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. ×

360 Extreme Explorer Modified Version


Humming Owl
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 8/19/2021 at 9:31 AM, IXOYE said:

google.com doesn't give you any results on msfn.org when you type "360 chrome 13.0.2250.0"

Really ? And what about the image below ? The first results about 360 chrome 13.0.2250.0 at msfn and your post against google , lol , how come google didn't censore it ?! I'm not advocating for Google , since it was also created by an (ex?) russian citizen, but we just need to be fair .

fix your search type without errors.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Quote

googleapis

19 minutes ago, Dixel said:

Would break some extensions , I had problems with saving settings with "delumintate" ext., for example , it sometimes reverted back to def. settings. Possibly some others shan't work as expected too. _googlecast._tcp.local has no effect . Others fine. Keep in mind , these things written in plain text aren't the most evil ones. 

Agreed!

I kinda pointed this out when we were discussing esent.dll (page 11 of this thread).

I really think we can not axe things just for the sake of "warm fuzzies" when we don't know 'everything' that entries like "googleapis" and "esent.dll" really-and-truly DO.

I think some peoples' paranoias tend to get ahead of themselves and it becomes very easy to create a "working" browser that has BROKEN FUNCTIONALITIES that only come to the surface months later when testing a new extension.

So was that browser really "working" to begin with?

 

I'm exaggerating (slightly).

But we really cannot let our paranoias turn 360Chrome into something that is "broken".

I like ya @Dixel so I am not casting this net over you (more in a second, we are of the same feather!), though to discuss I do have to bring up something you've said in the past.

I once SUGGESTED that some of the googleapis should STAY in 360Chrome BECAUSE they also exist in "ungoogled-chromium".

Your reply was something along the lines of disrespect towards the "ungoogled-chromium" project because of their use of the word "ungoogled".

 

But my suggestions remains - we should not be removing something like "googleapis" in the dozens upon dozens of locations where it exists in chrome.dll just for the same of a "warm fuzzy".

 

Although, having said that, and back to my same-feather reference earlier, I do err on the side of caution and I remove all googleapis references in my own rebuild  --  but what did I "break" by doing so?

Because they were there for a reason and I do not know those reasons.

I do know that all of my extensions work, my visited web sites work, et cetera.

But rest assured, "something" is BROKEN just by blindly replacing all "googleapis" references without really and truly knowing why they are there.

 

Our collective paranoia might have, just possibly, taken us a wee bit TOO FAR and we might have, just possibly, stripped out more than we "should" have all because we kept looking up in the mirror to see if somebody was following us.

If you pay too much attention to that rear view mirror, you will run over a child running into the street.

 

But I digress...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using a chrome derivative is inviting spyware, something that I have no problem doing for MS-APP-GG-FB products. I really like the sound quality of the V13s, so I don't mind at all. They may as well spy each other while they look at me using their products.

For the rest, well, use linux, and then tails. 

PS: what DNS do we use, I wonder :P

 

Edited by dmiranda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider it this way, a web site called "Greasy Fork" is an excellent source for Greasemonkey / Tampermonkey / Violentmonkey user scripts.

It is very common for user scripts to have an @require setting where a googleapis is downloaded ONCE and stored locally for that user script to use over and over and over.

The user script only needed to download it ONCE.

But if you don't use the @require setting then our web browser now has to download it EVERY time instead of just ONCE.

 

Just thinking out loud - I do have all googleapis references removed in my own build.

But I do have to wonder, did I err on the side of safety?  Or on the side of breaking things that I just don't know are broken because I haven't tried the right extension or visited the right web site?

 

Or, by removing the googleapis LOCALLY, did I create a web browser that now has to FETCH that googleapis instead?

Wouldn't it be better to have it LOCALLY then have to FETCH it every time the web browser / web site needs it?

 

Hhmmm...  :dubbio:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ArcticFoxie said:

I once SUGGESTED that some of the googleapis should STAY in 360Chrome BECAUSE they also exist in "ungoogled-chromium".

Your reply was something along the lines of disrespect towards the "ungoogled-chromium" project because of their use of the word "ungoogled".

I'm sorry , I do not follow . I'never said we need to "remove googleapis from 360 browser"  . Never ever . Do you have a link ? Disrespect remains and it's strong . But it has nothing to do with it . I'm not sure it would be a good idea to talk about the "ungoogled" here , but it's somewhat ok since we're helping the author to create a privacy-oriented browser . About "paranoia" and the ballance between the features/anti-features. In my version , all extensions and websites work , check for youself. So I kinda reached the ballance.

Ungoogled : first and foremost, it's made by a russian dude (again , lol , russians everywhere). How do I know this  ? From the log it creates. The russian language entries look gibberish on my PC because I do not have any chino-russian fonts. Well , these days they teach us to "not judge a book by it's cover" , but I always judge a book by its cover and I looked into this "ungoogled" . The dude just replaced the word google with some nonsense , but didn't break the actual links and chrome still broadcasts them right into the net . Your ISP and everyone else , includuing , but not limited to KGB , lol , knows you're on "ungoogled" . Besides he didn't touch the res. pack and the google feedback and many more of the anti-features (like identity) remain fully working . How is this privacy ?

It was me who gave you (and the others) the exact offsets earlier:

 

All of them are fully functional in "ungoogled" chromium. To be fair , I always try to be fair , I didn't test the latest releases (perhaps he improved something , but I doubt it).

Edited by Dixel
added link
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

3 hours ago, Dixel said:

Really ? And what about the image below ? The first results about 360 chrome 13.0.2250.0 at msfn and your post against google , lol , how come google didn't censore it ?! I'm not advocating for Google , since it was also created by an (ex?) russian citizen, but we just need to be fair .

Really YES! and I'm just, and I regret not taking a screenshot two days ago on Google from my country or no results appeared on the request "360 chrome 13.0.2250.0". The reactivity of Google is staggering concerning this post in particular, because you will notice that there is only that one which appears whereas 360 chrome 13.0.2250.0 is quoted throughout this thread... :blink:

Now remove my post which is after your screenshot and you will see that" msfn.org link has 360 chromes" hardly appear anymore...

You have a search engine with the latest improvements in A I and its correction is done in real time and according to the country. I'm not going to tell you that Google's relevance in China leaves a lot to be desired.

And I still say that the translation of 360 chromes in English does not do the business of Google... Moreover, the multiple crashes of Youtube (google) with 360 chrome English leave me doubtful...:dubbio:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dixel said:

I'never said we need to "remove googleapis from 360 browser"  .

I agree!  I know!  I did not intend to imply that you did!

 

Here, for the sake of an easier-to-follow discussion and a summary of how we got here.

Here's how I recall it all unfolding.  If I have the chronological order out of place, again, I apologize, but I'm generally pretty good at chronological events.

 

One, there was a discussion between you, me, and perhaps a few others surrounding these embedded extensions and my notes recorded the following (it's in one of the other 360Chrome threads) --

1 - mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai PDF Viewer OFFSET 13022

2 - fjajfjhkeibgmiggdfehjplbhmfkialk CryptoTokenExtension OFFSET 15624

3 - gfdkimpbcpahaombhbimeihdjnejgicl Feedback to Gurgle (!) OFFSET 13882

4 - Chrome Web Store Cloud Print OFFSET 11562

5 - ahjtciijnoiaklcomgnblndopackapon Identity API Scope Approval UI at OFFSET 326728

 

Two, that discussion turned into me turning to ungoogled-chromium and which of these embedded extensions should remain in 360Chrome because they also remain in ungoogled-chromium.

It was at this point where you cited (and I agree, mostly) your stance on ungoogled-chromium.  I respect your stance!

 

Three, I did not remove the entire list of discussed embedded extensions, I kept those that ungoogled-chromium has in their code and removed others (our list may be longer, I seem to recall a retired cloudprint one that I removed also).

Our discussion, at that time, led me to remove SOME embedded extensions but KEEP other embedded extensions.  I seem to recall even seeing that it took longer for 360Chrome to launch without the embedded extensions versus with them.

 

Four, it was around this time that Humming Owl released notes where he removed all references to googleapis in v12.

 

Five, with no adverse side effects from that experiment of removing all references to googleapis in v12, it was either Humming Owl or myself, don't recall in hindsight but it will be in that other thread, that all references of googleapis were removed in v13 - as an experiment.

 

Six, with no adverse side effects reported, that experiment still holds and as of this point both Humming Owl and I have those refences removed in chrome.dll.

 

Seven, discussions regarding registry entries surrounding esent.dll.

It was at this point where I suggested to Humming Owl to NOT remove references to esent.dll because ungoogled-chromium has the exact same esent.dll references.

To the best of my knowledge, Humming Owl reverted his esent.dll removals, unsure on this.  I never removed any esent.dll references in my own build.

 

Eight, several weeks pass and a discussion regarding "connections" when a user compares my build to Humming Owl's build.

This is when I discuss the command line startup that would prevent those "connections" on Humming Owl's build.

 

Nine, Humming Owl chimes in and cites he is aware of those "connections" but that he left them intentionally for something called Chromecast.

 

Ten, I cite that Chromecast is likely already broken because of a blanket-removal of all references to googleapis.

 

That's pretty much how I saw it all unfold.

I'm on MSFN daily, I doubt that I missed anything.  :D

 

Edited by ArcticFoxie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ArcticFoxie , In my version at offset 6094CAF (chroem.dll) replace youtube with youbube and see if it still crashes. And I recommend you to use only adblock when visiting youtube , for this test. IP doesn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dixel said:

@ArcticFoxie , In my version at offset 6094CAF (chroem.dll) replace youtube with youbube and see if it still crashes. And I recommend you to use only adblock when visiting youtube , for this test. IP doesn't matter.

Still crashes.

Waits until the 3rd tab instead of the 2nd  --  https://www.dropbox.com/s/h4wq7elvjby5dk8/youBube.mp4

But I repeated the test two more times but without the video-grab and both of those crashed on the 2nd tab just as I was experiencing the other day.

Did not install adblock for this test.

 

Edited by ArcticFoxie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ArcticFoxie said:

Still crashes.

Waits until the 3rd tab instead of the 2nd  --  https://www.dropbox.com/s/h4wq7elvjby5dk8/youBube.mp4

But I repeated the test two more times but without the video-grab and both of those crashed on the 2nd tab just as I was experiencing the other day.

Did not install adblock for this test.

 

My whole idea was to eliminate all browser interactions with youtube , like "feed" , etc. I'm sure you know chrome had plenty of junk built in to interact with the known websites , without our input. You can search for these youself and try to disable them . Also , you could try to debug and see what happens right before the crash . We can't give p  so easily , right ? Even though you say v12. is good , it's outdated . Do not work with my favourite  shop, for example.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My experiences with any of the v12 versions are terrible . Browser crash upon trying to login to some websites with error "0xC0000005" , terribly slow scrolling of twitter and IG , not showing items in my basket in my favourite German shop . v13 by any of these authors : @ArcticFoxie , @Humming Owl and me , @Dixel [of course] all work absolutely fine .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...