InterLinked
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by InterLinked
-
-
12 minutes ago, RainyShadow said:
Hopefully you'll aim for NM27 (or maybe even Retrozilla, lol)
The demo page works in Serpent 52, Mypal and Edge, but not in New Moon 27 or Chrome 34.
Why NM27 and not 28? (though I guess both, the merrier...)
0 -
16 hours ago, InterLinked said:
As some folks are aware, back in Q4 of 2021, there was a massive breakage of many browsers due to some JavaScript changes that took place around then which rendered browsers that weren't the latest version of Chromium or Firefox useless on many sites. I myself have been struggling with this for some time; Iron 70 no longer works on many things and New Moon is almost the same way. Some things don't work in either, or one or the other.
I eventually realized that as it was just JavaScript code on these sites that had been changed (in many cases, in libraries not directly part of the site, probably why this sprang up everywhere all in a short period of time), and that if that was the case, maybe there was a way to restore compatibility...
I played around for a while this week, and at last, I have made some satisfying progress. StackOverflow and other StackExchange sites, which have been basically 70% broken (minimal functionality mode) for weeks now, finally work 100% again in Iron 70! All it took was minimal polyfill injecting before page load using a simple extension that I set up to do the trick. It looks like many of the other errors I'm seeing are caused by one other popular error. I'm going to see if that can be polyfilled in a similar way too.
Right now, I'm tentatively calling it "Old Chrome Compatability"... couldn't really come up with any clever names, but that's basically the idea.
Plan is to hopefully add that other thing and then open source it this week so that anybody can add it and use it. Granted, Chromium is probably less popular here than UXP browsers, maybe rightly so.
Gets me to thinking, now that I know this concept works, maybe we can rig together a similar extension for Pale/New Moon. It might even be simpler there, the way it's set up. The polyfills needed for one won't necessarily apply to the other, but there'll probably be a fair bit of crossover. Any thoughts?
Anyways, these id*** had their fun messing up their JavaScript to break all our stuff, but I'm taking my JavaScript back now... take that, Google...
All right, available now!
https://blog.interlinked.us/66/when-the-world-wide-web-goes-on-strike-how-do-you-fight-back
https://github.com/InterLinked1/chromefill
Hands are a bit tied at the moment, but might try to see what will work for New Moon as well.. for now, this unbreaks enough sites on Iron 70 that it's usable enough again.
5 -
As some folks are aware, back in Q4 of 2021, there was a massive breakage of many browsers due to some JavaScript changes that took place around then which rendered browsers that weren't the latest version of Chromium or Firefox useless on many sites. I myself have been struggling with this for some time; Iron 70 no longer works on many things and New Moon is almost the same way. Some things don't work in either, or one or the other.
I eventually realized that as it was just JavaScript code on these sites that had been changed (in many cases, in libraries not directly part of the site, probably why this sprang up everywhere all in a short period of time), and that if that was the case, maybe there was a way to restore compatibility...
I played around for a while this week, and at last, I have made some satisfying progress. StackOverflow and other StackExchange sites, which have been basically 70% broken (minimal functionality mode) for weeks now, finally work 100% again in Iron 70! All it took was minimal polyfill injecting before page load using a simple extension that I set up to do the trick. It looks like many of the other errors I'm seeing are caused by one other popular error. I'm going to see if that can be polyfilled in a similar way too.
Right now, I'm tentatively calling it "Old Chrome Compatability"... couldn't really come up with any clever names, but that's basically the idea.
Plan is to hopefully add that other thing and then open source it this week so that anybody can add it and use it. Granted, Chromium is probably less popular here than UXP browsers, maybe rightly so.
Gets me to thinking, now that I know this concept works, maybe we can rig together a similar extension for Pale/New Moon. It might even be simpler there, the way it's set up. The polyfills needed for one won't necessarily apply to the other, but there'll probably be a fair bit of crossover. Any thoughts?
Anyways, these id*** had their fun messing up their JavaScript to break all our stuff, but I'm taking my JavaScript back now... take that, Google...
4 -
26 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:
As an MSFN member throughout this entire "mess", I never felt that MSFN was targeted specifically by Moonchild, only by Tobin. I didn't really follow it that closely (Mozilla-based lost to Chromium-based long before the "mess" arrived).
As an XP user, I feel that official Pale Moon owes XP nothing. I really strongly believe that. If official Pale Moon is looking toward the future, then XP-compatibility is "backward-looking" and not "forward-looking".
I can't help but feel that EVERYBODY in the UNIVERSE that is still using XP and needs a browser to also run on XP, those people are already HERE at MSFN.
And we can count them on two hands! Add one foot if we need some toes to count the Vista folks.
Yeah, I guess you're right, most of the retro folks are on Windows 2000, not XP or Vista. Much thanks to roytam1 for working MailNews and New Moon on W2K!
26 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:Official Pale Moon's future isn't XP and Vista. I know that "goes against the grain" of MSFN collective-opinion, but I really don't think that official Pale Moon's "future" is XP and Vista.
There isn't that big of a "market share" for that audience. And we are all already members here at MSFN.
0 -
4 minutes ago, Mr.Scienceman2000 said:
I do have bunch of Nokia and Siemens and Samsung phones (pre 2009) that nobody wanted and I am collector of those. They are part of Finnish technology history but these days nobody cares about history unless they can profit from it so I plan keep them safe. My oldest phone on collection is Nokia 880 GSM from 1995 which was basically reshelled Nokia 2110.
Nokias from late 90s to early 2000 were actually best and most reliable mobile phones there is. They were assembled in my home country many I got were actually assembled and built in my home town. They used high quality plastic on them and were working making them have better and better battery life. Consider that when first mass produced Nokia phone 1011 came out in 1992 it had 15h standby time and 90min talk time max and 5 years later Nokia 6110 had whopping 270h standby time and 5h talk time with 900mah battery. I got 1200mah battery on my 6110 phone and it lasts near two weeks with single full charge while I call a lot. Also that phone is frikking durable and feels it will last many generations.
So if you think all cellphones are super unreliable it is false.
And I agree that landline is better but in my eyes cellphones and landline phones were not to competite against each others as laptops were not to competite against desktop machines even though market changed to that way. Wireless phones are good for areas where is no access for landlines or use on a move while landlines would be my choice on home and other non moving places. Also there should be freedom pick between. Am I only who is not simple minded enough to see it that way in this country or world?
And you know reason why I got no landline and I really hope you are not forced in US "For you benefit" away from landline option. Here they made even getting VOIP hard to push those sh@tty smartphones down everyone throat. I do not hate smartphones and only hate that they are pushed to those who do not want them. Pretty sure they would be offended too if I would come and push them my old brick Nokia but I wont since for it is freedom of choice.
Yeah, I don't have any need or desire for a mobile, so I don't have one, and use landlines exclusively. I'm not the kind of guy that's teched up on the go, I simply don't care for that. I like sitting down to use a computer and using comfortable, high quality phones. I use payphones when I'm out and about, if I really need to (which isn't super often).
I'm pretty much on VoIP as well, but the great thing about telephony is everything is backwards compatible. You can plug a 100 year old phone into a landline jack and it will just work, same for any decent VoIP adapter (ATA). I really only use analog phones, so I get more freedom that way. With digital, electronic, or VoIP hardphones like SIP phones, it is the same trajectory as mobiles, where everything nowadays is built for a few years and then becomes obsolete. The analog phones truly defy that.
I have my own Asterisk system, so a lot of my telephony stuff is connected to that.
I've always thought the U.S. wasn't great in how landlines are being neglected in a lot of places now, but sounds like it's even worse in Finland... maybe Asterisk/ATAs/channel banks are an option for you?
0 -
11 minutes ago, Mr.Scienceman2000 said:
I gotta be ahead of others as my family only had one car expect at one point they had two cars for year and I used their older car to learn driving before it broke down too badly for wear (GM seal of quality). In other hand that car had 300 000km driven so it served long life and as far as know new owner fixed it and is still driving it.
Also we were not traveling aboard, rather traveling in home country and my parents taught me not to consume. During my life I have had 5 phones expect bunch of old Nokias I saved from being scrapped while some change phones like underwear. Also I had 4 desktop machines total that I did not get for free and were from "new" parts so I am ahead others in reducing emissions, waste and consuming.
Well, I have more than 5 phones right now, but only because I am a telephone collector and enthusiast, and do a lot of testing since I do some telephone switching work.
Not that it's a competition, but my primary phone is 64 years old, a green 1957 Western Electric 500 set.
I'm sure those Nokia mobiles are fine compared to today's, but nothing beats a good old Western Electric landline phone. I'm wagering that most of my phones will outlive me and be kicking just fine in 2100. Due to my background, I'll probably acquire more - in fact, just recently acquired a Nortel 350 ADSI phone for testing, but in theory I could never buy another phone for the next 80 years and I'd be just fine.
Computers are obviously less durable, my main PC right now is a 2009 Dell OptiPlex. I'll probably be using it for a long while yet... it's new to me since I only recently salvaged it (actually a few of these) from getting recycled. Added some RAM to it so it's at 16 GB, and it has 2 external graphics cards, so she's purring along now with Windows 7...
0 -
4 hours ago, D.Draker said:
Even so , I still think the gaz cars need to be heavily limited . For example , we have loads of rich russian tourists driving huge expensive cars and polluting our climate . It's getting worse each year ! More and more russians driving their tanks. Even our local mafia (oops , did I just say mafia) has far less polluting cars. Like even mafia is living on the green side. Oh , and we don't have mafia , of course , it's just my fantasies)))))
Yeah, my criticism of electric cars doesn't mean I endorse fossil fuels, either. We need fewer cars, in general, period.
I'm more into classic cars, just because I hate all the newer ones, and obviously classic cars are pretty much all gasoline powered, not electric powered. Also plan to move to a rural area, where having one would be more of a necessity.
That said, I think the focus on shifting to electric cars is definitely misguided. We need to reduce cars, starting from 3-car families where kids drive to school, to 2-car families, to 1-car families, maybe even less in urban areas. That is real change that would help the earth, not people switching from one toxic technology to the next. Electric cars are about $$$$, not the earth.
1 -
7 hours ago, Mathwiz said:
Oops, I did it again!
I tossed out an off-hand comment that I didn't like the content at BitChute.com, and derailed the whole thread!
My apologies, but one statement made above deserves a rebuttal, as it seems to have started a bit of a panic here, and sounds suspiciously like it came from EMFScientist.org:
Uh, no. Some scientists (at EMFScientist.org) are pretty concerned about 5G (as they were earlier about WiFi, Bluetooth, cell phones, microwave ovens, overhead power lines - shall I go on?), but the consensus of "most leading scientists" is that 5G, like all those other technologies, poses a minimal, if any, hazard to our health. Those interested can read a good article (from 2019, when 5G technology was first emerging) about the controversy here: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/5g-is-coming/
This is repeating the same debunked pseudoscience that the industry and government have been repeating for years: "Currently the only proven biological effect of exposure to EMF, even at 5G frequencies, is slight tissue heating"
Complete hogwash, mostly repeated by physicists who don't know what they're talking about, with no medical or biological credentials. Interestingly, also physicists who told everyone tobacco was safe and climate change doesn't exist...
Look at actual reputable, independent, peer-reviewed science - most of which (more than 70%) finds biological effects from non-ionizing RF exposure.
Now you are just spreading disinformation around. Industry scientists like to claim it's safe, and we're hearing the same types of claims that we did about lead, tobacco, and more recently climate change. It's the same BS playbook over and over again.
180 scientists signed a petition in 2017, warning about 5G: https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Scientist-5G-appeal-2017.pdf
419 scientists have called for a moratorium on the technology: http://www.5gappeal.eu/
The 2020 Consensus Statement of UK and International Medical and Scientific Experts and Practitioners on Health Effects of Non-Ionising Radiation, which represents over 3500 medical doctors, would also disagree with you: https://phiremedical.org/2020-nir-consensus-statement-read/
More recently, 7,000+ scientists, 4,000+ medical doctors, 400+ building biologists, and 13,000+ engineers (and a lot of others) have signed the petition to stop 5G on earth and in space: https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/signatories-organizations
Doesn't sound like "just a few people" are concerned to me...
More studies: https://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/studies.asp
Here is a portal of 34,000+ more studies on the topic: https://www.emf-portal.org/en
Here are some charts showing actual health effects at what the FCC would consider "low" levels of radiation, along with the study the finding was from: https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/BioInitiativeReport-RF-Color-Charts.pdf
Consequently, there is a legitimate reason to be concerned about the 5G rollout: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300161
With all the manufactured doubt created by people just like you, of course, it's no wonder people are misinformed about the topic: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/
Lots of misinformation from outlets like the New York Times, as well: https://microwavenews.com/news-center/fact-free-hit-5g-critic
7 hours ago, Mathwiz said:(Emphasis added.) You're free to disagree, of course; but this will be my final word on this topic. If you try to troll me, I'll just plonk you.
Hopefully most of you will relax a little bit about your new 5G phones now, and remove your tinfoil hats.
Feel free to subject yourself to whatever exposure you like (and smoke those Camels while you're at it!), but you're not doing anyone a favor by trying to mislead and distort the science.
Could go on and on, but clearly, you will believe what you want to believe - cause face it, who wants to believe their gadgets are harming them? - but you can't argue with science. Well... you can, and are... but that doesn't change the reality...
Sorry, but I'm getting sick and tired of all the lies and conspiracy theories that are floating around... "smoking is safe" (YES, I still hear this from id***), "climate change doesn't exist" (YES, this too I hear), the vaccine has tracking chips inside it, 5G caused the virus, the election was stolen, 5G is safe with no health effects whatsoever, Windows 7 is not getting ANY security updates, etc. etc. etc. Time and time again, people ignore the facts and believe their own version of reality. If only everyone could be more scientific and actually use their brains, and if they don't know the facts, admit it and do some research.
7 hours ago, Mathwiz said:Neither do I (and thanks for suggesting PMPlayer)! The problem wasn't modifying install.rdf - that was easy - it was getting the PMPlayer.xpi file in the first place, since you must get it from one of two Web sites deliberately configured to make that task difficult, or compile it yourself!
3 -
6 minutes ago, j7n said:
I doubt that microwaves can affect the human body at the level that they don't burn out fragile electronics specifically tuned for those wavelengths.
Well, this is a view that has been proven wrong by 50 years+ of science and research. You seem to believe that only thermal effects exist, but there are plenty of established non-thermal effects.
The FCC would agree with you, and they got sued and lost this year over their outdated guidelines.
6 minutes ago, j7n said:Perhaps if you have metal implants.
Perhaps if you have cells in your body... is more like it. All life on earth is affected, especially things like bees, birds, trees, etc.
Beyond the scope of what can be put here, but you should do some research and look at the literature. Sounds like you have catching up to do.
2 -
43 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:
So I can take off this baseball cap wrapped in aluminum foil?
You would need to use an RF meter to measure the radiation before and after. There is no way to make an intelligent decision without actual data about the environment.
43 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:ps - I haven't owned a cell phone in 20+ years! And all I see around me are a bunch of dumb id10ts with 10-second attention spans. If you want to witness the "dumbing down" of folks, take a look around you and monitor those that are "glued" to their cell phone and can't even set it down for 15 minutes without glancing over at it several times to see if any of their social media notifications have popped up.
Not disagreeing there!
1 -
1 minute ago, RainyShadow said:
Hmm, look around yourself. How many people with 5G capable phones can you spot?
None where I am right now...
1 minute ago, RainyShadow said:My modem appears to be connected at 3.5GHz. Satellites have been bombarding us for decades in this band. Local cells will transmit regardless of whether i use them.
Scientists are also concerned about a lot of the new satelittes going up.
Frequencies in use now are on the lower side but will go up higher past what's been typical hitherto.
A local cell is a lot further away than a transmitter 10 feet away from you. Inverse square law.
1 minute ago, RainyShadow said:And i can always fix some sort of metallic shielding under the modem if its own transmitter becomes a concern.
Shielding is a last resort. Always better to remove the source. If done improperly, shielding can actually reflect the RF back at you and make it worse.
1 -
4 minutes ago, RainyShadow said:
My home is a few kilometers outside the city. Nobody would provide wired connectivity here, so i have to use mobile internet for the whole house.
Until now i used a 4G modem/router, but the 4G license of my previous ISP expires in a week and they are shutting down that part of their business. That plan had 100GB monthly at "max speed", then limited to 256kb/s until the next month.
My new ISP offers 5G without a monthly limit and 4G with 200GB limit.
I just had a 5G modem installed on the roof today (about 10m. away from me in a straight line through the walls)
Well, clearly you have no concern for your own well being or your family's.
Don't forget, most doctors smoke Camels!!
4 minutes ago, RainyShadow said:Anyways, at least now i won't have to count the GBs, and can let my brother watch all the YT/FB videos he want on the TV downstairs.
Now my dad wants an IPTV box, pfff... The satellite TV isn't enough anymore. Damn advertisements...
1 -
22 minutes ago, RainyShadow said:
And i just got 5G installed at home today...
It was the only unlimited plan, the 4G offers give you 200GB "max-speed" traffic monthly, then switch you to the laughable 256kb/s after that is exhausted.
About the pandemic, this was an interesting read...
"5G installed at home"? What do you mean? You let a wireless carrier come in and install a small cell on your garage? Or you just got a 5G-capable device?
Either way, not something you want to be near. The whole case for 5G is a pathetic joke anyways. Good wired broadband beats the pants off 5G any day, and in fact, 5G doesn't work without a good wired backhaul.
1 -
> Smoking gun, EMR from 5G causing the sickness, increases after the nano metal contaminated clot shot
Not sure where this is coming from, or in what context, but I'll just say this:
Non-ionizing radiation has been proven, time and time again, to have non-thermal biological health effects. Most leading scientists on this issue today say it should be reclassified from 2B to a Class 1 carcinogen, same as smoking. The science is pretty damning at this point, and scientists are pretty concerned about 5G.
Not sure why this is getting lumped in with conspiracies like vaccines causing the virus, or some totalitarian agenda here, but this is actually a well studied issue, and most science is in agreement that this is a pressing health issue in the 21st century.
In the context of COVID-19, funnily enough, happen to get this paper this morning, though haven't looked at it extensively yet: https://www.jctres.com/en/issues/volume-7-issue-5/
Not the first paper of that nature, either.
The claim that 5G is CAUSING the pandemic is clearly ludicrous, but it would be infactual to say it is not worsening it in some extent, just as surely as we know that factors like air pollution, chemical poisoning, and malnourishment would also put people at greater risk. It's rarely as simple as one simple direct cause as there are often many interrelated factors that mix together to suppress immune responses, one of the main effects of non-ionizing RF radiation.
TL;DR Is 5G causing COVID-19? NO. Is it worsening the pandemic. Yes, although probably not to the extent that the conspiracy theorists would like people to believe, and probably more than a lot of people think, and certainly not a factor acting in isolation.
3 -
14 minutes ago, D.Draker said:
"SPECIAL REPORT: To build electric cars, manufacturers need to mine nickel.
To dig up more nickel, a mining company plans to bulldoze a section of pristine rainforest.
The “ethical dilemma” of when promising tech results in environmental harm:"
tags : musk , dems , california , hypocrisy in everything .
Yup, this is why real environmentalists don't support electric cars: https://www.protectthackerpass.org/update-from-peehee-muhuh-thacker-pass/
"Green" technologies are not "good" for the environment. The earth does not "want" electric cars. Nor does it want dams or solar panels. One destructive technology to the next is not "green".
2 -
6 hours ago, Mathwiz said:
The bitchute.com problem was discussed recently:
The only workaround found so far (other than using one of the 360Chrome builds) is:
I have no answer for your bank question. I'm no Javascript expert but I'd guess it's similar to the bitchute.com issue; i.e., it's not "detecting" your browser and rejecting it; it's just serving Javascript that doesn't run on it. This is becoming an increasingly common problem.
Speaking of which, one of my favorite forum boards, avsforum.com, just broke UXP too. Well, not completely; it still "works" but viewing a thread with a reply box at the bottom (i.e., any unlocked thread while signed in) sometimes spikes CPU usage and slows down the browser unacceptably. CPU usage approaches 50% so it seems one of my two CPU cores is completely saturated. Sometimes it's fine though; the unpredictability is maddening.
The first time I tried avsforum.com on 360Chrome, it locked up completely! But that seems to be resolved now and avsforum.com now works fine on 360Chrome. But I have a custom UserContent.css for avsforum.com, so I'd prefer to stick with UXP if I could find a workaround.
Wait, what is the solution, exactly? Beside 360Chrome?
I'm also encountering a lot of sites that no longer work in UXP, or even Chromium 70.
Why they're all deciding to suddenly replacing working JS with JS that doesn't work on most browsers seems asinine to me, but I guess that's to be expected.
0 -
39 minutes ago, crashnburn4u said:
Whats the newest hardware that you are running Win 7 on?
I'm not running any new hardware really, my main PC is a Dell OptiPlex 980 tower, from 2009 or 2010. A bunch of them were being recycled so I snagged as many as I could.
1 -
59 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:
I kinda don't see that happening but only time will tell.
Strictly my view, but since you asked...
The XP Die-Hards are "book-ended" by two of the absolute worst operating systems Microsoft has ever released -- Windows Me and Windows Vista.
I know we have some very respectable Vista users so please don't shoot the messenger and it is "opinion" (popular opinion, but opinion nonetheless) --
https://www.computerworld.com/article/3575332/the-worst-version-of-windows-ever-released.html
https://www.howtogeek.com/720504/the-6-worst-versions-of-windows-ranked/
https://www.pcworld.com/article/528411/worst_operating_system.html
https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/hated-windows-versions/I can only speak for myself and others are welcome to chime in to agree or disagree.
The way that I see it, most XP Die-Hards are die-hards because they evolved into it, not because their first computer ran XP and they just resist change.
We remember Windows 3.1, we remember Windows 95, we remember Windows NT, we remember Windows 98, we remember Windows 2000.
We witnessed the "marketing lies" of Windows Me and Vista.
We witnessed Microsoft admit how "terrible" Vista was that they gave away free "upgrades" to XP to people that were trying to return brand new computers with immense hatred for Vista instability that came with that new computer.
We witnessed driver support (primarily wireless printers) with 10 - that repeated each and every "update Tuesday" for 4 to 6 months after "upgrading" to 10.XP Die-Hards weren't "born", we were kinda "created through an evolutionary process".
I don't see that "evolution" in the Win7 community, that community (from my experience) "loves" Win10 and is "looking forward" to 11.I'm not sure where these ideas came from, but they're patently false.
The difference between Windows 7 and its successors is one of the widest chasms in Windows NT history. Bigger even, I would argue, than XP to Vista.
There are a lot of folks that were fine going from XP to Vista to 7 or whatever, but are not fine moving on beyond that. I'm one of them, obviously.
I run Windows 7 on my main machines and have no plans to downgrade to Windows 8/8.1/10 or God forbid 11. I thought it couldn't get any worse after 10... 11 proved me wrong.
All to stay the folks still running 7 are doing so for a reason, and are NOT about to be suckered into a fourth-rate OS like Windows 11. We share many of the same concerns and philosophies as those running Vista, XP, 2000, etc.
0 -
8 hours ago, Eddie Phizika said:
Hey Roytam1 and all, i'm just here to thank you for iceape-uxp for windows. I love seamonkey/mozilla suite, but i love uxp. It is so faster than palememe, i love its freedom and privacy, security, and iceape particularly is even as fast as fat boy netscape-wannabe. I love it is so more netscape than it as it has an (excellent) email client and is a full suite. Absolutely love the low memory footprint as well, as i plan on staying on windows 7 as my desktop operating system until i die.
Is anyone actually using this browser on win 7? i see many xp users into these uxp builds but no idea how much win7/2k/9x users are into those.., I think it fits perfectly well and will be one of my alternative software to survive the slow and steady incompatibility apocalypse we will see, along with some tweaks and maybe some kind of custom kernel if any developer steps up for all of us and himself in the future. I'm never going to windows 8+ and by no nightmare in hell will be using a chrome-based browser, except when i need it. i will actually let 360chrome from owl as an reserve browser just for that.Not that specifically, but I use Roytam1's MailNews and New Moon, as a secondary browser, on Windows 7 x64.
1 -
2 hours ago, roytam1 said:
thank you @RainyShadow handing me a test account, but I can NOT get it crash here. (IMAP + SMTP setup)
It crashes every now and then immediately after an email is sent. The email gets sent successfully, but MailNews immediately crashes.
It's maybe 1 in every 50 sent emails, sometimes it is a week or more between crashes. But this has been happening for at least 2 years now, as long as I have been using MailNews.
I might add that I only use Windows 7 and Windows 10 regularly, mostly Windows 7. I do not use Windows XP, but I remember this also happened in a similar way with Windows 2000. So it doesn't seem OS-related.
0 -
7 minutes ago, roytam1 said:
does a newly created yandex account crash mailnews?
please give me a test account for debugging in private.
I'm not sure, all mine are at least a couple years old or so, but you should be able to sign up for free at yandex.com. I use Yandex only because they're the only provider I know of that still lets you do free custom domain hosting. Unlimited domains, unlimited accounts, unlimited storage. I guess the Russians might be mining your mail, but can't win everything
Personally, I'm not positive that I can pin it on Yandex accounts exclusively yet. Let me monitor this for a few more weeks and see - I'll post here with any updates.
0 -
2 minutes ago, mockingbird said:
I just tried the fork... Same issue. I'm going to try and delete the Basilisk directory and see if that works.
Update:
Totally my fault!!! This is a machine I've been working on that's in progress, and it's meant to replace my current bulky rig... I didn't pay attention and plugged my ethernet into the wrong port (the default Intel i219 isn't supported by XP so I added a PCI adapter in there).
Thanks for the quick response @InterLinkedLOL, that would do it!
I was trying to PXE boot some computers today to reimage them this morning and was wondering why one of them didn't want to do it.
Turns out, it helps to make sure the Ethernet cable is plugged in
0 -
3 minutes ago, mockingbird said:
Hi i430vx, and thank you for your great installer.
I ran the installer today and it deleted my Serpent directory (x86) and it did not install anything. Running the installer again does nothing.
Can you please update the program?
ThanksAny chance this fork of it works? https://w2k.phreaknet.org/
That's what I use to install mine, and it was working as of 2 weeks ago.
0 -
On 11/8/2021 at 6:10 PM, InterLinked said:
Well, we are 2 for 2 now. Just crashed again, and with the same Yandex account.
I still say that's coincidence, but that is one of the lesser used accounts so seems odd.
Usually, it doesn't crash twice in the same day.
All right, just crashed again.
So it seems we're rolling about once per week, ish, give or take.
Different email account this time, but also a Yandex account.
So we're 3 for 3 on Yandex accounts causing MailNews to crash at the moment...
0
My Browser Builds (Part 3)
in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes
Posted
I don't *think* so but not sure.
New Moon 28 works fine with StackOverflow, which didn't work in Iron 70 properly due to the globalThis issue, so I'd say "no".
This is the compatibility chart for globalThis: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/globalThis#browser_compatibility
There are other areas where UXP is affected, but I haven't addressed those yet.