Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


roytam1

My build of New Moon (temp. name) a.k.a. Pale Moon fork targetting XP

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, taos said:

A few insiders at Mozilla believe that several Firefox screw-ups were intentional

No doubt that's true but Mozilla also hired Google insiders to do the same thing.

It's going to be interesting to watch Google sabotage Microsoft's chrome edge, you know they will, or at least try. The war is on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DanR20 said:

No doubt that's true but Mozilla also hired Google insiders to do the same thing.

It's going to be interesting to watch Google sabotage Microsoft's chrome edge, you know they will, or at least try. The war is on.

Here we go with Browser Wars 3.0!

I came of age just as Netscape vs. Microsoft was wrapping up, and MS, of course, won that war.

Then Firefox vs. Microsoft (aka Browser Wars 2.0). Firefox won!

Now Google vs. everyone else! Google is employing the same sorts of tactics (and worse) that MS was trying back in the 90s, and sadly, it seems it's working in their favor, much as it did MS back then (the only difference is that they got sued for it; nobody wants to try suing Google now-- they're too big!)

When will they ever learn?

c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too big? That is good reason to go after Google. Give them the AT&T treatment for trying to monopolize the web.

I guess the open sourcing of Chromium gives them a leg to stand on this time, though I'm still uncomfortable with their grasp in other places like search engines and video hosting.

This is a discussion for another thread, but I wonder how long it will be before Bing and Yahoo! become facades for Google Search?

Just look at its market share:

http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

That graph speaks volumes!

I'm often dismayed by how poorly all the other search engines work compared to Google, which I'd prefer not to use. However, the sad fact is that it's virtually impossible to not use, and I'm beginning to understand why that is: Google either owns, or plays a part in maintaining, virtually all the services and technologies the modern WWW operates on (about the only thing they don't have direct control over are the back hauls and fiber optic lines that make everything work; AT&T and Verizon own most of that in the US, apparently).

Most of the rest (in the US, anyway) is owned and/or operated by Amazon or Facebook :no::thumbdown:puke:

And even if none of this were true, it might as well be, given how Google treats its competition (in terms of browsers, Firefox has probably been the only significant competitor for awhile now, and it seems to be losing).

c

Edited by cc333

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, cc333 said:

I came of age just as Netscape vs. Microsoft was wrapping up, and MS, of course, won that war.

Same here and back then IE5.5 - IE6 was actually pretty good in comparison. But then Firefox came along offering many more options and the ability to personally customize the browser with addons so they won. Apparently it's all lost on them.

Edited by DanR20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yes, I remember using IE 5.x and 6.x back in 2003-2006 (before I discovered Firefox) and it seemed to be the most well supported at the time.

Looking at now, I think Google has employed similar anti competitive tactics with regard to Chrome; it isn't necessarily a better browser, it's just that Google has deliberately done some shady things to make it look better than it really is (for example, deliberately using a deprecated JS API in YouTube which *no other browser supports*), and has leveraged this on their user base to unfairly increase Chrome's market share at its competitors' expense, primarily by making them look bad.

It reminds me an awful lot of how MS made Netscape look bad by deliberately configuring Windows (and manipulating various key standards) in such a way that Netscape would break in various subtle ways. The unsuspecting user, of course, didn't care and went to IE because it rendered pages better, ran faster, and didn't crash.

It's been my observation that history tends to repeat itself, and I find it particularly ridiculous that Google vs. Firefox is playing out almost *exactly* 20 years after MS vs. Netscape, and in virtually the same manner to boot!

c

Edited by cc333

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

https://www.earthcam.com/

Earthcam webcams show up as a black screen on my new install & profile of NM 28.6.0a1 (2019-05-03)

 

https://www.earthcam.com/site/player_help.php

The Earthcam test reads Mozilla 60.9 / flash 32 / and javascript working. 

 

https://www.earthcam.net/support/systemcheck.php

This test created a pop-up saying,  "The page isn’t redirecting properly.  Pale Moon has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way that will never complete.  This problem can sometimes be caused by disabling or refusing to accept cookies."

I disabled all privacy & ublock, but it still wont work.

 

hmmm :dubbio:  but Earthcam works okay in moebius (2019-04-05)

The test of moebius reads Mozilla 55 / flash 32 / and javascript working

 

oh dear!  any ideas?

 


 

 

 

 

Edited by taos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, taos said:

https://www.earthcam.com/

Earthcam webcams show up as a black screen on my new install & profile of NM 28.6.0a1 (2019-05-03)

 

https://www.earthcam.com/site/player_help.php

The Earthcam test reads Mozilla 60.9 / flash 32 / and javascript working. 

 

hmmm :dubbio:  but Earthcam works okay in moebius (2019-04-05)

The test of moebius reads Mozilla 55 / flash 32 / and javascript working

 

oh dear!  any ideas?

First try a SSUAO to spoof FF 52: something like

general.useragent.override.earthcam.com;Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.9) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.9

It could be the same problem as Instagram. NM 28 and Serpent 52 spoof FF 60.9, but don't support some of FF 60.9's Javascript, so a few sites see the "60.9," feed NM/Serpent incompatible Javascript, and break. Moebius works because it spoofs FF 55, which predates Quantum.

If that doesn't work, try the previous version of NM 28; it's not uncommon for one of the weekly updates to break some sites. If that's the problem, it'll probably be fixed by next week.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mathwiz 

Yes, an SSUAO was all that was needed.

In about:config there was about 40 existing overrides with a variety of spoofs.

I copied and pasted an existing 52.9 spoof into a new string. 

It was very easy, due to the great advice given here.

Thanks again :thumbup

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2019 at 11:16 AM, roytam1 said:

New build of Serpent/UXP for XP!

Test binary:
Win32 https://o.rths.cf/basilisk/basilisk52-g4.1.win32-git-20190427-3424afcca-xpmod.7z

In UXP commit 33ebc88 , platform (i.e. Goanna) version was bumped to 4.2.0, so I think the Serpent52 repo packages starting with the quoted above (and including the latest one) should be renamed to properly reflect that change:

basilisk52-g4.1.win32-git-20190427-3424afcca-xpmod.7z => basilisk52-g4.2.win32-git-20190427-3424afcca-xpmod.7z

basilisk52-g4.1.win32-git-20190504-d9d9d1ed8-xpmod.7z => basilisk52-g4.2.win32-git-20190504-d9d9d1ed8-xpmod.7z

(for brevity, only win32 packages mentioned here...)

On 4/27/2019 at 11:16 AM, roytam1 said:

* since MCP deleted lots of files, this might affect Serpent's functionality of updating WE extension. please test and report if there is any irregularities.

In its current incarnation, Serpent 52.9.0 is incapable of contacting AMO to check for installed WE updates; there are two about:config prefs that control extension updates, the first is the main one and the other is a fallback one,

extensions.update.url
extensions.update.background.url

Due to MCP changes, currently both point to the Basilisk extension repository (ABO) :

https://addons.basilisk-browser.org/?component=aus&reqVersion=%REQ_VERSION%&id=%ITEM_ID%&version=%ITEM_VERSION%&maxAppVersion=%ITEM_MAXAPPVERSION%&status=%ITEM_STATUS%&appID=%APP_ID%&appVersion=%APP_VERSION%&appOS=%APP_OS%&appABI=%APP_ABI%&locale=%APP_LOCALE%&currentAppVersion=%CURRENT_APP_VERSION%&updateType=%UPDATE_TYPE%&compatMode=%COMPATIBILITY_MODE%

ABO does not contain any WE addons; to mitigate that, if WE addons (from AMO originally) are installed in Serpent 52.9.0, you should change the value of at least one of those prefs to point to AMO; e.g. in my installation I modified extensions.update.background.url to have a value of 

https://versioncheck.addons.mozilla.org/update/VersionCheck.php?reqVersion=%REQ_VERSION%&id=%ITEM_ID%&version=%ITEM_VERSION%&maxAppVersion=%ITEM_MAXAPPVERSION%&status=%ITEM_STATUS%&appID=%APP_ID%&appVersion=52.9&appOS=%APP_OS%&appABI=%APP_ABI%&locale=%APP_LOCALE%&currentAppVersion=%CURRENT_APP_VERSION%&updateType=%UPDATE_TYPE%&compatMode=%COMPATIBILITY_MODE%

But in reality, the kind of WebExtensions compatible with Serpent 52 are, more often than not, previous/older versions that are not being updated and if they are, they (of course) target Quantum (Fx >=57.0) with its richer set of WE APIs (compared to the ones present in Serpent); so by contacting AMO you risk

1. Having a legacy extension installed in Serpent 52 get updated to a non-compatible WE version of it... (remember, even though Serpent may advertise itself to AMO as Firefox 52.x, it has only a subset of the WE APIs found in Fx 52 :().

2. Having a WE addon get updated to a non-compatible (WE) version of it.

An example from my own usage is

https://addons.mozilla.org/el/firefox/addon/tab-tally/versions/

The one version fully compatible with St52 is XUL v0.1.1 (you can find it in CAA); if you check for updates on AMO, you'll be updated to v1.4.0, of the WE flavour, that does not work as expected in St52! :angry:

That is why I have configured Serpent to NOT auto-update installed extensions...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to go to http://download.microsoft.com/ to search and download MS stuff. Now using Serpent I found something is unusual about searching, as below:1.thumb.PNG.5eda279ca6762bd4b236a30ca9833448.PNG

Click the magnifying glass will not show a search bar; the radio button seems to be pressed down when clicking the blank; I can input words which is not shown, but search suggestions will show up.

In Firefox 52, the same page will jump to a searching page when click the magnifying glass:

2.thumb.PNG.49490362bda8838c31a76b1780c5c84c.PNG

I doubt either behavior should not be right (though I prefer the old Firefox52 way); Please confirm and see if something could be fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Destro said:

If you press the cart then press the magnifying glass it works as it should.  Or just click the link https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/search?q=

Pressing cart will get to https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/cart first, then pressing (the new) magnifying glass will work. And the link https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/search?q= is more direct. Yet still, Serpent is having problem to render the original page, and I want to give feedback.

14 minutes ago, kitaro1 said:

Serpent 55 http://prnt.sc/nldpwy

Palemoon28.4.0 http://prnt.sc/nldq6n

The search and search icon is normal. :)

 

I should clarify that I am on Serpent 52 (20190503).

Share this post


Link to post
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...