Jump to content

My Browser Builds (Part 3)


Recommended Posts

On 8/7/2022 at 3:07 AM, nicolaasjan said:

No problem. :)

So, do they work in your case?

There is also an XP build on a Russian forum, but I'm very hesitant to use that, haha.

Also it's very slow and misses important modules.

Both work OK for me... so I won't use that Russian version LOL.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


On 3/24/2022 at 12:35 AM, xrayer said:

Well, so the problem of RB is they use too new JS syntax that is not supported by old browsers. How Polyfill Addon can help with it? It doesn't work with Seamonkey but can be installed in MyPal. Or could be helpful Grasemonkey plugin to inject/patch some code?

Is there any chance to implement newer JS interpretter into some XP browser?

I've finally been able to incorporate automatic transpiling into my extension for Chromium browsers, so a lot of sites theoretically might be unbroken by this.

GitHub for example now works fully again on my system. However, there are some caveats, crossposting:

Good news and bad news.

Bad news: GitHub still has done diddly squat about their use of the evil operators. Thanks to those who have given this a thumbs up, I  think personal comments explaining how this has impacted YOU (or how you feel about it) would also be good: https://github.com/community/community/discussions/20973

Good news: I have managed to incorporate automatic transpiling capabilities into the Chromefill extension. This means that GitHub now works fully again in old versions of Chromium. See https://github.com/InterLinked1/chromefill

More bad news: Unfortunately, this is not an elegant solution and probably never will be. Transpiling is SLOW. Reeaaaaaaalllllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyy sssssssssslllllllllllllooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwww. It takes about 15 seconds to fully transpile GitHub with all the garbage that they use on their site, and this is blocking. Transpiling is also very CPU and memory intensive (think compiling, essentially). It's also page blocking, so you can't interact with it and transpiling is done. In the case of GitHub, since it's mostly a single page app, that actually means you only need to do it once per tab and afterwards everything just works for your browsing session, but still, not pretty.

Sites that don't use JavaScript or use minimal JavaScript don't really see any impact. It's only very bloated sites with hundreds of thousands of lines of JavaScript like GitHub that see a significant performance issue.

I think it could be sped up if we could incorporate a transpiler that only focused on these two syntax issues rather than everything, but I'm not sure if such a thing exists.

I repeat, this is not really a solution, it's more of a hacky last resort that can force things to work when sites like GitHub behave idiotically and moronically and refuse to do the right thing.

That said, if this functionality is useful, by all means go for it.

Because of the impact this can have on a site, this functionality is not enabled by default in the extension, it has to be whitelisted per domain. Currently, only github.com is on the list, because that's the only site I use that has this issue. If there are others, feel free to let me know or submit a PR to add it to the list. The goal is to not enable that functionality unless it's actually necessary for a site to work properly.

Anyways, happy browsing, if you do use this, let me know how it works out for you.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, InterLinked said:

I've finally been able to incorporate automatic transpiling into my extension for Chromium browsers, so a lot of sites theoretically might be unbroken by this.

GitHub for example now works fully again on my system. However, there are some caveats, crossposting:

Good news and bad news.

Bad news: GitHub still has done diddly squat about their use of the evil operators. Thanks to those who have given this a thumbs up, I  think personal comments explaining how this has impacted YOU (or how you feel about it) would also be good: https://github.com/community/community/discussions/20973

Good news: I have managed to incorporate automatic transpiling capabilities into the Chromefill extension. This means that GitHub now works fully again in old versions of Chromium. See https://github.com/InterLinked1/chromefill

More bad news: Unfortunately, this is not an elegant solution and probably never will be. Transpiling is SLOW. Reeaaaaaaalllllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyy sssssssssslllllllllllllooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwww. It takes about 15 seconds to fully transpile GitHub with all the garbage that they use on their site, and this is blocking. Transpiling is also very CPU and memory intensive (think compiling, essentially). It's also page blocking, so you can't interact with it and transpiling is done. In the case of GitHub, since it's mostly a single page app, that actually means you only need to do it once per tab and afterwards everything just works for your browsing session, but still, not pretty.

Sites that don't use JavaScript or use minimal JavaScript don't really see any impact. It's only very bloated sites with hundreds of thousands of lines of JavaScript like GitHub that see a significant performance issue.

I think it could be sped up if we could incorporate a transpiler that only focused on these two syntax issues rather than everything, but I'm not sure if such a thing exists.

I repeat, this is not really a solution, it's more of a hacky last resort that can force things to work when sites like GitHub behave idiotically and moronically and refuse to do the right thing.

That said, if this functionality is useful, by all means go for it.

Because of the impact this can have on a site, this functionality is not enabled by default in the extension, it has to be whitelisted per domain. Currently, only github.com is on the list, because that's the only site I use that has this issue. If there are others, feel free to let me know or submit a PR to add it to the list. The goal is to not enable that functionality unless it's actually necessary for a site to work properly.

Anyways, happy browsing, if you do use this, let me know how it works out for you.

Hello @InterLinked! Thanks for creating the extension chromefill! I am very interested in! I will test it as soon as possible and report here! :yes:

Kind regards, AstroSkipper ordipoing.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@AstroSkipper :

Most fortunately, Feodor2 has now implemented support for both (?.)+(??) in Mypal68:

https://github.com/Feodor2/Mypal68/commit/43621d4ff863a03e80b39056ca360a992c2adb16

https://github.com/Feodor2/Mypal68/commit/2c4b98e1644707f29bbc6849e89d352e87ca1ef6

so #60 and, by consequence, #109 are now closed!

Latest Mypal 68.12.5b should be able to handle GitHub correctly now... :thumbup

So, UXP-based browsers+palefill, 360EEv13[.5], Minibrowser87 and Mypal 68.12.5b are a set of browsers that can handle GH under XP/Vista :cheerleader:...

Edited by VistaLover
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, VistaLover said:

@AstroSkipper :

Most fortunately, Feodor2 has now implemented support for both (?.)+(??) in Mypal68:

https://github.com/Feodor2/Mypal68/commit/43621d4ff863a03e80b39056ca360a992c2adb16

https://github.com/Feodor2/Mypal68/commit/2c4b98e1644707f29bbc6849e89d352e87ca1ef6

so #60 and, by consequence, #109 are now closed!

Latest Mypal 68.12.5b should be able to handle GitHub correctly now... :thumbup

So, UXP-based browsers+palefill, 360EEv13, Minibrowser87 and Mypal 68.12.5b are a set of browsers that can handle GH under XP/Vista :cheerleader:...

Hello @VistaLover! Thanks for the detailed information! I already read the changelog of Mypal 68.12.5b. Absolutely great! And, to have alternatives for accessing GitHub in Windows XP is the best of all. ssupercool2.gif

Edited by AstroSkipper
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, InterLinked said:

I've finally been able to incorporate automatic transpiling into my extension for Chromium browsers, so a lot of sites theoretically might be unbroken by this.

GitHub for example now works fully again on my system.
(snipped)
This means that GitHub now works fully again in old versions of Chromium.
(snipped)
It takes about 15 seconds to fully transpile GitHub with all the garbage that they use on their site, and this is blocking.
Transpiling is also very CPU and memory intensive (think compiling, essentially).
(snipped)
I think it could be sped up if we could incorporate a transpiler that only focused on these two syntax issues rather than everything, but I'm not sure if such a thing exists.

For GitHub exclusively, you may want to have a look at
https://github.com/martok/palefill/issues/29#issuecomment-1186046465
and
https://github.com/dirkf/palefill/commits/df-optchain-patch
https://github.com/dirkf/palefill/releases/tag/v1.19df

The dev(s) use simple transpiling JS code for just those two operators, nothing more (the rest can be handled by polyfills, like already done in your extension). You might have to ask kindly though ;), because the dev(s) are primarily concerned with SM 2.53.12 and/or PM < 31 support... :(

Target groups for a "fixed" GitHub via your extension, ChromeFill, would be most XP+Vista users on low-end H/W, currently using 360EEv11 (Ch69-based) and/or 360EEv12 (Ch78-based) ...

12 hours ago, InterLinked said:

GitHub still has done diddly squat about their use of the evil operators. Thanks to those who have given this a thumbs up

I would have been quite taken aback, had they actually done something :angry: ... GitHub's fate is under Microsoft's rule for years now, they're currently focused on their latest crapware/adware Windows 11 OS, together with their illicit lovechild, Microsoft Edge (the "fruit" of them having intercourse with Google :angry: ...); I'm confident they don't give a rat's a** about Net Neutrality or have any iota of intention to support those marginal "few" still on browser-engines not compatible with the evil operators (already implemented in Chrome 80...); BTW, I did "upvote" your - currently still "unanswered" - GH community issue; 3 weeks have now gone by, it's quite telling that no official GH dev will act on it... :realmad:

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

8 minutes ago, VistaLover said:

For GitHub exclusively, you may want to have a look at
https://github.com/martok/palefill/issues/29#issuecomment-1186046465
and
https://github.com/dirkf/palefill/commits/df-optchain-patch
https://github.com/dirkf/palefill/releases/tag/v1.19df

The dev(s) use simple transpiling JS code for just those two operators, nothing more (the rest can be handled by polyfills, like already done in your extension). You might have to ask kindly though ;), because the dev(s) are primarily concerned with SM 2.53.12 and/or PM < 31 support... :(

That's probably a lot better than Babel, yes!

You can filter by using data-plugins it seems, but I'm not noticing any performance difference. It still takes about 15 seconds to run on GitHub.

The code seems simple enough, but I'm not a great JS dev, nor I am super familiar with modifying JS via Chrome extensions, so it'll probably be a fair amount of hacking to try to figure out how to kludge that in.

8 minutes ago, VistaLover said:

Target groups for a "fixed" GitHub via your extension, ChromeFill, would be most XP+Vista users on low-end HW, currently using 360EEv11 (Ch69-based) and/or 360EEv12 (Ch78-based) ...

I dunno, target group is ANYONE to me using a non-screwed UI Chromium version.

I use Chromium 70 on Windows 7 and Windows 10. OS and hardware are completely irrelevant. This extension is necessary to get Chromium to work properly on the web these days (and the NC/OC support is unfortunately an almost-must-have at this point).

8 minutes ago, VistaLover said:

I would have been quite taken aback, had they actually done anything... GitHub's fate is under Microsoft's rule for years now, they're currently focused on their latest crapware/adware Windows 11 OS, together with their illicit lovechild, Microsoft Edge (the "fruit" of them having intercourse with Google :angry: ...); I'm confident they don't give a rat's a** about Net Neutrality or have any iota of intention to support those marginal "few" still on browser-engines not compatible with the evil operators (already implemented in Chrome 80...); BTW, I did "upvote" your - currently still "unanswered" - GH community issue; 3 weeks have now gone by, it's quite telling that no official GH dev will act on it... :realmad:

Yup, truly horrible. Shows how much they really care about "open source" and "projects"... when they don't even practice what they preach.

Edited by InterLinked
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, VistaLover said:

Target groups for a "fixed" GitHub via your extension, ChromeFill, would be most XP+Vista users on low-end HW, currently using 360EEv11 (Ch69-based) and/or 360EEv12 (Ch78-based) ...

I've already tested the ChromeFill 0.1 extension in Advanced Chrome (CH54-based), and unfortunately, GitHub doesn't work properly. I couldn't note any differences with or without ChromeFill. The account menu is completely broken, and pop-up boxes, too. :( In 360EEv11, no need to add a Polyfill extension at the moment. All functions I need to use are working. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, InterLinked said:

I dunno, target group is ANYONE to me using a non-screwed UI Chromium version.

I use Chromium 70 on Windows 7 and Windows 10. OS and hardware are completely irrelevant.

Since you have posted in this very thread, be informed it is mostly frequented by Windows XP die-hards, plus a few (like myself) Vista "bastions" :P ; H/W is fully relevant here, because those under old, under-resourced, H/W will prefer those two 360EE versions I cited, as being more "gentle" towards system resources... 

Those with more "juice" can opt for 360EEv13/13.5 (Ch86-based) and/or MiniBrowser (Ch87-based); BTW, as I'm sure you do know already, Iron 70 (Ch70-based) with the "non-screwed" Chromium GUI requires at minimum Win7 SP1... :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AstroSkipper said:

I've already tested the ChromeFill 0.1 extension in Advanced Chrome (CH54-based), and unfortunately, GitHub doesn't work properly. I couldn't note any differences with or without ChromeFill. The account menu is completely broken, and pop-up boxes, too. :( In 360EEv11, no need to add a Polyfill extension at the moment. All functions I need to use are working. :)

What errors show up in the developer console when you do this?

I only test on version 70, so it's entirely possible that there are things supported by my browser that aren't by yours (introduced between 54 and 69).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, AstroSkipper said:

I've already tested the ChromeFill 0.1 extension in Advanced Chrome (CH54-based), and unfortunately, GitHub doesn't work properly

ChromeFill isn't intended for such an old a Chromium version, unfortunately... :(

BTW, and this has been discussed quite a few times in the MSFN forums, be it in the past, Advanced Chrome wasn't in reality based on Chrome 54; much of it is in essence Chromium 48 based, with only traces of code borrowed from Ch49/52/54...

@InterLinked should have been more verbose in his README.md and/or enforce a minimum Chrome version in his extension's manifest.json, so as not to create false expectations...
I haven't tested fully all the range of Chrome versions in which the extension successfully restores GitHub and other supported sites, but as an educated guess I'd claim that anything under Chrome 68(-ish) is currently unsupported...

As I stated already, ChromeFill for XP/Vista users currently only targets 360EEv11/12...

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

Just now, VistaLover said:

ChromeFill isn't intended for such an old a Chromium version, unfortunately... :(

BTW, and this has been discussed quite a few times in the MSFN forums, be it in the past, Advanced Chrome wasn't essentially based on Chrome 54; much of it is in essence Chromium 48 based, with only traces of code borrowed from Ch49/52/54...

@InterLinked should have been more verbose in his README.md and/or enforce a minimum Chrome version in his extension's manifest.json, so as not to create false expectations...
I haven't tested fully all the range of Chrome versions in which the extension successfully restores GitHub and other supported sites, but as an educated guess I'd claim that anything under Chrome 68(-ish) is unsupported...

As I stated already, ChromeFill for XP/Vista users currently only targets 3360EEv11/12...

Ideally, I would like for the extension to support those versions that might not work now, such as between 48 and 68. I use 70 since that's the last usable version, but obviously folks on Vista are older will be on 49, and other folks may be on other versions inbetween.

The reality is though that I don't have the ability to test all these different versions for breakage, so it's up to the community to report any issues on the issue tracker, otherwise I simply don't know about them. I have tried to keep up with reported issues that way to add polyfills where needed.

So officially it should support all of these versions and if it doesn't, that's a bug that would be great if folks could report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, VistaLover said:

ChromeFill isn't intended for such an old a Chromium version, unfortunately... :(

BTW, and this has been discussed quite a few times in the MSFN forums, be it in the past, Advanced Chrome wasn't essentially based on Chrome 54; much of it is in essence Chromium 48 based, with only traces of code borrowed from Ch49/52/54...

@InterLinked should have been more verbose in his README.md and/or enforce a minimum Chrome version in his extension's manifest.json, so as not to create false expectations...
I haven't tested fully all the range of Chrome versions in which the extension successfully restores GitHub and other supported sites, but as an educated guess I'd claim that anything under Chrome 68(-ish) is unsupported...

As I stated already, ChromeFill for XP/Vista users currently only targets 3360EEv11/12...

I don't use Advanced Chrome for some years but in 360EEv11 I couldn't see a need of ChromeFill at first sight. Therefore, I decided to test it in Advanced Chrome, and you're absolutely right, I forgot it totally, it is Ch49/52/54-based. :yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, InterLinked said:

What errors show up in the developer console when you do this?

I only test on version 70, so it's entirely possible that there are things supported by my browser that aren't by yours (introduced between 54 and 69).

I will have a look at the developer console next time when I use my desktop computer andI post the errors here. At the moment I write this from my Android tablet. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without me sounding pessimistic, any effort in 2022 targeting Chrome 49, for the benefit of XP/Vista users, is a futile one... :(

Chrome 49 is extremely outdated by today's WebCompat standards, not to mention security-wise (has more holes than Swiss cheese... :P).

It's practically unsupported by Google Store, as it only supports up to CRX2 + MV2 extensions, when most CRX2 ones have already been removed from the store (updates only come as CRX3-packaged) and MV2 ones are being phased out en mass in 2022 (and would be fully deprecated in 2023); not to mention the fact current/active extension authors only target the most recent versions of Chrome; I keep a copy of it myself, and I can tell you it's a "dead man walking"... :(
Under XP, you'd definitely need to couple it with a TLS 1.2/1.3 "secure proxy" to access most of today's sites, but page rendering will be dire...

If you intend to bridge all the missing Web APIs introduced after Ch49 (to, say, Chrome 70 level) via polyfills, that would be a pharaonic task, if at all feasible... But be my guest, of course... :)

With just GitHub in mind, they provide a utility/wizard with which one can inspect all MISSING Web APIs in the client (browser) for it to fully support their latest GitHub incarnation:

https://github.github.com/browser-support/

Currently, latest St52 has as missing (in RED) only "customElements" and "RegExp Named Capture Groups", so support for those has to be implemented via an extension (i.e. palefill); I fear that wizard, if at all rendered properly in Chrome 49, would have many RED entries... :unsure:

Using the wizard with declining Chrome versions (starting at v69 and going down by one major version), you can test which minimum version is currently supported by the extension as-is and then decide how "low" in the Chrome versions you want/is feasible to extend support to (on the availability of polyfills for the missing APIs as you go down the range...).

Edited by VistaLover
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...