Jump to content
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. ×

My Browser Builds (Part 2)


 Share

Recommended Posts

Assistance, please.

I've always used these two about:config entries to block browser redirects.

1)  accessibility.blockautorefresh                    boolean        true

2)  dom.disable_beforeunload                       boolean        true

 

Does anyone know how to block "beforeunload" redirects in Chrome-based browsers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


<OT>

7 hours ago, VistaLover said:

I found out, to my dismay, that the about:support troubleshooting help page of Fx 87.0el 32-bit remains empty of vital details...  I've googled and nothing relevant came up - since she's constantly in front of that machine...

... OK, I've now gotten hold of that laptop of hers and...

7 hours ago, nicolaasjan said:

Just tried it in a Windows 7 VM snapshot with the 32bit NL version, and about:support looks complete here.
[Edit]: That was the official installer. Will try with the portable one.
[Edit2]: Looks normal again. :)

Thank you very much for responding to my plea! :) :thumbup Yes, on a new Fx 87.0 portable profile, about:support is fine... :dubbio:I had also tried Safe Mode on her old/dirty profile, but the issue persisted, so it's definitely something gone awry in that used profile...
Thankfully,

5 hours ago, DanR20 said:

 After some testing with a fresh profile, there's a new file called
"shield-preference-experiments.json"
that has to be there to get all of about:support (at least with v88.0, haven't tested with v87.0).
If the current profile isn't automatically generating it,
then try creating a new profile and then copying that file into the profile where it isn't. 

:worship: Bingo! That was exactly it! :cheerleader:You are a true gem! That .json file was not present in the old/dirty profile, having been migrated through several Firefox versions, over time...
 Although. this makes me wonder WTH such a file has to do with populating the about:support page? This is the stable/release channel of Firefox (i.e. v87.0), are they (Mozilla) now conducting experiments there? :angry:

After Mozilla dropped Vista support (too soon :realmad: if you ask me, Fx 53/54 could have been made Vista-compatible), I became estranged from the inner workings of their Quantum Browser (only to discover later they even dropped that "Quantum" part...), this new issue I stumbled upon just proves to me how "twisted" things have become at MozillaLand...

@DanR20 , I owe you... :P

</OT>

Edited by VistaLover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ArcticFoxie said:

Does anyone know how to block "beforeunload" redirects in Chrome-based browsers?

I'm not an expert on Chromium-derived browsers, take this as a "disclaimer", but SU informs me this is probably only possible via userscript/extensions:

https://superuser.com/questions/1122215/how-to-disable-beforeunload-events-e-g-are-you-sure-you-want-to-leave-this-pa

https://superuser.com/questions/705307/how-can-i-disable-are-you-sure-you-want-to-leave-this-page-popups-in-chrome/705308

Archived userscript (to try):

https://web.archive.org/web/20150919231349/http://javascript.about.com/library/exitblock.user.js

Some extensions on CWS to try:

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/no-beforeunload/dlnlkhegmifbcipdgpggedmjdaganmei
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/alertblock/mldjhdofddgiaelidingjcnenlblbfgn
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/let-me-out/hnfdibcbmlppjlkefinedeffoiomlecc
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/navigation-confirmation/hneikegkjmchoaghaahefkhecifdibpk
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/navigation-confirmation-b/hchjkkahngaaboddjlaghmcephdheofg

A test URL would've helped, BTW... ;) :)

Edited by VistaLover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, VistaLover said:

Although. this makes me wonder WTH such a file has to do with populating the about:support page? This is the stable/release channel of Firefox (i.e. v87.0), are they (Mozilla) now conducting experiments there?

It's a very small file, only 18 bytes. Kind of strange they linked that with about:support in the profile but nothing they do surprises me anymore.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, VistaLover said:

I'm not an expert on Chromium-derived browsers, take this as a "disclaimer", but SU informs me this is probably only possible via userscript/extensions: </snip>

Archived userscript (to try): </snip>

Some extensions on CWS to try: </snip>

A test URL would've helped, BTW... ;) :)

Much appreciated, @VistaLover

NONE of your suggestions worked - BUT they were enough to get me moving in the right direction with a little over two hours of trial-and-error, so many thanks!

 

And I may have inadvertently mislead (apologies) - I cited two about:config settings from my MyPal / New Moon profiles (one for autorefresh, one for onbeforeunload).

I couldn't post a test URL because I only allow javascript on a whitelist basis so I actually only encounter this "nuisance" on one of my requires-login web sites.

And the "nuisance" is only after I log out.

Admittedly, I tried over a dozen extensions from the Chrome Web Store before posting my enquiry - I couldn't get any of them to work and in frustration I gave up and posted my enquiry.

 

I have been using Stylem/Stylus for years and it's one of my biggest must-have add-ons.

I've never bothered with Greasemonkey/Tampermonkey and therein was the FIX for this nuisance - again, many thanks!

The cited archived userscript did not do the trick because unbeknownst to me at the time, the nuisance was a META refresh.

And I was able to find a UserScript at Greasy Fork to disable it  --  https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/16079-disable-autorefresh/code

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, luweitest said:

I install it in latest Serpent52, but it shows incompatible and disabled.
I revert to 1.1.7 (working before) , but it is disabled too!

... Something's amiss in your current profile, then... ;)
I had no issues updating it in my dirty St52 profile, just to humour you I tried with a fresh Serpent 52 profile too, no issues whatsoever:

eXV0ESI.jpg

otNpdMa.jpg

G20CMwt.jpg

Edited by VistaLover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, luweitest said:

I install it in latest Serpent52, but it shows incompatible and disabled. I revert to 1.1.7 (working before) , but it is disabled too!

If you have 7-zip installed right click archive to edit install.rdf. Where you see:

 <Description>
        <em:id>{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}</em:id>
        <em:minVersion>52.9.2020.10.05</em:minVersion>
        <em:maxVersion>52.9.2021.*</em:maxVersion>

Change it to this:

<Description>
        <em:id>{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}</em:id>
        <em:minVersion>48.0</em:minVersion>
        <em:maxVersion>55.0</em:maxVersion>

That should let you install it in Serpent 55 as well. It works fine in that version too.   

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I narrowed down the problem with the sticking mouse wheel. I thought it was google voice at first but usually I'll check both google and hotmail together. It turns out that it's hotmail seemingly causing the problem. After each visit page scrolling begins sticking and I'm forced to reboot the browser. This started recently after microsoft began messing around with the  website.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, DanR20 said:

If you have 7-zip installed right click archive to edit install.rdf. Where you see:

 <Description>
        <em:id>{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}</em:id>
        <em:minVersion>52.9.2020.10.05</em:minVersion>
        <em:maxVersion>52.9.2021.*</em:maxVersion>

Change it to this:

<Description>
        <em:id>{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}</em:id>
        <em:minVersion>48.0</em:minVersion>
        <em:maxVersion>55.0</em:maxVersion>

That should let you install it in Serpent 55 as well. It works fine in that version too.  

Yes, that's the way to go.  I modified "<em:minVersion>52.9</em:minVersion>" and it works. I think that's because the version of Serpent 52 is always 52.9.0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VistaLover said:

I had no issues updating it in my dirty St52 profile, just to humour you I tried with a fresh Serpent 52 profile too, no issues whatsoever:

I modified Strange <em:minVersion> to make it work; Strange that you have no issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, luweitest said:

I modified <em:minVersion> to make it work; Strange that you have no issues.

Yes, as I already wrote (and have posted screengrabs as proof), I didn't have to tinker with the install.rdf file of 1.1.8 to get it successfully installed and enabled in latest St52 v52.9.0 (2021-03-25) (32-bit) !
You said yourself that its previous version 1.1.7 was installed and working, did you also get it installed in the first place via messing with its install.rdf file? Because, if you download v1.1.7 from GitHub and again inspect its install.rdf file, you'll find it has the same <em:minVersion> requirement as latest version 1.1.8: 

      <Description>
        <em:id>{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}</em:id>
        <em:minVersion>52.9.2020.10.05</em:minVersion>
        <em:maxVersion>52.9.2021.*</em:maxVersion>
      </Description>

Editing the install.rdf file of 1.1.8 to get it installed only masks/works-around some profile issue (the same issue that won't have 1.1.7 re-install and work again), the "strange" thing is I can't think just now what the culprit could be... :dubbio:Have you (or an extension, a custom user.js, etc), by any chance, toggled pref extensions.strictCompatibility ? => Read below...

Edited by VistaLover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I lost my sleep but I think I did solve this mystery! ;)

Of the versions currently present in the GitHub repo,

https://github.com/JustOff/github-wc-polyfill/releases

only the very latest at the time (now @v1.1.8) is able to be successfully installed in St52 by directly clicking on its .xpi link

69TdnDk.jpg

Attention: this is a left click, not "Save As" context menu (right) click!
The browser will then ask you to grant github.com permission to install "software", click "Allow" and then will come the prompt to install!

I don't have a full explanation based on documented literature for the above behaviour, but it appears that what takes precedence, in the above scenario, over the <em:minVersion>52.9.2020.10.05</em:minVersion> requirement inside the add-on's install.rdf file is the content of line:

<em:updateURL>https://raw.githubusercontent.com/JustOff/github-wc-polyfill/master/update.xml</em:updateURL>

inside that same file, which always points to the latest version, but with a different <em:minVersion> of just 52.9:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<RDF:RDF xmlns:RDF="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:em="http://www.mozilla.org/2004/em-rdf#">
  <RDF:Description about="urn:mozilla:extension:github-wc-polyfill@Off.JustOff">
    <em:updates>
      <RDF:Seq>
        <RDF:li>
          <RDF:Description>
            <em:version>1.1.8</em:version>
            <em:targetApplication>
              <RDF:Description>
                <em:id>{8de7fcbb-c55c-4fbe-bfc5-fc555c87dbc4}</em:id>
                <em:minVersion>28.14.0</em:minVersion>
                <em:maxVersion>29.*</em:maxVersion>
                <em:updateLink>https://github.com/JustOff/github-wc-polyfill/releases/download/1.1.8/github-wc-polyfill-1.1.8.xpi</em:updateLink>
              </RDF:Description>
            </em:targetApplication>
            <em:targetApplication>
              <RDF:Description>
                <em:id>{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}</em:id>
                <em:minVersion>52.9</em:minVersion>
                <em:maxVersion>52.*</em:maxVersion>
                <em:updateLink>https://github.com/JustOff/github-wc-polyfill/releases/download/1.1.8/github-wc-polyfill-1.1.8.xpi</em:updateLink>
              </RDF:Description>
            </em:targetApplication>
            <em:targetApplication>
              <RDF:Description>
                <em:id>{92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}</em:id>
                <em:minVersion>2.53.4</em:minVersion>
                <em:maxVersion>2.53.*</em:maxVersion>
                <em:updateLink>https://github.com/JustOff/github-wc-polyfill/releases/download/1.1.8/github-wc-polyfill-1.1.8.xpi</em:updateLink>
              </RDF:Description>
            </em:targetApplication>
          </RDF:Description>
        </RDF:li>
      </RDF:Seq>
    </em:updates>
  </RDF:Description>
</RDF:RDF>

So, the latest version will ALWAYS install , but previous versions, for which the "update.xml" URI is non-relevant, WON'T install (directly from GitHub or via drag-n-drop as downloaded files beforehand), because in that case the <em:minVersion>52.9.2020.10.05</em:minVersion> condition is in effect, not the <em:minVersion>52.9</em:minVersion> one, exclusive to the latest version at the time...

Hope all this makes sense to the rest of you now... :)

Edited by VistaLover
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, VistaLover said:

So, the latest version will ALWAYS install , but previous versions, for which the "update.xml" URI is non-relevant, WON'T install (directly from GitHub or via drag-n-drop as downloaded files beforehand), because in that case the <em:minVersion>52.9.2020.10.05</em:minVersion> condition is in effect, not the <em:minVersion>52.9</em:minVersion> one, exclusive to the latest version at the time...

Hope all this makes sense to the rest of you now... :)

Glad to see the mystery solved! I did install by downloading first, for the connection to github always has glitch.

So my bug report is still valid: https://github.com/JustOff/github-wc-polyfill/issues/21

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots to catch up on here!

Firstly, I don't know what was up with Dixel's, um, fervent fixation on the intertwining of KGB-type things in almost every aspect of the modern Internet, but I'm glad it's over.  For now, anyway;  it was getting pretty close to violating the no-politics rules, I think.  I wasn't really following any of it, so I can't say for sure.

Secondly, I'm really glad these browsers are still being released regularly, despite repeated attempts by MAT, et. al. to thwart @roytam1's efforts via FUD and other underhanded methods.  It's my go-to browser for XP, 2000 (with the Extended Core), and, before win32's marvelous Extended Kernel project came into being, Vista.

It would be nice to eventually see it cleaned up a bit, maybe like have a milestone release every 4-6 weeks like Mozilla (or, better yet, proper branding!) Of course, things as they are are perfectly fine for most of the few people left using XP (most of whom are likely to be power users who know their way around this stuff), but I've observed that the frequent release of many different developmental versions can be pretty confusing for those who simply want a browser that works, as they can't decide which one they want, nor do they fully understand how to "install" them.  This has been discussed at length off-and-on, so I'm not saying anything new, I don't think.

Be that as it may, I'm simply glad this project exists!

Keep up the good work!

c

Edited by cc333
Must there *always* be a reason?
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Dave-H changed the title to My Browser Builds (Part 2)
  • dencorso unpinned this topic
  • Dave-H locked and pinned this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...