NotHereToPlayGames

Noted. I missed that part of the conversation. Apologies. Not true. I still use XP on my Acer Aspire One POS. AND on my computer out in the garage for tuning aftermarket turbo projects cars. No longer "daily", but they both get used VERY often. I really really really do need to THROW THE ACER POS AWAY. Brings nothing but STRESS everytime I try to do something on it, lol.

I do get it! That alone is not a reason for the developer to cancel his vision of removing XUL. Your browser buttons cannot define Mypal's "path forward". You're not the only one that creates browser buttons. I have just under two dozen of them that I've created for lab use at work (proprietary, cannot share!). *MY* browser buttons cannot define Mypal's "path forward". My department at work is the ONLY DEPARTMENT allowed to use WinXP. We have to support automotive products that we produced FIFTEEN YEARS AGO that can still be purchased "brand new" at automotive supply chains like O'Reilly, Napa, AutoZone, Parts Geek, Advance, etc. Software technologies that were quite advanced as far as automotive goes, but the software licences cannot be migrated to newer Windows even if the software itself runs on newer Windows (most do not).

It appears to me that you may be narrow-focused at the moment. Nothing wrong with SITTING OUT the next couple of releases as development of NON-XUL matures. Yes, it means that some of your buttons would need updated. Progress often has to take one step back in order to take two steps forward. This sounds like a GIGANTIC POSITIVE in my opinion! KEEP UP THE EXCELLENT PROGRESS!

IceCat always forks strictly from ESR branch. So they should be releasing a fork from Firefox 128 early next year or so. I don't really track their release rate. Only that we have some very strong "pro-Mozilla" users here at MSFN and I can not follow their lead. I can support IceCat! I've never directly compared Firefox 115 performance to Firefox 128 performance, so unsure if IceCat will "improve" or "worsen".

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.