Jump to content

VistaLover

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,100

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    93

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

  • Country

    Greece

 Content Type 

Everything posted by VistaLover

  1. VistaLover
    ... You do know who the admin of those two repos is, don't you? ... FWIW, for years all the dev members behind MPC/BinOC protested, in a most vocal fashion, about how many, popular, websites treated their browsers unfairly (i.e. shutting the door to them), solely based on UA-sniffing rather than feature-sniffing; and now, they're practising themselves exactly the same thing they used to criticise... They're even blocking access to parts of their "legitimate" user base (PM+Bk) if, for some reason, they happen to be on some previous version... Yes, they currently only support the very latest "official" browser versions (29.4.2.1/52.9.2021.11.14 at this time) and, on occasion, one or two versions prior to latest; say, e.g., that you are troubleshooting a PM 28.10.0 installation (regression of an extension/browser feature/etc...) and you start with a fresh profile; well, NO, you can't install extensions on it via the official repo, because the "Install Now" button would show up as "Update Pale Moon"; this, in practice, negates the availability on the repo(s) of extension versions compatible with older browser versions ["Add-on Releases (Version History)" on the right sidebar...] . My point really is that the quoted SSUAOs should better include the latest app versions, just to be on the safe side , and will also have to be manually updated accordingly, when newer official releases are announced ...
  2. VistaLover
    For new members/readers: That one isn't based on UXP (at least initially...); it is based on Moebius (itself a fork of a Mozilla 53.0a1 Nightly snapshot), a predecessor to UXP; some parts of the UXP platform code did find their way into post-Moebius Serpent 55, though... Don't let an appVersion of "55" fool you; as far as Web Compatibility is concerned, St55 is quite behind compared to recent builds of St52: if a site misbehaves in St52, very few chances (if any) exist it'll behave as expected in St55... I don't use St55 myself very often (only for testing), frequent users (e.g. @Mathwiz) can share more with regards to WebCompat-issues and the "recent" (Chromium-centric) web... Not a surprise, is it? I suspect the web devs of British Gas kludged up something that would only be palatable to recent(-ish) Chromium (I doubt they even tested their web page on latest Firefox - but that one, as we all know, is "sniffin' the rear end" of Chromium for the last few years or more...); UXP (MozillaESR52 based) would simply be something truly alien to them...
  3. VistaLover
    @Rod Steel If you insist on installing MTube: 1. Load (in NM28) its main installation page: https://realityripple.com/Software/Mozilla-Extensions/muTube/ 2. Place your cersor on the blue "Install MTube v1.2" button 3. Right-click, select "Save Link as"... 4. You should now have on disk file "{35FF1267-2C7D-5FA8-876D-4EDFC0CB89FB}.xpi"; the string is the extension's ID; for brevity, rename file to "MTube-v1.2-pm.xpi" 5. Extract; delete directory "META-INF" 6. In a proper text editor, open file "install.rdf" and browse to the "Pale Moon" block: <!-- Pale Moon --> <em:targetApplication> <Description> <em:id>{8de7fcbb-c55c-4fbe-bfc5-fc555c87dbc4}</em:id> <em:minVersion>28.*</em:minVersion> 7. Change the value of minVersion from 28.* to 28.10.4a1, then save your changes 8. Rezip (e.g. with WinRAR) the contents of your working directory [MTube-v1.2-pm] to file "MTube-v1.2-nm28.xpi" 9. Open about:addons in NM28, drag and drop file "MTube-v1.2-nm28.xpi" 10. You should now get a prompt (pop-up window) to install... Disclaimer: Haven't tested whether the extension itself works as planned post install, especially considering you're running a NM28 version from last August; YMMV...
  4. VistaLover
    What error(s) do you get? Have you tried first downloading the XPI to disk and then installing from file? Upon reading the description of this extension, you actually don't need it per se... All it does is redirect to mobile youtube , the same can be accomplished by a SSUAO in your NM28 copy: general.useragent.override.youtube.com;Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 5.0.2; SAMSUNG SM-A500FU Build/LRX22G) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Gecko/20111216 Firefox/9.0 Fennec/9.0
  5. VistaLover
    The last version of @roytam1's FxESR 45.9.x fork that would accept the official Mozilla Fx 45.9.0 language packs, https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/45.9.0esr/win32/xpi/ is package "firefox-45.9.29-20201010-7391af2bb-win32-sse.7z"; later versions have become incompatible with the original language packs (LPs hereafter...). In said compatible build, browse to the LP you want to install (e.g. Greek = el.xpi) and click on the link; allow the site to install extensions, then click Install; after the installation has been completed, open about:config and locate pref general.useragent.locale Change its value from the default (en-US) to the one matching the freshly installed LP (e.g. el); restart the browser and voila: OTOH, if you wish to move to a more recent Fx45esr version, you'd have to use English exclusively, or adapt yourself the existing LPs to accommodate the locale changes introduced by the "upstream" Roy follows to produce his fork...
  6. VistaLover
    Confirmed here, using Serpent 52.9.0; it would appear their web player has been optimised for recent browser engines only, because player-related scripts they serve make UXP choke , due to unsupported regexp: FWIW, I had no issues logging-in to either google.com/youtube.com with Serpent 52.9.0 (so, not with NM28 ); St52 has a built-in SSUAO for google, general.useragent.override.google.com;Mozilla/5.0 (%OS_SLICE% rv:71.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/71.0 Basilisk/52.9.0 which, I firmly believe, is the reason I didn't get the "not secure browser" message/error...
  7. VistaLover
    ... I am a bit perplexed myself, now... I initially recommended v1.7.8.2019.10.27 (pre-release/preview) for Serpent 52 users, then, after the discovery of v1.7.8, I recommended the latter... BUT, release date of the former is 22 Jan 2019, while of the latter is 24 Oct 2018; it appears that "2019" contain changes not documented in the repo's code, because https://github.com/Aris-t2/ClassicThemeRestorer/compare/1.7.8.2019...1.7.8 => There isn’t anything to compare. 1.7.8.2019 and 1.7.8 are identical But I have verified the "2019" versions do contain the change below option which is still left in v1.7.8 (but switching it ON/OFF doesn't affect latest Serpent 52); in any case, if you're on v1.7.8.2019.10.27, you probably can safely stay there... Apologies for unnecessary alarm...
  8. VistaLover
    You're welcome ; but, there's more... Unbeknownst to me, Aris-t2 has uploaded and archived the FINAL version of CTR, v1.7.8: https://github.com/Aris-t2/ClassicThemeRestorer/releases/tag/1.7.8 v1.7.8.2019.10.27 was a "preview" and has been installed here (St52) since it was first made available ; it simply still works as expected; no prompt to update it to v1.7.8 was ever shown to me, but I just manually did that, and all went OK; so should you ! TL;DR: All Serpent 52.9.0 users who wish to modify the default Australis GUI must install (or upgrade to) the last/final version of CTR, v1.7.8 Later edit : Please read below While we're at it, your AOM screenshot "smells" of a previous Firefox profile transplant, which is something I have always strongly discouraged Firefox52-migrants to do when switching over to Serpent 52/55... ADB Helper ? Valence ? Do you have any need for these two? (Firefox) Greasemonkey 3.11 should be better substituted with https://addons.basilisk-browser.org/search/?terms=greasemonkey (which should direct you to greasemonkey-3.31.4-pm_forkBranch.xpi) Old YouTube: No longer works In general, if Basilisk-specific updated/forked versions of old Firefox extensions exist, I would advise St52 users to switch to them; my 2c, of course...
  9. VistaLover
    @Tomcat76: Have you tried to update CTR v1.6.9.1 to the Basilisk-specific version 1.7.8.2019.10.27 ? https://github.com/Aris-t2/ClassicThemeRestorer/releases/tag/1.7.8.2019 I'm not seeing the AOM breakage you report (still on St52 2021-10-08 here); it probably has to do with an extension/setting of yours that affects the AOM; does it happen on a fresh St52 profile, after installing a test extension? if not, the culprit exists within your current, dirty, profile... Sadly, I have to leave now for a few hours, thus not able to offer anything more substantial as help...
  10. VistaLover
    ... Nah, not surprised myself... ; the Pale Moon unstable channel was terminated last September (in fairness, not many were using it ) and official Basilisk is in a perpetual BETA status; so, the end recipient is expected to be the guinea pig... Plus, I think MCP's judgement has been impacted lately, namely with their semi-psychotic perception of enemies everywhere, and dealing with this "threat" is what consumes most of their energy currently (e.g. alienating former co-devs, moving to private repos, DMCA-ing fork repos, etc.) ... I recollect saying in these threads that MCP were "good" at removing existing (inherited) code - like WinXP/WinVista/Android/MacOS/EME/WebRTC/WebExtension/Container/Firefox legacy extension/FUEL/marqee support (and probably other things I forget about), but not that good at writing original new code to tackle the demands of the Chromium-dominated web... This latest blunder negates the first part of my assessment... But, I guess, I shouldn't be that harsh; everyones's entitled to a "bad day"/"happens in the best of families"/etc.
  11. VistaLover
    ... All I can tell you is that 2021.11.13 was BAD, https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=27581 https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=221571#p221571 thus, 2021.11.14 had to be rush-released... BTW, I never cease to admire you for your unwavering dedication to us all...
  12. VistaLover
    Official Basilisk 52.9.2021.11.14 has been released, a day after a botched 52.9.2021.11.13 release... ; platform-wise, I expect it to be on par with Pale Moon 29.4.2.1, but is there something application-specific we could port over to Serpent 52.9.0? http://archive.palemoon.org/source/basilisk-2021.11.13-source.tar.xz https://fossies.org/diffs/basilisk/2021.09.27_vs_2021.11.13/ http://archive.palemoon.org/source/basilisk-2021.11.14-source.tar.xz https://fossies.org/diffs/basilisk/2021.11.13_vs_2021.11.14/ @roytam1, what do you think?
  13. VistaLover
    ... I realise you're feeling desperate, but... your request for help was noted the first time around; posting multiple identical requests in the same page thread and within a very short timespan won't expedite things for you... ; assuming what you ask for even exists among MSFN members... Please, revisit Forum rule 2.a: I understand the "letter" of it might not fully apply here, but the "spirit" of it does... Kind regards
  14. VistaLover
    -- Disclaimer -- Those questions in themselves can be regarded (by some) as off-topic here, so providing answers to them might be also construed as derailing the thread ; however, since they were asked by an esteemed member of this community (who has, in the past, also contributed code to these roytam1 browsers), I kindly ask those few "allergic" to off-topic content to move along and ignore this... Now that's been settled : Yes, both official UXP browsers (Pale Moon, Basilisk) could be compiled for MacOS (aka Darwin) with some slight tinkering, because the platform did contain that support; those third-party (beta) builds were never fully endorsed by MCP, but, let's just say, existed on their sufferance . ... The MacOS user community had been mostly active on PM (beta) builds, e.g. https://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/62312/pale-moon And Moonchild was also "generous" enough to accommodate a subforum for Mac users (now locked in oblivion): https://forum.palemoon.org/viewforum.php?f=41 But the leading dev duo (MC+MAT) was never really satisfied with the "efforts" put by the MacOS build maintainers, giving them hard time if/when even slightly deviating from the duo's "vision" of how things should be "properly" handled... All too familiar here by the way they treated feodor's/roytam1's XP forks... Then, Apple gave them the perfect excuse they wanted : last March, the die was cast : End of Macintosh support https://www.palemoon.org/roadmap.shtml This would leave existing users of "macPM" on Intel CPU Macs without future support, a situation reminiscent of XP+Vista users (on older H/W) and MCP's obstinate refusal to support their code/apps on older WinOses... The last macPM release was v29.1.0; the Mac build maintainer (now banned in the PM forums) expressed his intentions to continue releasing Mac builds (by restoring code MCP remove - does it sound familiar?) and, as you'd expect, that caused both MAT+MC to burn fuses... The macPM build was rebranded to White Star since v29.1.1, the author had to evacuate PM forum and move on to his own site ... Another party has rebranded official Basilisk to Silver and offers Mac builds of it, too... https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=26686 https://github.com/siggi90/NoobSilver https://dbsoft.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=54 @Mathwiz, I hope I covered your queries somehow...
  15. VistaLover
    The redirection to the mobile version of youtube.com in "recent" NM27 builds is done via a modified SSUAO (inside about:config): general.useragent.override.youtube.com;Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 4.4.2) AppleWebKit/534.30 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Safari/534.30 You can change the value of that pref to a desktop UA and, if you feel comfortable with the much more resource-hungry desktop yt version, you should be able to load again www.youtube.com URLs: general.useragent.override.youtube.com;Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:42.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/42.0 PaleMoon/27.9.6
  16. VistaLover
    Would you care to elaborate, please?
  17. VistaLover
    Pale Moon 29.4.2.1 has been released :
  18. VistaLover
    Yesterday (Nov 9th, 2021), the Chinese Flash distributor released officially v34.0.0.201 to its (Chinese) users:
  19. VistaLover
    Agreed, but my quoted post refers to a specific scenario: 1. 360EEv12/13 has the user apply the official DARK skin 2. The "flag" (#enable-force-dark) hasn't been touched, i.e. left in its "Default" value (which has the same effect as "Disabled", unless on Win10+ with OS Dark Mode). v12/13 advertise a dark browser skin to compatible sites even when the "flag" isn't enabled/active; under these conditions, several "compatible" sites offer a setting/preference to override the darkCSS served by default, and others don't; of the first group, a subset only offer that setting when the user is logged-in; I thought I was clear the first time around...
  20. VistaLover
    Thanks for testing ; to conclude, WU claims a successful installation "status" for MSRT, but this doesn't infer successful running of the "installed" file (i.e. actual scan of the system for Malicious Software ) ... If only we could figure out how the "hard" OS-version-check is implemented...
  21. VistaLover
    v5.95 has been already uploaded to MUC; please download the standalone x64 file, https://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=KB890830 (WS2008 compatible variant:) https://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/ScopedViewInline.aspx?updateid=ba94649b-e7e7-46ec-8369-9f97804c6dab http://download.windowsupdate.com/d/msdownload/update/software/uprl/2021/11/windows-kb890830-x64-v5.95_6ea7900c5dc32947ae0f05ffa0b168912fe42627.exe and attempt to run it locally; while I can understand that MU is detecting and downloading that update successfully (since the MU "hack" spoofs Vista as WS2008), if you're able to successfully launch/run the local file, I suspect latest Extended Kernel files/settings play a role in that (e.g. because of spoofing the OS as Win7 ). +1
  22. VistaLover
    Fairly recent Chromium and Firefox based browsers have a way of advertising to sites the skin (GUI) mode (light | dark) they're on; to accommodate, many sites today, like the ones you referenced, offer a light or dark CSS to match the advertised browser skin; by default, the dark site CSS is served if a dark browser skin is being detected; again, to avoid confusion, this is different to force-enabling "Dark Mode in Web Content" (in Chromium); the latter enforces a dark mode locally, post site load, no matter the flavour of the CSS the site serves... Some of the darkCSS-enabled websites provide a way of overriding the default auto behaviour, i.e. you can select light-mode site CSS even on dark browser skin, and this is usually done through site settings (where available); user selection is stored in cookie(s), which then have to be protected (via a cookie extension) to avoid repeating the process in every browser session (if you delete cookies on browser exit) ... E.g. in 360EEv12, with the dark skin installed and "chrome://flags/#enable-force-dark" set to (default | disabled), the site will load in its dark flavour, but you can still choose light mode via Settings: youtube.com is similar to google.com; github.com however, will allow to choose a light-mode site version only to signed-in members... FWIW, recent Serpent 52.9.0 (and, I believe, NM28, too) has an about:config setting, browser.display.prefers_color_scheme that does the same thing; default value of 1 will auto-load light google.com pages; there don't exist any official dark Complete Themes (skins) for St52 (several exist for NM28), but user-setting a value of 2 in St52 will auto-load dark google.com pages even on a light Complete Theme:
  23. VistaLover
    @Mathwiz : Seems this issue is unique to quotes generated by member @InterLinked ; e.g. https://msfn.org/board/topic/182647-my-browser-builds-part-3/page/62/?tab=comments#comment-1207515 Screenshot of post rendered by Serpent v52.9.0 (2021-10-08) 32-bit:
  24. VistaLover
    Thank you both for testing and confirming ... Consistent with the digital SHA-2 signature date (2021-05-01) of the revised 4.6.2 setup; the page must've been edited soon after May 6th... Bingo! It's all clear now... The ESU plan for WS2008SP2 ends in Jan 2023, however security updates support for officially sanctioned .NET FW 4.6 will end, as said, in late Apr 2022; that would've created a period of ca. 9 months, during which installed 4.6 would have stayed unpatched... Possibly due to technical reasons, M$ deemed it easier to patch 4.6.2 (still supported past Apr 2022) to also install under WS2008SP2, rather than modify and offer 4.7.x (or higher) to existing WS2008SP2 ESU customers... And the omission of 4.6.1 from the linked article isn't an error; we already know that 4.6.1 installs successfully under NT 6.0, but it was never officially supported (as in via MU) there ; M$'s plan is to migrate WS2008SP2 ESU paying customers from 4.6 directly to 4.6.2 before/soon after Apr 2022 (till Jan 2023, when ESU ends); since 4.6.1 EOLs at the same time as 4.6, no reason for M$ to even mention it in that scenario... But another thing bugs me now: How is the revised (2021) 4.6.2 setup different internally to the first (2016) release? Does it embed ALL security updates issued for 4.6.2 from Jul 2016 to May 2021? File sizes are almost identical, so this fact isn't revealing anything ... Of course, MU would never work for 4.6.2 under Vista SP2, still, one has to know what updates to download manually from MUC; and then there's the "problem"/grey area of installing from local files ESU .NET FW 4.6.x updates... In any case, I understand this is the Windows Vista Extended Kernel thread, so I'm party responsible for (slightly?) derailing it ; however, this is info important to the broader Vista Community, so if the mods decide it should be better placed elsewhere (info = series of recent posts about .NET FW 4.6.2/Vista | WS2008), feel free to do so...
  25. VistaLover
    https://github.com/ShareX/ShareX/releases/tag/v13.0.1 default ShareX.exe.config file: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <configuration> <startup> <supportedRuntime version="v4.0" sku=".NETFramework,Version=v4.6.2" /> </startup> <runtime> <assemblyBinding xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v1"> <probing privatePath="Languages" /> </assemblyBinding> <AppContextSwitchOverrides value="Switch.UseLegacyAccessibilityFeatures=false;Switch.UseLegacyAccessibilityFeatures.2=false" /> <assemblyBinding xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v1"> <dependentAssembly> <assemblyIdentity name="Newtonsoft.Json" publicKeyToken="30ad4fe6b2a6aeed" culture="neutral" /> <bindingRedirect oldVersion="0.0.0.0-12.0.0.0" newVersion="12.0.0.0" /> </dependentAssembly> </assemblyBinding> </runtime> <uri> <idn enabled="All" /> <iriParsing enabled="true" /> </uri> <appSettings> <add key="EnableWindowsFormsHighDpiAutoResizing" value="true" /> </appSettings> </configuration>
×
×
  • Create New...