NotHereToPlayGames

.rar files in general used to be considered suspicious just for being .rar

My interpretation - there were 2 million FALSE POSITIVE signatures! I say that in complete seriousness! I speak solely from a corporate perspective. I have NEVER witnessed a non-false positive, I have witnessed HUNDREDS of FALSE POSITIVES. Heck, we had one even here at MSFN on the Supermium thread a short while back.

I actually used a Serpent 52 version from July 2023 because very often times, the older versions are indeed FASTER. So yeah, I've had to update to July 2024 also. I've not actually bumped into the Promise.allSettled until this hotline.ua was cited.

As far as the Promise.allSettled function error, this was always a Serpent error on older versions (edit: strictly in reference to cited hotline.ua) but was resolved in January of this year. Resolved with this release:

Control Panel - yes. And I did recognize it. MToolBox - no. And nobody here recognized it.

No worries, lol. Personally, I wish we could flatout BAN non-English screencaps! They help NO ONE.

I believe he already cited your answer:

"fierce violin" -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmFVxOb5pKo

Ok. I guess I shall become a GitHub member and "report" both projects. Admit in my "report" that I don't know who is right or who is wrong. Only that I suspect the moderators of GitHub would like to know about possible Intellectual Property Theft occuring on their repositories. Would that put an end to whatever-we-call-this?

Fair enough. But I really really really FAIL to see why it has become a DEFENSIVE STANCE. Are these not OPEN SOURCE GITHUB COMMITS? I do not have a GitHub account and, admittedly, "could care less" who borrowed from whom. I myself have seen DOZENS of "my" 360Chrome mods borrowed by various members/countries/websites - don't care, I actually find it as more of a pat on the back that "my" work made it into other people's projects. It's also quite cool and a pat on the back when I see my XP-themed mods make it into YouTube videos - don't care that these videos don't even cite MSFN as where they obtained their XP-themed 360Chrome. These were over a year ago, but I'm sure they are still out there - don't care if they are or are not. Now then, having said that, if I made money on these mods, then yeah, it would be a different story. I guess my only takeaway is this - if you feel "win32" would be equally defensive, then shouldn't this "argument" be at GITHUB instead of here at MSFN? I mean, aren't BOTH of these projects hosted at GITHUB? If terms of service agreements were violated, then there are proper channels to go through to get one or both of these projects removed.

You seem to be ignoring this part of his post. Your interpretation still seems quite "defensive" and "retaliatory". Almost as if you WANT this to be YOUR fight. Chromium commits are PUBLIC DOMAIN. I don't have the time or energy to engage further. Not my fight.

Where is that post? I may have missed that one. I was referring to speed optimization discussions and things went "sideways" in this thread very fast. So I shall leave it simply at this - "not my fight", lol. Where's my popcorn?

I myself did not see that. I read the same thing you read. I did not interpret it the same way that you did. Language barriers are HUGE here at MSFN. Feel free to ask a moderator if they interpreted it your way or not. I myself did not.

Because that is the username that this person picked for himself. We have no control over that. "win32" uses that username across several web sites, "no harm, no foul". Granted, I used to not know "win32" and referred to HIM as "he/she" because of not knowing. I was "reamed" for not knowing what gender a person totally new to me "is". Happens quite often here at MSFN. roytam is one of the BIGGEST members here at MSFN. We still bump into people that don't know who roytam is. It is what it is.

That has been pointed out before. "They" are going to do what they want. You are always welcome to discuss these types of things with a moderator. But, um, "why bother" in my opinion. MSFN has these "birds of a feather". They flock together. They troll each other to upvote/like. Even one of them used to blame other MSFN members for "rep farming" when other members behaved this way. It is what it is. Live and let live. All the rest of MSFN members see it also. And can decide for themselves what they think of it.

I run via portable launcher. This enables me to keep "hundreds" of browser versions on my computer all at the same time. I can only execute one at at time though unless I use them inside a VM. None of them are allowed to use the registry. None of them are allowed to store settings outside their distinctive directory. I didn't run "at default", but with the following: I'd have to verify these, as v121 doesn't allow me to shrink the chrome flags as easily as v114 (below is from v114 but some may have been removed/added in v121):

Official UPSTREAM version v124 is faster than previous releases. So yeah, anything "forked" from that UPSTREAM BASE should also be "faster". I use Speedometer 2.1. My computer will not score the same as your computer. But the computer is not the variable being changed, the official upstream base version is the variable being changed. I have utmost confidence that if you run the same exact benchmark on your computer, the order will not change. v114 will be your best score. Followed by v124. Give or take a small margin of error, of course. Point is, upstream v124 is indeed faster than upstream v122 and v123 (marginally equivalent). Which are both faster than v120 and v121 (marginally equivalent). Upstream Chrome Version == Speedometer 2.1 Score 94 == 133 114 == 163 120 == 110 121 == 112 122 == 148 123 == 147 124 == 154

The last several posts are very VERY confusing. Seems we have people accusing other folks of saying things that I am not seeing them as saying. 1) Somebody made a claim about performance that was wholly and completely, in my opinion, NOT FACT-BASED but "gut feeling". 2) Somebody else basically said no performance gains were done "here", if any performance improvements were done at all, it was by upstream only. 3) A third person interjected that upstream is borrowing from downstream, something I have never witnessed downstream accuse upstream of ever doing. Sorry, this entire thread has become confusing.

Um... Isn't that 99% of the entire MSFN membership? I don't have anything "against" uBO Lite. But just like my preferred uMatrix + Proxomitron isn't for everyone, nobody can really claim uBO Lite is "for everyone" either. I have always always ALWAYS maintained that browser (and extension) preference is wholly and completely PERSONAL PREFERENCE - there will NEVER be "one size fits all".

Probably not what you meant, but around here, one guy really pushes it. https://msfn.org/board/topic/183974-ublock-origin-lite-mv3-vs-adguard-mv3-chromium-extensions/ https://msfn.org/board/topic/184322-narrowing-down-my-default-browser-for-my-win10-setups/?do=findComment&comment=1236267 https://msfn.org/board/topic/184046-future-of-chrome-on-windows-7/?do=findComment&comment=1228761 https://msfn.org/board/topic/186133-thorium/?do=findComment&comment=1265817

Nope. 110 was very much an experimental release. You'd have to read the "whatsnew" blogs beginning with the disappointment with 109 for everything that was delayed to be included as a first with 110. It's like buying a remodeled model of a car - never buy that "first year" because it will spend a lot of time in the repair shop (under warranty but still a nuisance to your day).

Win10 + Ungoogled Chromium v114 + uBO 1.26.2 == 150 !!! v114 is by far the fastest browser that I have benchmarked !!! But ironically it includes "features" that I either need to upgrade to gain access to my credit card statement and USPS Mail Hold or DOWNGRADE to v94 thru v101 (v102 is the first to force these two web sites to require "latest and greatest"). v102 is also the "oldest" version that I can use for a YouTube Enhancer extension I used to use, turns out I'm liking "ImprovedYouTube" extension better anyway and it runs on v94 (my current default until "they" break it in their ongoing "quest"). I'm thankful that at least for now, I was able to DOWNGRADE browser version instead of the direction "they" want us to go, LOL.

I'm big into squeezing the turnip for performance gains. Some of us use XP because we can tune it to be faster than everything else. Some of us use 10 because we can tune it to be faster than everything else. et cetera... If we go by Speedomter 2.1, in order of slowest to fastest with identical lists and no other extension other then uBO -- Win10 + Ungoogled Chromium v118 + uBO 1.58.0 MV2 == 98.9 Win10 + Ungoogled Chromium v118 + uBO 1.26.2 == 99.3 Win10 + Ungoogled Chromium v118 + uBO Lite 2024.6.26.1308 MV3 == 106 Win10 + Ungoogled Chromium v94 + uBO 1.26.2 == 117

I really don't think that is true. Maybe for the latest-and-greatest of each. But I use uBO v1.26.2 (intentionally!). I'll try to "vet" uBO Lite again. But the last time I tried it, it was not faster than v1.26.2. I'm open for suggestions of quantifiable benchmarking between the two - that web site doesn't even indicate what VERSION was tested and I find that to be a tad misleading.

Not sure how much faith I'd place in those scores. Though the idea of a performance lookup is quite intriguing. It's also "curious" that ScriptBlock scores the same exact scores as UBO Lite.