NotHereToPlayGames

My x86 SP2 locks up on first run of v13 and v13.5 - but only after a reboot or coming out of hibernate/sleep. I haven't been able to connect my x86 SP2 to the internet (haven't focused much time to it) but I can execute 360Chrome as a verification that it at least will launch in x86 SP2.

I have reverted to v12 "ungoogled" as my default-for-all. I had high hopes for v13.5 but the very first launch each and every morning after turning on the computer always results in a lockup requiring a Task Manager end-process. Subsequent launches throughout the day are always fine (unless launching an alternate profile and then it will require an end-process via Task Manager). Quite annoying how first launch after reboot or return from hibernate/sleep is always such an issue. Same goes for v11, v12, v13, Pale Moon, New Moon, Mypal, Basilisk/Serpent, BNavigator, Chrome v49 - they ALL take three to eight times longer to launch that first launch after a reboot or return from hibernate/sleep. But v13.5 is the ONLY one requiring an end-process via Task Manager

So your extensions are using 33,300 K in NORMAL mode even when they are disabled? Sounds to me like your crashes are related to your extensions. To test, you kinda need to uninstall them and not just disable them.

When you hit Shift+Esc to bring up 360Chrome/Chromium Task Manager (as opposed to Operating System Task Manager), do the "disabled" extensions still consume memory?

I don't have them anymore

@msfntor - is v13.5 crashing for you also?

That's kind of a PROBLEM, don't you think? An industry such as printed newspapers can't really survive if their only subscriber base are public libraries, airport cafes, and a restaurant here and there and none of their actual readers "really pay for it". The industry PEAKED in 1973 with a small bump in 1984/1993 depending on weekly vs Sunday (by subscribers only, down by percent of population) and has been DYING ever since. Total estimated circulation of US daily newspapers -- https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/newspapers/ 1973 -- 63,147,000 weekly subscribers... 51,717,000 Sunday subscribers... 1984 -- 63,340,000 weekly... 57,575,000 Sunday... 1993 -- 59,812,000 weekly... 62,566,000 Sunday... 2011 -- 44,421,000 weekly... 48,510,000 Sunday... 2012 -- 43,433,000 weekly... 44,821,000 Sunday... 2013 -- 40,712,000 weekly... 43,292,000 Sunday... 2014 -- 40,420,000 weekly... 42,751,000 Sunday... 2015 -- 37,711,860 weekly... 40,955,458 Sunday... 2016 -- 34,657,199 weekly... 37,801,888 Sunday... 2017 -- 30,948,419 weekly... 33,971,695 Sunday... 2018 -- 28,554,137 weekly... 30,817,351 Sunday... 2019 -- 25,952,584 weekly... 27,389,866 Sunday... 2020 -- 24,299,333 weekly... 25,785,036 Sunday... It really is a DYING and all but DEAD industry. Factor in total US population and in 1973 there were 29.8% of 211.91 million total US population that subscribed to a weekly newspaper. That number drops to 14.3% in 2011 with US population at 311.56 million. And to 7.3% in 2020 at 330.66 million. Like I said, the industry is DYING and if you really want to be able to pick up a newspaper and smudge your fingers with ink, you better hope they find some way to "survive". And maybe, just maybe, you should consider that if you keep reading it for FREE then you won't have it in the future.

Awesome! Always good to hear. ps - I'm about half way completed with a "dark theme" release. Hopefully within the next few days or so.

I wouldn't call it tayloring to "hippies". I'd call it survival of the fittest. "Nobody" buys a "paper" anymore. "Everybody" reads their news online or watches via TV. If you cannot generate a revenue stream online then your industry is dead. I myself haven't "read" a newspaper in THIRTY YEARS.

Agreed. I didn't go into that much detail, but that is exactly what is happening. uMatrix is blocking the <frame> that contains the results. BUT that doesn't explain why I can get THREE DIFFERENT "RESULTS" all based SOLELY on just changing what is and what is not being blocked by NoScript and uMatrix. My best friend (late 90's, early 2000's) is a retired FBI Agent. Her "job" was quite literally to spend weeks upon weeks on teenager-websites and act like a teenager. You might call it "entrapment" but there are very strict protocols she had to follow and very lengthy documentation. Her "job" was to literally catch criminals inviting teenage girls to become porn stars. So I view all of this "fingerprinting" from a CRIMINAL PERSPECTIVE. I do feel that only CRIMINALS need to be THAT concerned with a browser "fingerprinting" their online activities. I don't really care if my CHURCH website and Pornhub links this computer as having visited both, that isn't "criminal". You can NOT, I repeat, can NOT prevent a browser from being "fingerprinted". Look at it as a credit card number. SIXTEEN digits but the first FOUR only indicate the bank. It is really only TWELVE digits that make a credit card number "unique". So an untrusting website really only needs like TWENTY PERCENT of data that can be obtained via "fingerprinting" and they have you uniquely identified. Even though you have successfully blocked EIGHTY PERCENT of that data. You can not prevent "fingerprinting" - period. And knowing what sorts of criminals my friend has nabbed during her career as an FBI Agent, I fully support "fingerprinting" and the CRIMINALS it has caught over the years. But I digress...

Not possible (well, more in a second). The web page where you are hovering over the link does not even contain the "real link". Only AFTER you click the link does THEIR servers bounce your request around and finally land on the "real link". So you are asking your browser to basically click ALL LINKS and verify if those links land on where they say they land, then send that to the status line. Maybe there is an extension that prevents 301's (and 302's) [ps, "preventing" means to stop the redirect and throw up a dialog asking if you wish to be redirected], but a link is just a link and only the receiving server will know if it has beem moved or not. If you really want to learn how to catch things like this, I suggest a program called Proxomitron [it can prevent 301's and 302's] (but it will be a very steap learning curve, I've used it for decades but it's not something you learn in a day or two or even weeks). Here is the "debug source code" via Proxomitron --

Nope, not possible. All they do is rename something like "resources.pak.ungoogled" or "resources.pak.regular" to "resources.pak" or something like "jisu9.dark-theme.srx" or "jisu9.xp-theme.srx" to "jisu9.srx". Chromium browsers cannot execute any .exe without a confirmation dialog and user-interaction with that confirmation dialog. On top of that, the OS throws a file-sharing error if you try to change the name of any of these files while 360Chrome is running.

Bingo! It really is that simple! I hear way too many folks "complain" that blocking javascript doesn't work for them because it kills too many websites and is too much of a "nuisance" to block. If a website refuses to function to at least a tiny shred of usability with NoScript, uMatrix, Stylus, and Tampermonkey all doing their thing, then the default course of action is not to disable them, the default course of action is to find a different website offering the same exact content but without all of the d@mn shenanigans.

Please be cautious. I used to think the same but the more deeper you dig you will see that Iron (and Slimjet) has THREE TIMES (two times for Slimjet) the telemetry that Chrome has! You may be interested in reading this -- https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/iron.html

Post #1 in the thread describes what is meant/intended by "ungoogled". I also probably shouldn't call it "ungoogled" when the default search engine is Google. Semantics.

It also leaves two empty "Mozilla" folders, an empty "mozilla-temp-files" folder, and two empty "Moonchild Productions" folders. But since all shadow folders are always EMPTY, I just leave them be as they are created every time you run the portable loader.

$180 USD (EUR 155,70) for 250/50 Mbps. Includes TV.

Additional experimenting with the no-js test site. I do need NoScript and uMatrix to block the fingerprinting. Experimenting with the settings and what is or is not being blocked by NoScript and/or uMatrix and I can get THREE different fingerprint results on that test site. I did not experiment if I could get MORE than THREE. Because a "fingerprint" is supposed to be UNIQUE, not "narrowed down to three". I do chuckle when you read through the "See more details" and one of the metrics used to fingerprint your browser is whether you are using a dark theme or not. Fingerprinting is a matter of only requiring 6 to 10 out of 30 to 40 metrics. I do not think it is possible to connect to the internet and block all 30 to 40 metrics. But even if you do manage to block all 30 to 40, you have UNIQUELY identified yourself by being one of a very tiny handful of folks that has succeeded in blocking all 30 to 40. There is a fine line between being privacy-conscious and walking around in a mental ward holding up two fingers and shouting out, "Four!". (Patch Adams reference)

You've kinda proven my point. Even a website boasting and bragging that they can fingerprint me without javascript FAILED TO DO SO while Mypal without javascript did indeed fingerprint me. It did get as far as knowing I'm on Chrome-based browser, but all I get are instructions on how to disable javascript (you can see my NoScript icon blocking javascript, blocking 2 of 3, I allow gstatic but then uMatrix blocks it because it's not from Google Voice or Google Sheets) and tells me to refresh the page, which I did five or six times. This "test" FAILED TO FINGERPRINT ME... Keep hunting for something that can fingerprint me without javascript, I will conclude myself as "right" until proven otherwise

Agreed. I personally find it extremely narrow-minded how Firefox users boycott Chromium-based browsers. If you are on the internet, you are being tracked to some degree, period! We do our best to limit the tracking, but I really do believe that Firefox users turn a blind eye to the tracking that Firefox employs and they go into epileptic shock whenever they hear the word "Chromium" or "Chrome". I sometimes feel like I should play Devil's Advocate and create a new member account and post telemetry findings left and right on every Firefox Fanatic Forum I can find. Don't get me wrong. I used Firefox (in the form of Pale Moon, Mypal, and New Moon) for YEARS. But times change - several of my web sites NO LONGER WORK in Pale Moon, Mypal, and New Moon! And it's not an XP Thing, the web sites DO NOT WORK in Pale Moon, Mypal, and New Moon on Win 7 or Win 10 either! I keep my eyes open and test new releases. MAYBE one of these days I will return to Firefox-based browsers. But when web sites DO NOT WORK, then I really have very limited options. And this really does SAY IT ALL -- Chrome global market share = 65.2% Firefox global market share = 3.7% There is a REASON that Firefox is so LOW. And Firefox users really should wake up if they are TRULY concerned with "fingerprinting" -- it is MUCH easier to find a needle in a TINY haystack then it is to find one in a GIGANTIC haystack. "Fingerprinting" has nothing to do with blocking fonts, blocking User Agent, blocking resolution detection. "Fingerprinting" is about having 30 or 40 metrics, being able to detect only 6 to 10 of those metrics, and you are uniquely identified by only those 6 to 10. Forensics don't need an entire "fingerprint", they only need a very small portion of the fingerprint to "identify" the felon. But anyway...

Will see if I can reproduce this.

Agreed. So the "test" is NOT about whether or not your browser "itself" is vulnerable to fingerprinting. The "test" SHOULD BE "does this website engage in fingerprinting" and if the answer is YES, then boycott the $h!t out of that website. Otherwise, if you trust that website to the extent of becoming a member, registering, and logging in, then, um, you have OPTED IN to that website "knowing" who you are, fingerprint or not. The point really boils down to this, if your level of paranoia wants to live in a cardboard box under a bridge, by all means, it's not for me to tell you were to pitch your tent. But let's stop acting like dogs trying to bite a flea on the tip of its tail. If you don't trust the website you are visiting, then HELLO, why did you visit it? Really seems that simple to me. Moving on... I have my paradigm, others have theirs... MSFN threads don't alter people's perspectives...

I have to ALLOW javascript in order for all three of those to "fingerprint" me. SELF-DEFEATING. That's like telling a hoodlum, "I want to test if you can break into my house, I'll leave the back door open, not just unlocked, I'll leave it wide open, all you need to do is find my house."

Even the EFF site states, "Browsers which set the DNT header to ‘1’ are fairly rare, and this can be an identifying metric." It is my view, "mileage may vary", that the more RARE you make yourself to be, the more UNIQUE you are to advertisers, they know EXACTLY who you are because of your "uniqueness". I would much rather be one needle among thousands of needles buried in a haystack, I don't want to be so "unique" that I made myself the ONLY needle in that haystack.

I get "Our tests indicate that you have strong protection against Web tracking, though your software isn’t checking for Do Not Track policies." Looks to me like "propaganda" for "Do Not Track", something everybody in the universe knows doesn't work! It is VOLUNTARY and the web sites you visit DO NOT HAVE TO LISTEN TO IT -- https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/not-track-actually-work/ I got nothing against DNT, don't get me wrong. But it IS a "false sense of security" and users click that setting and think that's all they have to do, that they are not being tracked, and so they don't do anything else above and beyond that predominantly useless DNT.