Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won

  • Donations


Posts posted by mixit

  1. 1 hour ago, Humming Owl said:

    That is quite unfortunate, but at least I could confirm that the browser downloads stuff after installation so maybe some patches and fixes can be retreived that actually work on XP (hopefuly). I didn't knew widevine is also compiled targeting specific architectures and knowing it is from google, universal support is expected to not be there. Also, maybe for older browser versions widevine could be actualy patched for XP but someone would have to test that out. Thanks for the feedback.


    I should maybe clarify that I meant I manually downloaded it from the URL discerned from the original chrome.dll (http://dl.360tpcdn.com/cse/widevine_4_10_1582_1.cab), since I didn't want to install the unmodded version and this is patched out in the mod.  In terms of targeting, it's just the usual "newer than XP/Vista/(maybe also 7 by now)". Stuff like the missing API functionality, etc. could conceivably be worked in by motivated individuals (not me in this case :)), but you'd also have to get around their custom signature checks in a way that would pass online verification...

  2. 35 minutes ago, Humming Owl said:

    Regarding Widevine I've seen in the 360 forums that from a version of the browser (11.0.1331.0 I think) Netflix problems are "fixed". So I guess from that version Widevine is included, but as far as I know it isn't among the files of the browser.

    A couple of months I took a look at the Widewine package 13.5.1030.0 would download and unfortunately it was the same XP-incompatible stuff we know and don't love. Apparently Google hasn't made an exception for China. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but my current understanding is that Widevine as such should work in 360 Chrome (not that I've tried it personally), but only on those Windows versions Google builds it for.

    • Like 1
  3. Great news from our friend @feodor2, Firefox 91 looks to be coming to XP!:cheerleader:


    Today 3.2.2022 i got the quantum running on winxp, great!



    I have launched my first quantum under xp, it works great and much faster than 360

    работает лиса 91 (Firefox 91 works)



    i have already working quantum on my winxp, yet no support video and direct3d


    • Like 5
  4. 1 hour ago, UCyborg said:

    You'd have to get out of your way and block MMDeviceEnumerator from being invoked in order for it to fall back to WinMM!:buehehe: If you wanted to try WinMM on Windows OS they target, that is.

    You can actually change the audio backend in current Firefox versions by setting the media.cubeb.backend (string) pref. If you set it to winmm and restart the browser, about:support should show it under Audio Backend. At least it does on Windows 7, haven't tried on later versions. But since they rewrote the drivers after XP, the fix would be superfluous even when using WinMM. But it's still nice that it'll now be part of modern Firefox, considering the "MSFN hackers" meme, etc. :P :lol:

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  5. 1 hour ago, ArcticFoxie said:

    Don't waste your time!  Unless you're one of those folks that "like" 'reality tv' or 'Judge Judy' "crap".  :thumbdown

    Maybe I'm wrong, but I think more or less everyone with any interest in this latest round of the drama is already pretty exhausted from reading and talking about it, be it here or elsewhere. My idea was that since these browser threads here are really intended to be about development and support, any future upstream drama related discussion can be taken to the drama thread, so it doesn't take over this one the way it has occasionally happened in the past.

    • Like 3
  6. On 10/3/2021 at 3:58 AM, Mathwiz said:

    Are @mixit still around? They always seemed to come up with fixes for these sorts of issues....

    I don't know if they are, but I am (more or less). :)

    However, I haven't been using ESR 52 for a long time and Instagram is forcing me to log in before I can look at anything useful (I don't have an account), so I probably won't be doing the extra wrangling necessary to try and help out with this. Sorry, @Dave-H.

  7. @ArcticFoxie

    If they keep wasting so much energy and time on posturing and other nonsense instead of spending it on browser development, remaining viable will definitely be a problem (even if we discount the negative PR). Blaming others for causing this waste doesn't make it any less of a waste. I'd be surprised if they got a lot of development done over these past few weeks, meanwhile the majors keep plowing ahead. Like I've said before, as a downstream user I'd very much like to fully support them, but they sure make it as difficult as humanly possible... :thumbdown

    I haven't paid much attention to the tale of BNavigator, but I don't really see how @roytam1 could have stolen Tobin's thunder by doing builds of his pre-release software. AFAIK he hasn't been claiming that he's the author of the software or targeting the same user segment. Personally, I'd take it as free preview advertising. I'm not sure you can call dibs on open source software while procrastinating with your release for many years, not after you've made the source public in the first place.

    As for @feodor2, don't worry about him losing all hope. He's apparently trying his hand on post-Quantum Firefox now, so at least in theory this may yet work out for the best as far as us XP fans are concerned. :whistle: As much as I like XUL, having a working browser is more important, and I'm not keen on any Chrome (despite you guys doing very hice work on cleaning up 360 :worship:).

    • Like 1
  8. On 9/12/2021 at 8:16 AM, DanR20 said:

    Is anyone having problems on Twitter with the volume slider and UXP 52 and 55? It seems to have just started but it will no longer pop up to adjust the volume. Still working in the newer firefox versions.

    I don't know why the slider isn't being shown, but you should still be able to use it even though you can't see it. Click on the volume control icon, keep the mouse on top of it, and use up/down arrow keys on the keyboard to control the volume. Works for me, at least. Maybe I'll investigate this further if I have time, but no promises since the workaround is easy enough.

    Also, :thumbdown:thumbdown:thumbdown to this latest Moonchild nonsense. I would really like to hope that this is just a knee-jerk reaction and they'll eventually come to their senses, but at this point that hope is pretty slim...

    • Upvote 1
  9. 8 hours ago, roytam1 said:

    (P.S.: I'm not going to jump in this mud fight)

    A very wise decision, why give them an extra opportunity to disparage you.

    I think I should rephrase what I was trying to say before. I think people might want to read the Github thread to be aware of what's happening - but only those who a) have something useful to add that hasn't already been brought up and, b) can restrain themselves enough to remain polite should go over there to add their thoughts. They can of course also do it here, but the Github issue is more of a place of record. I myself might have met a) in the early stages but b) was pretty doubtful. At this point, a) is also doubtful.

    @XP2003 Yes, I've seen it. Gotta "love" that one guy actually demanding jail time for @feodor2... :thumbdown

    I'm reminded of a quote from an R. K. Narayan book about Indian mythology, where he describes asuras (demons) as "strong-minded, intelligent, and capable of offering arguments to establish that they are righteous, and all others are evil-minded". He then adds "They succeed - but, [...], only for a while; sooner or later they are overcome." Let's hope for that. (It's not my style to compare people to demons, but the comparison comes to mind when someone is so incredibly insistent to enforce the letter of the law at the expense of the spirit of it, for very questionable reasons and with clearly damaging cansequences.)

    • Like 3
  10. Have you guys been following the discussion (I use the term generously) regarding Tobin's demand that @feodor2 remove his contributions at @feodor2's repo? Sparks are definitely flying there (172 posts as of now), though unfortunately the situation as such is as far from a reasonable solution as ever. Among other things, as could be expected, MSFN members and XP fans in general are once again getting portrayed as incorrigible criminals, etc. etc. by you know who. :thumbdown Fortunately for me I'm not on Github, so it's easier to resist the urge to get into it with Tobin and Co., because I'm afraid I could seriously blow my fuse there... :realmad: Fortunately they have received some fierce opposition as well; I only recognized @dmiranda from here, but there's even a Christian pastor on their case. :worship: If you think your nerves can handle it, take a look if you haven't yet. In some sense, maybe I shouldn't urge others to participate there when I won't be doing it myself, but if you have any good ideas, @feodor2 could certainly use them and your support in general. I very much doubt anyone could convince Tobin to come to his senses, though... I sincerely hope @roytam1 remains careful enough not to give them an excuse to do a similar thing to him.


    On 8/26/2021 at 6:45 AM, feodor2 said:

    So who want to be the new owner?

    Based on the license thread at the repo, I'm not sure if this is still relevant. If it is, I have to say that while I've been doing my private builds based on your Centaury and I'm very grateful for your work, regrettably this is not something I can take on right now...

    Oh, and welcome @cmccaff1, and thanks for your insights before!

    • Like 3
    • Upvote 1
  11. 3 hours ago, feodor2 said:

    So if he take even moochild code he does not have the right to demand for remove this code, right? But let we assume i removed lines of code what is his property. What can they do next - do others and moonchild himself have right to demand remove their code property or else?

    IANAL, so I can't tell you with certainty what rights they have or don't have, especially since they're trying to export US law into Ukraine (assumption based on your profile flag). The MPL 2.0 states "Any litigation relating to this License may be brought only in the courts of a jurisdiction where the defendant maintains its principal place of business and such litigation shall be governed by laws of that jurisdiction" (underlined emphasis by me). In my opinion their interpretation of the license means very little without actually litigating the whole thing. I suppose they could try to get Github to throw you out by filing a DMCA claim, but you could then file a counter claim and they'd still have to go to court to get their way. To Ukrainian court, that is.

    The inconvenience (for those who can't figure it out) of having to ask you how to get your source code is no bigger than having to email Tobin to get his source. :rolleyes: For my tastes, Tobin's way is actually further from the spirit of open-source than having the source freely available to anyone 24/7, even if there aren't very specific instructions on how to get it (like I said before, I personally was able to get it pretty easily). The MPL 2.0 states "You must inform recipients of the Executable Form how they can obtain a copy of such Source Code Form by reasonable means in a timely manner", which I think ultimately doesn't preclude informing people post facto, once asked. AFAIK you've never made any attempts to hide the source code, because even before, when you only distributed your patches, the main source was always available (a patch without what to patch would be nonsensical indeed! :rolleyes:), and contrary to what (IIRC) Tobin has claimed in the past, the license doesn't actually say you have to provide/host your own copy of the source. In my opinion, even if with some idiosyncracies, you have adhered to the spirit of the license and Tobin & Co are not operating in good faith :thumbdown. But again: IANAL.

    • Like 4
  12. 4 hours ago, Montana Slim said:

    Ok, I'm interested... where is it?

    I'm not @feodor2's spokesperson, but since you're asking me, the source for the latest Centaury release (0.17.0) looks to be at https://github.com/Feodor2/Mypal/archive/b9d3b502ef4786aa77d30e9ace63494422fa00a4.zip

    Sorry, too busy atm to properly write up the steps to get there, but I can say that I was able to figure it out without ever asking @feodor2 (or anyone else) about it.

    • Like 2
  13. 3 hours ago, feodor2 said:

    I had other thing https://github.com/Feodor2/Centaury/ fork of their basilisk. 

    Their incursion about i do not inform them how they can obtain a copy of such Source Code Form by reasonable means in a timely manner.

    I deleted all executables there, wait what next, maybe it is a point to delete the whole my github to go somewhere else, what do you suggest?

    Tobin must think himself very clever to have found a supposedly actionable fault in you not specifying to his satisfaction the exact steps to get the source code (which is in fact available, let's not forget that). Well, since apparently he's now wanting you to remove all his contributions from your code, you could play his game and ask him to provide an exact list of his personal contributions so that you could remove them. If he can't be expected to determine which Github code corresponds to which release version, then surely you can't be expected to hunt down his contributions either. In fact it may not even be possible for you to do so, because the fact that Tobin has commited certain code doesn't necessarily mean that he's the author of that code (as opposed to just copying something over from Mozilla, for example); and some of the code he's authored has very likely been commited by other people, like Moonchild. So, let him provide the list and prove his original authorship if that's the path he wants to take. IANAL (I am not a lawyer), of course, and I don't think his claims have merit, but why not have him(/them all) work for it instead of just trying to intimidate people. ;)

    In any case it's very unfortunate that Pale Moon people choose to spend their energy on hounding people for pointless reasons instead of improving the (sadly) increasingly obsolete browser. Mypal and Centaury pose no threat to their IP, they're just hounding you to earn some sort of a "victory" :rolleyes: and feel better about themselves in the face of losing the game in the big picture. (As a sidenote, I feel I should give some small credit to athenian200 for at least not behaving like a petulant child - which can't be said about the other two, especially Tobin. :thumbdown)

    All that said, and regardless of this MCP attack, @feodor2, it actually wouldn't hurt you to properly tag your Centaury releases (in the Mypal repo) and provide a source archive for each release. It is indeed pretty inconvenient to have to go by just the commit dates. You absolutely don't deserve their attack, but in a way you gave them the means to try it by being a bit lazy.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  14. 15 hours ago, roytam1 said:

    BTW I can only find a support topic for it, but not a bugzilla entry. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1126635

    I always wonder why there is no one filing a bugzilla entry for it?

    I could have sworn I saw something on Bugzilla around the time I was still "in charge" of the Primetime thread, but I couldn't find it now. IIRC the description was pretty vague, so it's possible I mistook the bug for something it wasn't, and that vagueness would also make it difficult to find it again. It's true though, people were complaining on forums, but not where it would have counted the most... Were you looking for a Bugzilla entry to mention the fix there?

  15. 3 hours ago, Jarsin said:

    But on testing it's capabilities I noticed, it's (Or even my Windows XP SP3 in qemu) is affected by vulnarability CVE 2020-0601 curveball Certificate spoofing in crypt32.dll, according to Slllabs by Qualys. I didn't find any patch for that vulnerability in crypt32.dll in Windows XP. Is there any?

    So it comes with a proper set of SSL/TLS capabilities, despite the security issue CVE-2020-0601 (I guess XP SP3 is the main culprit here) and it performs with 522 points in html5test.

    Microsoft's CVE 2020-0601 description says it has to do with ECC certificate spoofing (as do many other articles, some specifically stating that RSA is not affected). Since XP (even with POSReady patches) has never supported any ECC on the OS level (crypt32.dll), how exactly would it be spoofed on XP? :unsure: I'm not sure how SSL Labs is testing this, but something seems amiss here. Assuming the test works correctly, my logic says it'd have to be a browser problem.

    • Like 2
  16. 4 hours ago, roytam1 said:

    Excellent, thanks for taking care of this! :thumbup

    Re: his acceptance comment, the bug is actually in wdmaud.drv; wdmaud.sys you could say is ahead of its time, therefore getting nerfed by the 32-bit API limitation. But let's not nitpick, I probably should have made that more clear in my source comments. :) Since we're not concerned with Windows 7 (WinMM is never used there by UXP browsers), I didn't delve into it too much, but WinMM did appear to be substantially rewritten there. IIRC at some point official Firefox added an option to pick an audio subsystem, so at least in theory WinMM could be selected even with Win7 (however unlikely that is). I'm pretty sure that in that case my fix would simply be superfluous and not cause any problems, but I think it's really up to them to make sure of that as library providers.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 2
  17. 9 minutes ago, roytam1 said:

    can you find a webm file that is long enough and having both audio and video? so I can test the fix on vanilla windows 2000 (nm26-vc8)

    You can try the "traditional" one :):

    On 7/29/2021 at 2:07 PM, mixit said:

    After I found that it didn't matter if I used an online stream or a local file, I just downloaded a a random longish file VP8 WEBM video from search results, which happened to be this one.

  18. 53 minutes ago, roytam1 said:

    :thumbup Fingers crossed. Honestly, unless they're hell-bent on flushing all memory of XP, I can't think of a  good reason for why they wouldn't accept this fix.

    Let's hope Tobin won't have a heart attack if his so-called "MSFN hackers" manage to get official recognition. :D (Less name-calling, cussing, and paranoid lashing out at people who have been helping their project, and maybe they wouldn't need appeals like UXP development: it doesn't magically happen...)

    EDIT: If Tobin or someone else from PM reads this: sarcasm aside, I'm actually not saying this to fan the flames of conflict, the point is that it's painful to watch the upstream I believe most of us would ideally like to support and root for make that as hard as possible, and not just for MSFN members, but also a number of those in their own community.

    • Like 6
    • Upvote 1
  19. 4 hours ago, roytam1 said:

    New build of Serpent/UXP for XP!

    Test binary:
    Win32 https://o.rthost.win/basilisk/basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20210731-f94c0da-uxp-620374316-xpmod.7z
    Win64 https://o.rthost.win/basilisk/basilisk52-g4.8.win64-git-20210731-f94c0da-uxp-620374316-xpmod.7z

    My changes since my last build:
    - cubeb_winmm.c overflow fix by mixit@MSFN, Thanks! This should fix the famous 23m18s freeze bug for audio/video playback. (85149582f)

    Thanks, man! :) Ran a quick test on both with MP4, seems to "work for me". :cool: Hopefully the same will be the case for everyone!

    • Like 2
    • Upvote 1
  20. On 7/28/2021 at 11:37 PM, DanR20 said:

    Finally a fix, that's been a problem for a long time. I just tested it again in XP and the usual buffering was around 25:12. No reason for Mozilla not to have resolved it, there were plenty of complaints so they had to know. Probably too busy messing with the UI to be bothered with real bugs and then they wonder why their user base keeps dwindling.

    Most of the complaints I've seen have been on their support site though, not at Bugzilla where the devs would see them first hand. And there never seemed to be that many people joining in and confirming the bug. The point @grey_rat kindly reminded us about would also definitely play a role in this. In any case, far be it from me to absolve Mozilla from its responsibility, I've mostly just been meaning to point out that there have been interfering factors along the way that don't (in this case) necessarily involve full-on Google agents within Mozilla's ranks. :ph34r:

    On 7/29/2021 at 12:34 AM, Rod Steel said:

    Wow.:w00t: I did not expect somebody ever find bug causing 23 min error. Congratulations.:thumbup Bravo!:worship: I cant wait now for roytam1 implementing it in all his XP browsers.

    Say, what site with video you using with old FF14 version to catch a bug? Cause not a lot sites are even would play any video with F15 or 14 this days.

    Thanks! :) After I found that it didn't matter if I used an online stream or a local file, I just downloaded a a random longish file VP8 WEBM video from search results, which happened to be this one. As you said, you won't be able to stream it because FF 15.0 can't handle the current HTTPS ciphers, but you can play it locally. (I've got to say, by the time I was finally done with the fix, I was totally haunted by the faces of those debate participants! :crazy:)

    On 7/29/2021 at 2:34 AM, roytam1 said:

    would you mind if I submit your work to https://github.com/mozilla/cubeb (credit to you of course)?

    Sure thing, go for it :thumbup, but maybe wait until people have had a chance to play with your builds? I'd thought of this too, but I didn't want to bring it up before it's been confirmed that the fix works well for everyone. But there'd definitely be some nice irony in getting this XP-specific fix into the current Firefox code via their stand-alone cubeb lib, after they took great care to remove all traces of XP from their main tree! :lol:

    On 7/29/2021 at 10:29 AM, grey_rat said:

    When there was Firefox 15, the video was watched in flash-plugin

    That's an excellent point! :worship: It's been a long time since I switched from Flash to the Primetime codec for H.264, so Mozilla's messing around with H.264 and especially its support on XP has faded from memory a bit. Yeah, those watching MP4/H.264 stuff using the Flash player wouldn't see this 2x:xx issue (I think - never tested for it specifically) and wouldn't have anything to report until maybe the last few XP-compatible Firefox versions, by which time Mozilla barely cared about XP any more. And VP8/9, which Firefox supported natively, were mostly available on Youtube, hence the strong association with the site for a long time.

    • Like 3

  • Create New...