Jump to content

My Browser Builds (Part 1)


Recommended Posts

My unofficial installer is confirmed working with the latest builds for both new installs and in-place upgrades .

 

Currently working on a new version of the installer:

-any Basilisk branding changed to Serpent to better represent the product

-adding support to download and install from windows 2000 with BWC extened kernel

-maybe more, who knows

As always, let me know if you guys find any bugs so I can fix them.

Edited by i430VX
Link to comment
Share on other sites


On 3/1/2019 at 2:14 AM, Matt A. Tobin said:

So there that is. Explained.

Matt do you think any possibility of having UXP on ubuntu touch or neemo Mobile or sailfish os ?

I am done with bul***** of Google's mother-in-law java called Android .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of an abundance of paranoia, I downloaded RT's last two versions of Serpent 52, NM 28, and NM 27, for all processor configurations (64-bit, 32-bit, no SSE2, no SSE). Also got last version of FF 45 build and NM 26.5 for Win2K, just in case any of those needs to "go away" like Borealis did.

I know I'm probably being ridiculous, but I'd rather have it and not need it than the reverse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/26/2018 at 11:49 PM, roytam1 said:

From now --enable-av1 option is compiled in. you can enable AV1 decoding by toggling "media.av1.enabled" in about:config.
Test passed from site https://demo.bitmovin.com/public/firefox/av1/

Turns out for the above AV1 test site, you must also set "media.mediasource.webm.enabled" to true, as I found out after a lengthy and frustrating day of troubleshooting "why does it work on this machine but not this other one?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just tested the av1 demo in UXP for XP and it played, yay. The I tried it with a freshly downloaded 67.0 nightly and got an error message that the browser doesn't support av1 playback, please upgrade to 67.0 This is with media.av1.enabled and media.mediasource.webm.enabled" both set to true as with UXP. 

What a waste of time it is with the "new" Mozilla firefox, think I'll just stick to these older versions, they work better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and they're making something ugly in {their-prefix}/blob/a541fcbacbc92015c5969234a9b666db318ab88d/communicator/modules/Communicator.jsm#L35

since I'll make a source fork for that, these ugly thingy will be changed ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, roytam1 said:

depends on upstream

Once I get the branding issues sorted out on my side, proper generic branding, my branding, and proper separation of the remaining bits of branding that weren't somehow done in the past 10 years over at the SeaMonkey Project.. Give me time.. Besides, you shouldn't be using the navigator anyway.. It isn't even finished.

25 minutes ago, roytam1 said:

and they're making something ugly in {their-prefix}/blob/a541fcbacbc92015c5969234a9b666db318ab88d/communicator/modules/Communicator.jsm#L35

since I'll make a source fork for that, these ugly thingy will be changed ;) 


I already got rid of that. Nothing to see here, move along. Also, you can direct-link. :)

Edited by Matt A. Tobin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Matt A. Tobin said:

Besides, you shouldn't be using the navigator anyway.. It isn't even finished.

since my binaries are marked "Test", I think people can always test how does navigator/other applications finish (like the old Mozilla M{numbers} ages, and those binaries are still lying in their release FTP site) (If people want something "stable", then they should use Feodor2's binaries instead ;) )

23 minutes ago, Matt A. Tobin said:

I already got rid of that. Nothing to see here, move along. Also, you can direct-link. :)

glad to hear that. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...