NotHereToPlayGames

Appears that way, doesn't it, lol. I would put three legs on that stool -- Performance, Privacy, and Security (in that order for me). I spent a big chunk of this morning comparing performance metrics (I have several "benchmarks", and as all here know, I want a quantitative measurement, not a "gut feeling" or a "placebo effect") between IceCat (based on Firefox 115 ESR) and Ungoogled v122. IceCat "passes" my telemetry tests. But "fails" (miserably!) on the PERFORMANCE side of things! Between 14% and 26% SLOWER depending on which test is being used.

Same here. I'm still on "1607". Microsoft PowerToys is the only thing I have found thus far that requires newer windows (20H1). I'm sure that there are THOUSANDS of programs out there that will not run on "1607" - but that's kind of meaningless to me if I only want to run ONE of those THOUSANDS, lol. I use PowerToys at work but the "fancy zones" feature doesn't work with Official Chrome (I cannot run Ungoogled at work, IT slapped my wrist a month or so ago, lol).

I was kind of wondering if it was something like this. One must consider if the end-user telling the developer what to do would result in HOLDING BACK the ADVANCEMENT of the product being developed. ie, if the end result TWO YEARS FROM NOW is a browser that can do in XP what other browser can only do in Win12 (or whatever the next version of Windows will be called), then is it the end-user to dictate .xul versus .xhtml or is it for the DEVELOPER to dictate ???

Stalemate becomes checkmate. The cure is to take up a new game.

After running 13.7b for a while, it does seem to perform BETTER than 14.4b. If I used this browser DAILY (which I confess that I do not), I would stick with 13.7b. Some folks will "always" claim to use the "most recent". Or one version back if the most-recent introduces bugs. There is no "one size fits all" answer. For me, I just opted to stick with 13.7b. It seems to behave much better for RAM for the way that I use a web browser (I'm not interested in "lull the tabs" and that sort of stuff, "to each their own"). I still prefer Serpent 52 (and yes, it is used DAILY), but a version from 7-31-2023 over Mypal 68, but I still keep my eye on Mypal 68 progress.

Pardon me, but just what is your point here? Your expectations should be recalibrated.

Noted. I'm actually still on 68.14.4b. On the To-Do List is single-process/multi-process toggle and updating to 68.14.5b. So no update for me either, lol.

I guess I'm confused. How can we demonstrate that it's not the Custom Buttons extension needing updated versus the development of Mypal 68 is "to blame" and Mypal development needs to "revert" instead?

<OT> Watching an episode of "Mega Brands That Built America". Microsoft versus Apple in the early days. Can't help but laugh that every commercial break is Dodge RAM. </OT>

Technically, it's only ever active for <200ms. You will never "catch it" in about:networking.

Carry on... "Not my problem..."

This isn't 1994. Nowadays, you should block ANYTHING-and-EVERYTHING that is fed to you via HTTP versus HTTPS, not just js from HTTP. Several of Firefox's embedded telemetry connections occur over HTTP, not HTTPS, they do this for a reason. I have a hunch that even "HTTPS Everywhere" does NOT convert these to HTTPS. Just a hunch. This is also one of those topics for the "Google Haters" that love to blame "googlisms" for the downfall of the internet. Timeline The "HTTPS Everywhere" phenomenon only evolved due to Google's push for HTTPS in their Gmail and search.

Is this slang? Because I googled and only came up with this.

It's too bad they didn't run their tests on ICECAT. I'm actually guite fond of my preliminary experiments with ICECAT.

Your whole argument (seems to) and even your link cite "default settings". I promise you, NOBODY here at MSFN is using "default settings".

Well, yes and no. I lived through it. It would have been circa 2012 or so. By that time, I would have been one of the ex-Firefox users that got BIT by Firefox NOT being the secure browser it claimed to be. I would have been on Sleipnir at that time, a tabbed "frontend" to IE. I did not support Chrome nor Firefox in that era. To this day, the one and ONLY virus any of my computers over the years had ever been infected with came in THROUGH FIREFOX. D#mn near got me FIRED because I was a college intern and had converted the majority of the office over to Firefox and bam, our entire office and another office an hour away was shut down for three days because of Firefox.

Maybe a better way to explain my THEORY on the mere presence of that HOSTED APP is this - some of the XP Browsers over the years had TIME BOMBS embedded in their code. It was VERY easy to DEFUSE those TIME BOMBS. But that time bomb had to EXPLODE first before most of us even REALIZED that there was a TIME BOMB present at all. I personally think that this CWS HOSTED APP is a TIME BOMB just waiting to "do its thing". Can't prove it, just a THEORY. If it IS a time bomb, I'll be certain to say "I told you so". If not, you are of course encouraged to say the same. BUT now we have TWO variables at play. Did YOUR time bomb not explode because of the additional modifications that you have now made? And the untouched version of Thorium, without updating, have its time bomb explode? Both of these events can only be tested in the future, once Google carries through with their promise of deactivating all MV2.

That's what I thought, I was curious if you made it FURTHER. I don't think you're fully there yet, to be honest. Only TIME will tell. I think the real test will be when CWS (ie, "part of" that HOSTED APP) removes MV2 and your browser, despite having "no connections" to CWS, will react. I can only SPECULATE until then, but my THEORY is that no amount of any developer claiming "our goal is to maintain MV2 compatibiliy" will be 100% EFFECTIVE if this CWS HOSTED APP is "present". It's not about it "connecting" to CWS, it's about just what is the FUNCTION of that APP being there, sitting idle, ready to pounce when it is supposed to "do" something.

Members are allowed to delete their accounts. The Account Settings page used to have a button at the bottom where we could all delete our own account. That option is disabled nowadays (it was present a couple days ago during the "flag fix" rollout). But even without the button on the Account Settings page, we can all request through any of the moderators to have our accounts deleted.

The methods I used to remove from 360Chrome do not apply to Supermium and Thorium. Since migrating to Win10, I have no use for either of them "so far". That could easily change in the future, but for now, "not for me". I follow there development as a casual observer only because of how fast the internet changes and liking to know "where they stand" when/if my current default (Official Ungoogled v122) no longer serves my needs. The last Official Ungoogled that I tried was v128 and my bank accound password submission does not work (just like in v125, v126, and v127). For all I know, it started working in v129 and I have no clue what version they are at currently. But it is not something on Ungoogled's side of things. There are reports for the same bank not working in Brave. It may be fixed by now in Brave, unsure, I only catch those forums once a month or so. I basically have lost interest in the amount of time and effort that is required to "fork" something like 360Chrome and I am no longer interested in falling down that rabbit hole. If D.Draker has found a way to remove the HOSTED APP in Thorium, all the power to him. I've not seen evidence to support that he has succeeded, but he has the vested interest here, not me. I'm just a casual observer at this point.

That alone very likely did NOT remove the HOSTED APP. Can you provide a screencap showing HOSTED APP DATA === NONE ?

I highly doubt it! My theory is this, just wait, when the CWS goes 100% MV3 vs MV2, it is this HOSTED APP that is going to disable/delete/etc any-and-all non-MV3 extensions that you may have. And it does not require access to the internet to perform this task! Just wait. Supermium and Thorium keeps claiming that they will keep MV2 compatibility - I am skeptic, this HOSTED APP is there for a reason!

Bingo! Precisely why I "finally" abandoned XP and the dog-chasing-tail aspect of trying to maintain some degree of web-browsability on XP. And to me, it was just as "pointless" to do it all over again on 7 and see how long I could keep the same degree of web-browsability on 7. Vista for me is a NO-GO! You can't PAY me to run Vista. "To each their own", of course. I am ECSTATIC with my "nosed, decked, and shaved" Win10 LTSB 2016, so still very much an "old OS". I keep watching Thorium and Supermium. They're not for me YET, but who knows what "tomorrow" brings.

That might work, I cannot claim to have attempted. All I know is that I would *never* use any web browser that has that PERMANENT HOSTED APP present. To each their own, of course. I'm not hiding anything from Google, per se. I just believe in PRIVACY RIGHTS OF THE CONSUMER. It's SAD to me that most consumers don't care any more. First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. —Martin Niemöller

The best answer to "where" is all over the place. It's not "one or two" locations, it is all over the place. google/bing/duckduckgo for Ungoogled Chromium's github page. They provide all of the "patches" required. I could not apply these patches to 360Chrome. I had to instead painstakingly scour every LINE of every required patch and apply the code manually. Remember that I was dealing with v86 and we're up to v130 or v140 nowadays, I lose track of the constant updating. All of the patch code is PUBLIC DOMAIN. Ungoogled Chromium hides nothing.