, rather, a "problem with UXP itself" (I can guarantee you the "tunwalai" admins don't think, even for a second, that their site has any "problem" ) ... FWIW, St52 doesn't seem to have an issue fetching the image itself (no network issues), however the CSS script it's being served is not palatable to UXP: Since it's been shown, here in this thread, that the "non-loading-image" issue also manifests itself in the official UXP apps, it had better be reported to: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewforum.php?f=70 https://forum.palemoon.org/viewforum.php?f=61 Why is this, simply, NOT a surprise?
  4. VistaLover
    In my Serpent 52.9.0 copy:
  5. VistaLover
    Once again, you're correct ... But I created my cosmetic filter before patching palefill to work on "learn.microsoft.com"; without palefill doing its magic, the site in question would display as below: ... so I used the cosmetic filter: learn.microsoft.com##.has-default-focus.header-holder to also remove what "appeared" to be two "empty" ribbons ; and there it was my wrong assumption ... Thanks for pointing this out ! With palefill patched and enabled, the cosmetic filter above will also remove So a more appropriate cosmetic filter would be: learn.microsoft.com###banner-holder,#unsupported-browser which blocks both the top Microsoft Ignite "info" banner as well as the "unsupported browser" one... Thanks for that, too! Instead of removing the "unsupported browser" banner after its creation, remove the Javascript code that generates it in the first place ("promo" banner still displays, though...); @AstroSkipper, time to update your "learn.microsoft.com" custom filters ("My filters" tab of uBO) !
  6. VistaLover
    It wasn't clear to me at first what you were speaking of there , but upon inspecting the userscript's code, I figured out it must be the problem of not being able to access GitHub releases in a UXP-based browser without having palefill/gh-wc-pf extension installed first... And yes, I have already reported this, in this very thread, just ca. 20 days ago: https://msfn.org/board/topic/182647-my-browser-builds-part-3/page/189/#comment-1226368 ... and https://github.com/martok/palefill/issues/47#issuecomment-1257080166 contains a "dirty" workaround ...
  7. VistaLover
    Do you want these? https://github.com/roytam1/UXP/commit/a16549ddb717f8c178f1433ade673fb0bb169b63 https://github.com/roytam1/UXP/commit/51bb5d5c8179ff6e5ef0770403e9334bebd898d9
  8. VistaLover
    ... As far as I am aware, the default setting in uBO is to have "cosmetic filtering" always enabled ("activated"), both in a global scope: as well as "on a per site" scope: Relevant reading material here ... So I take it, by what you posted, that you had disabled CF yourself sometime in the past... Am I correct in this assumption? Kind regards
  9. VistaLover
    Thanks for that link ... Let's just accept that for "now", WinXP isn't "retro", just "obsolete" : https://dfarq.homeip.net/is-windows-xp-obsolete-or-is-it-retro/ ... But it'll have become "retro" sooner than you and I would think (late 2020s, early 2030s? ); whatever the adjective used to "correctly" refer to it, "facebook" and their "pals" would still not consider it (and the browsers running on it) as a platform to officially support/test on... FWIW, let it be put on record that I personally hold nothing against WinXP; but in the majority of the cases I would post (especially in GitHub issue trackers) and complain that XP support had been removed from an app (often taking Vista support with it ), "they" were quick to point to me that "XP was first released to the public in late 2001"... Later edit: I believe https://w2k.phreaknet.org/ is a project run by one of MSFN members... "Retrocomputing" is the first term on the header; I see many references to XP therein, so perhaps it was from there I had formed a more "loose" comprehension of the "term" (to also comprise XP ) ...
  10. VistaLover
    Palefill already had a "built-in rule" for "docs.microsoft.com", now that MS changed the hostname to "learn.microsoft.com", that rule has to be corrected accordingly; inside file "./lib/builtin-rules.js" (L56) : -docs.microsoft.com +learn.microsoft.com std-customElements ! -- Now the MS page should display as intended : BTW, if you're wondering why the page displays in its dark "flavour" (by default), it's because I have set: browser.display.prefers_color_scheme;2 inside my Serpent's config editor (about:config) ...
  11. VistaLover
    Was your source this? https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/font-list/cambria-math (BTW, it would appear that "docs.microsoft.com" has now become "learn.microsoft.com", breaking some static filters of mine in UBO ) That page confounds most of my arguments in my previous post, i.e. in Serpent 52.9.0: 1. It displays a huge header saying: I took care of that in uBO: ! https://learn.microsoft.com learn.microsoft.com###unsupported-browser 2. While most of the page's content displays, Web Console warns of: TypeError: window.customElements is undefined[Learn More] 7743e1e8.index-docs.js:1:14604 <anonymous> https://learn.microsoft.com/_themes/docs.theme/master/en-us/_themes/scripts/7743e1e8.index-docs.js:1:14604 <anonymous> https://learn.microsoft.com/_themes/docs.theme/master/en-us/_themes/scripts/7743e1e8.index-docs.js:1:14 And that was only a "simple", knowledge-base, page...
  12. VistaLover
    ... Hello? Where have you been? ... It's Q4 of 2022 we're into, this isn't any news ... FWIW, the overwhelming majority of sites, with social media services being the top offenders , will favour the latest Google Chrome over the rest browser choices, especially when non-mainstream ... I bet you UXP is beyond 95% of web developers/admins' radars, they have no intention of (consciously) supporting retro-computing communities that run OSes and browsers major vendors (read M$, Apple, Google) don't endorse... Who from? Web Compatibility issues in UXP-based browsers are cropping up like weeds as we speak... With WebComponents/CustomElements and Regex Named Capturing Groups (just two off the top of my head ) NOT (yet?) implemented (fully) in UXP, more sites will be in need of "further fixes", fixes which'll have to come from "upstream", noone can tell when ... [apologies if I sound a tad "ranty", sadly it's a grip with (current) reality ... ]
  13. VistaLover
    ... Long-standing and known UXP issue(s) : https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=28165 https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=26963 (locked) As I don't frequent FB (nor the rest of the social media ), I can't test the extent at which the "workarounds" mentioned inside the above links mitigate the problem(s) ...
  14. VistaLover
    FWIW, "upstream" have been made aware, but, sadly, can offer no insight and/or workaround ATM... https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=28855
  15. VistaLover
    Already reported upstream: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=232312#p232312 It's the same underlying issue I spoke of in my Aug 29th post, i.e. missing Regex Unicode Property Escapes support in UXP ... As to the "whether it can be fixed?", my linked post has relevant info... German developer of palefill (martok) has recently fixed the Google Drive breakage, so perhaps all is not lost - post in palefill's issue tracker (GitHub account required) ... But if I were you, I'd use web-discord inside a Chromium-based browser (it's what they target, after all...); at the start of this year I used to frequent a Discord server and when I tried my default Vista browser, Serpent 52.9.0 (Discord "worked" there at the time), the whole experience was very sub-optimal (increased sluggishness all around the GUI ... ); for Discord, I had to switch to 360EEv12/v13 (360EEv11 had some glitches, as in not "scrolling" certain areas of the GUI ... ) . PS: Logging-in to Discord is such a PITA, though ... I have an internet connection where my IP address changes every now and then (dynamic/not dedicated IP); Discord then "needs" to re-authorise my new IP, meaning: I have to first supply my account credentials to them, then an IP-authorisation e-mail is sent in my inbox (with a short-lived link), I need to click that link in the same browser I'm trying to log-in, get the confirmation message my new IP has been "authorised", then attempt to log-in a second time (a form of 2FA, as I lack a mobile phone) ... One of the (many) reasons I avoid "social networks" like the plague !
  16. VistaLover
    Thanks for that ; that reddit post was only created ca. 11 days ago, so it was missed by my "radar" ... But, nothing completely new is there ... crx4chrome is known to me since many years and it's the best, because it contains signed extensions in .CRX format as (originally) published in the CWS, plus, for a specific extension, may contain an archive of its previous releases ; but it doesn't contain ALL CWS extensions, simply the most popular/endorsed ones... https://extpose.com/explore/ and https://crxcavator.io/ seem to only offer source-code zips of extensions; and the first site, only for the latest release of them (at least in the "free plan" version of that service) ... Thankfully, 360EE doesn't object to non-CWS-signed extensions, so it can install user-created CRX files without nagging they "didn't come from the CWS "... What I suggested we need is community-driven, orchestrated efforts to salvage all MV2 chromium extensions and make them available, in a freely accessible manner, to retrocomputing users/fans... However, as pointed inside the reddit article, some extensions' licencing might be restrictive in that "archiving" context ...
  17. VistaLover
    Manifest version 3 (aka MV3) requires Chromium APIs first implemented in Chromium 88; if you're not yet aware, all 3 varieties of the 360EE browser popular with the XP and Vista retro-computing communities are based on Chromium versions less than 88: v11: Chromium 69 v12: Chromium 78 v13.x (x=0 or 5): 86 The deprecation and future removal of MV2-based Chrome extensions from the CWS will effectively KILL extensions for all flavours of 360EE compatible with XP/Vista... If the retro-computing communities are to undertake an MV2-based-extension salvation venture, then, most sadly, the deadline will end much sooner, possibly in June 2023: "Unlisted visibility" means that a specific MV2 extension can't be searched for or easily retrieved from within the CWS, unless you know beforehand its exact CWS URI/id... But I'm mot surprised; Google are known to leave only "scorched ground" behind them... They're adamant at destroying everything "older", of course for "our own interest" ... I guess it's like Mozilla wiping out all XUL/jetpack/'legacy" extensions from AMO all over again (but this time, on the Google side of things ...); in the case of Mozilla, we fortunately have CAA (Classic-Addons-Archive), but in the case of Google, what? (currently, nothing!) ...
  18. VistaLover
    I'm not convinced the DST discrepancy "issue" is unrelated to your "history" predicament inside 360EE ... Please, as a courtesy, don't wait until BST ends, as it'll be too late then to check any "theory" around this ... Do now what I instructed you to do: , wait for 4-5 days and report back! You stand to lose absolutely nothing from this "test" ! Cheers
  19. VistaLover
    As I have proposed in a previous post, change your computer's time (in just the Windows XP partition, of course) to one of the available "GMT+01:00" variants, making sure you deselect "Automatically adjust clock for DST"; you may have to reboot XP for that to take full effect; ALL of your browsers on XP will then display the correct BST time! When BST ends (last Sunday of October 2022, i.e. on the 30th), you'll have to re-adjust XP's timezone back to GMT+00:00; it has been established, beyond doubt, that 360EE versions, on WinXP specifically, can't pick up the DST offset from the OS (even when that is correctly set) - not the case for Mozilla Firefox based browsers and some older Chromium-based ones ...
  20. VistaLover
    Ciao carissimo amico! Of course it is, via either "chrome://extensions/" or "chrome://myextensions/", when "Developer mode" has been "ticked": Clicking the "Load unpacked" button will open a "Directory Selection Popup", where you have to select (point it to) the dir containing the unzipped Chromium extension to be installed... Saluti
  21. VistaLover
    Is that a "special", Business Edition of v9? ESET's knowledge base is quite straightforward for "consumer/home" edition of v9: https://support-eol.eset.com/en/termination_home.html They don't seem to make any distinction on the version of the WinOS v9 is installed on...
  22. VistaLover
    ... Some years ago, Avast themselves had acquired Piriform and their most popular product, CCleaner; WinXP (and Vista) are now left with an EoS CCLeaner version (5.64.7577), but the current releases (targeting Win7+) have been extremely bloated by Avast, by including a bucket load of unwanted cr*pware (and telemetry) ... I get the sense Norton will continue in the same streak ... WinXP (and Vista) is currently being supported by an EoS Avast version (v18.8) so, unless Norton start "pouring" stuff via the definitions update mechanism, users of that should be "safe" ; unless, God forbid, Norton make a "managerial change of policy" and stop servicing that v18.8 with def-updates ...
  23. VistaLover
    ... Some additional info: The "stable" version 3.5.0.0 (actually some v3.5.5.46xxx, read this and this) is in reality a stub-installer (setup), packed with the InnoSetup script v6.1.0, that only runs under Win7+ : The "beta" build v3.5.5.46508b (1.92MB) is a different story; the executable has been UPX'ed to compress its filesize: It decompresses to a new filesize of 5.23MB and when that expanded file is double-clicked, it generates an all-too-familiar error : All the Windows binaries they're currently distributing have been compiled and optimised to work on NT 6.1 and higher - period.
  24. VistaLover
    @AstroSkipper ... If you were trying to be funny there (with an overly generous dose of sarcasm on top of it ), I can tell you I was not amused (but I, no doubt, expect some other members were ... ) . Bringing this all back (thanks to you, no less ), my Aug 10th post (you quoted from) was made during my recovery period from Covid19[O5-variant] infection and at a time when the third (was it fourth?) heatwave had hit my area... Yes, I had been obese and did not double-check the accuracy of the AdvChr54-related details contained there-in ; instead, I relied on a "memory-based" recollection, which turned to be faulty... In any case, the point I was trying to make there was to dispel the general "notion" (especially among XP-users) that AdvChr54 should be considerably better than Chrome 49 (EoS for XP+Vista), since it's "54-based" (it's the same misconception surrounding Serpent 55.0.0); the emphasis should've been on: So, the accurate info should've read: Being over 50 isn't turning as I had envisioned and one thing that's becoming apparent is that "memory" isn't always on my side; but if I had to forego completely "from memory" and double/triple check everything I post here (and elsewhere), I'd need double the time to post things and possibly end up posting one third of what I already have posted... Several posts of mine in the form of "analysis" obviously have been proof-read and more carefully researched, but not all "short-reply-formed" ones... I have never myself claimed I'm not prone to errors (after all, "errare humanum est") nor immune to criticism, so your "error-pointing" would have been quite welcome, had it not been laced with sarcasm... And just so you are aware, my previous post in this thread was not just to get to you (I have more important things to be worried about, both in RL and on the web), but it just so happens I only recently visited the "taokaizen" home page for an un-related subject and then, like you, noticed just this line: without more detailed Release Info for v54 ; it was based on that date I retrieved the original announcement via Web Archive ... And there it was I saw (anew) Chrome versions 48, 51 being mentioned... Else, I'd have continued under the (false) belief of v49, 52 ,,, Often times I find Google return as result one of my "articles"/posts from 3-4 years ago (mostly from GitHub+MSFN), and, quite frankly, I don't remember fully every detail in them ; is that Alzheimer's setting in ? God forbid, hopefully not!
  25. VistaLover
    ... Well, they might claim they still support Vista, but the actual story is different: This is with latest "stable" v3.5.0 (digitally signed on Jul 3rd 2022); the binary has been compiled to target at least Win7, with a SubSys version of 6.1: Using specialised tools to modify the PE Header to a SubSysVer of 6.0 will yield an executable that does absolutely nothing (under Vista SP2 x86 at least) when double-clicked... Their "Beta" channel: will fetch (at this time) v3.5.5.46508beta ; the binary does have a SubSysVer=6.0 (thus will not produce the Error v3.5.0 does), but, again, it won't launch upon double-clicking ... So, my tests have shown that μTorrent doesn't support Vista SP2 32-bit at this time ... In fact, the last BETA build I have on disk that would launch here is v3.5.5.45291beta, digitally signed on Jul 1st 2019 :
×
×
  • Create New...