Jump to content

VistaLover

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,307

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    98

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

  • Country

    Greece

 Content Type 

Everything posted by VistaLover

  1. VistaLover
    Isn't it ironic/cheeky they still mention Vista SP1+ as a supported OS, though? ...
  2. VistaLover
    ... ESU start dates for Windows Embedded Standard 7 and Windows Embedded POSReady 7 are Oct 13th, 2020 and Oct 12th, 2021 , respectively; only Windows 7 Pro for Embedded Systems entered ESU period on Jan 14th, 2020 https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4497181/lifecycle-faq-extended-security-updates
  3. VistaLover
    ... Adding to what my friend @Vistapocalypse posted, MCP dropped Vista support in Pale Moon with the release of v28.0.0 on Aug 16th 2018, a mere 16 months after Vista's own EoS (end of Extended Support by vendor, which was Apr 11th 2017); so yes, XP diehards shouldn't be moaning over this... Would I have wanted official Vista support to have continued past Tycho (v27.x.x) (and that would've been at a minimal cost, considering how much similar Vista & 7 are, both NT6) ? Of course yes ... But when MCP started developing UXP (forked off FxESR 52, both XP/Vista compatible), Vista had already reached its EoS, so, in his own words, he didn't want to implement support for a "dead" OS in his "new" application platform... https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=134148#p134148 Addition: In a now hidden () GitHub comment of mine, my own view on the matter: Just for the sake of clarity, Moonchild's response(s):
  4. VistaLover
    That's all good, but the OP reported issues accessing Roy's server over plain HTTP: the o.rths.ml site is currently not working FWIW, I can access the referenced link both over plain HTTP and HTTPS (TLS 1.3 used in the latter case) in NM28: BTW, the extension used is SSleuth v0.5.4 https://repo.hyperbola.info:50000/other/iceweasel-uxp/addons/sslsleuth/ssleuth-0.5.4-fx.xpi
  5. VistaLover
    All is OK on my side, FWIW... fl=20f353 h=o.rths.ml ip=(redacted) ts=1579888977.859 visit_scheme=http uag=Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Goanna/4.2 Firefox/52.0 PaleMoon/28.6.0a1 colo=AMS http=http/1.1 loc=GR tls=off sni=off warp=off
  6. VistaLover
    One such occurrence of an application compiled in Qt 5.7.1 but still working under XP/Vista x86 is DB Browser for SQLite v3.11.2 : (As you said, the app doesn't seem to use the Qt5WebEngine.dll module... )
  7. VistaLover
    Machine translation to English for those lacking access to on-line translators:
  8. VistaLover
    They should've been disabled by default, according to the Wiki: "Experimental filters" is now, of course, a moot point, as, if you did leave them at their default setting (disabled), they'll soon vanish altogether from available filters... FWIW, manual re-introduction is possible via URI: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/master/filters/experimental.txt
  9. VistaLover
    uBlock Origin "Legacy" v1.16.4.14 (stable) has been released: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/firefox-legacy-1.16.4.14 (uB0 updater worked OK at the time of posting, I did not have to upgrade manually... )
  10. VistaLover
    @Mathwiz : Hope you're doing fine in the new year ; when you first posted this some days ago, I was genuinely puzzled, but since I was occupied with other matters, both in digital (!) and real life , I left it aside for future investigation; my contribution to the subject at hand was simply which basically links to the old Bugzilla bug #967977 Today I had some extra time and decided to search the official UXP GitHub repo/issue tracker, to find proof which substantiates the report that: (them in that context refers to TLS Session Tickets/TLS cache); I've searched specifically for code that sets the hidden pref security.ssl.disable_session_identifiers to true, but my search was, alas, fruitless... I then browsed @roytam1 's forked UXP repo, both branches (master+custom), for similar code signs, but to no avail, again ... So, by simply going with public source code, I found no clues that the default behaviour in either (official) PM28 and/or (forked) NM28 is to disable TLS session tickets, as you suggested... But you are not to blame yourself , I have myself in the past "slipped" in a similar fashion... ; the blame lies on the OP, for causing undue confusion over a "supposedly" new-found issue, most likely self-inflicted: ... was the post that started all this ; as part of my investigation, I have downloaded said NM28 build (BuildID=20200104010047), as well as the one after it (BuildID=20200110230556) and guess what one finds by visiting https://www.howsmyssl.com in a brand new/fresh (browser) profile: and So, nothing has changed in NM28 with regard to TLS Session Tickets, they are enabled by default (which yields the green "Good" button in that test page) ... Once more, it was simply @msfntor 's troll-ish behaviour in posting unchecked/unverified untruths, which ended up wasting people's time...
  11. VistaLover
    ... According to: https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2020/01/09/browser-zero-day-update-your-firefox-right-now/ disabling IonMonkey JIT by setting: javascript.options.ion;false will get you covered , but with a (slight) performance penalty, of course... The linked article mentions that mitigation only in relation to the Tor Browser (and until the time it gets updated, which it did), but that same "about:config" pref is apparently present in FxESR 52.9.x, which, as we all know, won't be patched...
  12. VistaLover
    If my understanding is correct, it might be already in with the latest 2020-01-11 build: "above" refers to https://msfn.org/board/topic/180462-my-browser-builds-part-2/?do=findComment&comment=1176055 where it's stated: The "patch" you refer to is platform wide, so it should be present in all latest UXP applications (NM28, St52, MN, BN); Moebius (St55) had to be treated separately...
  13. VistaLover
    I'm on v1.16.4.14b2 since yesterday My installation was on an extremely heavy New Moon 28 profile: tens of extensions, many userstyles installed (within Stylem), many userscripts installed (within GM-for-PM), that means it's not a "snappy" profile to begin with ; so I can't make any remarks regarding uB0 related performance issues... I guess the proper thing to do is to install ONLY the beta on a fresh NM28 profile and then submit it to various benchmarking tests; but I couldn't be bothered, to be frank For more info, I'd keep an eye on https://github.com/DandelionSprout/adfilt/issues/7 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/pull/6808/ https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/pull/3765
  14. VistaLover
    Special message from upstream: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23605 (and https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=181666#p181666 )
  15. VistaLover
    ... Trouble's in the air for uB0-legacy : https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=181590#p181590 ... and following posts... Betas of v1.16.4.14 : https://github.com/JustOff/misc-pm-stuff/releases/ (... but the "on-the-fly" rule conversion to the old format, supported in uB0-legacy, does result in performance degradation... )
  16. VistaLover
    ... However, you can delay its installation for as long as you like : https://www.askvg.com/windows-10-tip-block-or-prevent-automatic-installation-of-microsoft-edge-browser-via-windows-update/ (... but this would not be a smart move security wise, as M$ will no longer release security patches for the "original" (EdgeHTML/Chakra) iteration... )
  17. VistaLover
    Whatever you do, please don't re-block ATI radeon drivers. I'm even getting good acceleration in an old W2k box ... Please understand Roytam1 doesn't block graphics drivers on his own, only upstream do... FWIW, https://github.com/MoonchildProductions/Pale-Moon/commit/b7841e5 was pushed to mitigate crashes on Linux, as reported in https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=23512 But previous commit was reverted by Moonchild on Jan 10th, via https://github.com/MoonchildProductions/Pale-Moon/commit/b4a6053 ... which @roytam1 might've missed by a narrow margin (was published on GitHub at 202001101821UTC) ; in any case, nothing to fear on Windows...
  18. VistaLover
    Thank you, - I've set now New Name, boolean, in Moebius 55. Some relevant Firefox documentation, for the curious... which links to the corresponding Bugzilla bug number: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=967977
  19. VistaLover
    Oh my God, am I turning into a Matt A. Tobin clone?
  20. VistaLover
    "safebrowsing" (as well as Tracking Protection) was/is a Mozilla Firefox feature that is reliant upon Google APIs/services; Mozilla, as is vastly known, rely heavily on Google to collect revenue, so they had agreed on "gluing" this feature onto their browser... It is currently only relevant to FirefoxESR 45.9.x & Serpent 55/Moebius forks and it's still present in (forked) Moebius because MCP had abandoned the platform before taking the time to remove it... In UXP browsers builds, these Google provided services (i.e. Block dangerous and deceptive content => Block dangerous downloads + Warn me about unwanted and uncommon software) have been removed by MCP and, if you ask me, that is a blessing in disguise... This is just me, but I consider (evil) Google to be a malware by definition, so I wouldn't want to be given advice by them on what web page to visit and what file to download... The average Joe, using the latest Firefox (in Win10, no doubt...) only gets a (false IMHO) sense of security because all-knowing Google are taking care of him in the background ( ) ... Common sense is to be exercised here, of course backed-up by an otherwise updated/secure browser engine, a set of updated privacy/security extensions, including in-browser content blockers (but not a myriad of them...), a supported and up-to-date Security Suite OS-wide and I humbly think no-one's in need anymore of the ever spying/tracking Google... You are entitled to a different opinion, of course ; as said, these are only my own views...
  21. VistaLover
    Another common mortal here, but I think we've had enough of that same ol' mantra of yours ; you keep revisiting/reciting the same demands, and I imagine you'll keep doing so unless you have it your own way, pretty much like a spoiled child that keeps crying to have its needs met ... Common/mere mortals as in browser users (and, mind you, common/mortal browser users are only using the latest Google Chrome version on Win10/Android these days...) are expected to follow and apply detailed and easy to understand instructions others have compiled to mitigate known issues in the niche browser builds they're using in their niche (as in outdated/unsupported by vendor) Windows OSes; those instructions aren't meant for developers, just users! FirefoxESR 45.9.x and patented decoders support => detailed instructions posted (by me and others) to enable it via Adobe Primetime CDM or LAV Filters DLL files (takes 5min of your time, max...) Arctic Fox and patented decoders support => this fork is originally meant for MacOS, where h264/aac support is native to the OS; added code is probably needed to accomplish this for Windows, especially for XP... uBlock0-legacy on BNav => you need only a code/text editor to open/modify/save its "install.rdf" file according to instructions given; other mere mortals here in these forums can, why aren't you willing to? Doesn't take more that 1min, max... ... "Without your intervention?" This comes across as quite disrespectful to the massive effort exerted by the maintainer of several browser forks; aren't you willing to make yourself even the slightest of efforts? It appears you only want to be spoon-fed, so that your stomach is kept full without "your intervention"... Grow up! To all others: I apologise for the rant-ish nature of my post, but I had to vent...
  22. VistaLover
    uBlock0-legacy 1.16.4.13 has just been released: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/firefox-legacy-1.16.4.13 Once again, we have to thank Ukrainian developer @JustOff ( ), who is part of the MCP devs team (though not inside Moonchild's immediate circle...): https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/commit/0f3c467 If you prefer to let his extension, uB0-updater, do the update for you, make sure it's in its latest version, 1.6.8
  23. VistaLover
    Thanks for that! Thanks for that second confirmation ; it isn't that I doubted @WinClient5270 's initial report (of course not! ), just that I began questioning the validity of what I had learned via Qt's official documentation on supported Windows OSes... Added thanks for your attempt at explaining this (still considered by me as) oddity; FWIW, any (other) application built on Qt 5.7+ has more chances not running under Vista than the opposite... Festive greetings!
  24. VistaLover
    ... But mere mortals running Vista SP2 32-bit are, once again , excluded from even trying to run that application on their Vista copy... If you had tried on (regular) Windows XP SP3 32-bit with lowering the subsystem version in the PE header to 5.1 (it's set to 6.0 by default), I guess a similar error, pertaining to win32 apps, is to be expected, as the application is NOT win32, compiled to be only runnable in the 64-bit architecture... What I can see , based on your attached screengrab, is that the app was compiled using version 5.9.7 of the Qt Framework, which in itself provokes major surprise on yours truly... ; I have always known, and that knowledge is based on official Qt documentation, that the last Vista-compatible version of the framework was 5.6 (5.6.3 to be exact!), and only on client machines : https://doc.qt.io/archives/qt-5.6/supported-platforms.html ... whereas v5.9 of Qt has zero support for Vista (and, of course, XP): https://doc.qt.io/qt-5.9/supported-platforms.html Any explanation as to how a Qt 5.9 built application is able to launch under Vista SP2 64-bit is highly welcome (if somebody can provide one ) ... For official system requirements, see @win32 's post; so, your assumption is not correct, as Vista (64-bit only) isn't officially supported! Given that the PE-header in the main executable is set at a subsys version of 6.0, at least our beloved OS was taken into consideration in that regard, but who can say which NT version the actual build-time compiler optimisations were targeting? As detailed above, I remain quite sceptical this is indeed running under Vista SP2 64-bit... OT: I hope you all had a great Xmas Day, surrounded by your loved ones; best wishes for the New Year, too!
  25. VistaLover
    The site maintainers do not support the UXP-based browsers; use a pure Firefox based SSUAO, if on New Moon 28/Serpent 52.9.0 (though you did not provide any clue yourself regarding which browser you encountered this artificial block with ; why are help seekers always being stingy in giving out details about their configuration?... ). E.g. FirefoxESR 68 (the latest supported ESR) on a Win7 64-bit host: general.useragent.override.vintom.com;Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0 Proof on New Moon 28 32-bit run on Vista SP2 32-bit:
×
×
  • Create New...