MyPal 68

[feodor2]

This is a problem not with the interface, which is a crap indeed, but with the playback, vp09 format actually. I tried the VORAPIS anf it does not work on the mypal68, you tell what use for the yt.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

4 hours ago, Tomcat76 said:

The video skipped ahead several times during playback.

You should ditch vp9 and use avc1/mp4 instead.

That's what most "lite" websites do that play YouTube videos but through "their own" web site as a "frontend".

And that's what most extensions that claim to boost YouTube performance do, disable vp9 and only allow avc1.

Edited September 24, 2024 by NotHereToPlayGames

[AstroSkipper]

15 hours ago, feodor2 said:

This is a problem not with the interface, which is a crap indeed, but with the playback, vp09 format actually. I tried the VORAPIS anf it does not work on the mypal68, you tell what use for the yt.

I can't confirm your statement.  VORAPIS V3 works perfectly on my very old Windows XP computer. I simply installed it without any special settings. Very, very fast and responsive frontend, resource-friendly and fully functional video playback. Have a look at here: https://msfn.org/board/topic/183657-mypal-68-in-windows-xp-custom-buttons-and-extensions/?do=findComment&comment=1273034

 

Edited September 25, 2024 by AstroSkipper
Update of content

[Tomcat76]

1 hour ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

You should ditch vp9 and use avc1/mp4 instead.

This is embarrassing, haha.  I installed refined-h264ify on Serpent a couple of weeks ago.
 
Either way, installing it on Mypal seems to fix the playback issues for me.  I'm just blocking VP9 and 60fps videos.

[AstroSkipper]

I have spent the last few days testing Mypal 68.14.4b with heavy and resource-hungry websites and have come to the conclusion that old, heavily modified profiles with many extensions, userscripts and CSS stylesheets installed do not work well with sites such as eBay, Amazon or Discord. With a new, fresh profile, in which only the most necessary settings are made, these sites run much better. 

Edited October 10, 2024 by AstroSkipper

[AstroSkipper]

@feodor2 When calling up the internal site chrome://browser/content/preferences/siteDataSettings.xul in Mypal 68.14.4b directly, the list of all cookies is not up to date in most cases. Only when you call up the about:preferences page beforehand, you get a current list of all cookies. Actually that can't be the intention. Right? So, is this a bug or really by design? When calling up the internal site chrome://browser/content/preferences/siteDataSettings.xul directly after browser restart, it is empty, broken and non-functional.

Edited October 16, 2024 by AstroSkipper

[dmiranda]

hI, creepjs is one of the best fingerprinting testers out there. I have managed to fool many of its tests, but there is one I cant: https://abrahamjuliot.github.io/creepjs/tests/iframes.html

Basically creepjs, in my setup, manages to get browser and version through iframes, specified in he image below.  i wonder if that can be prevented, somehow. Cheers!

[AstroSkipper]

13 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

@feodor2 When calling up the internal site chrome://browser/content/preferences/siteDataSettings.xul in Mypal 68.14.4b directly, the list of all cookies is not up to date in most cases. Only when you call up the about:preferences page beforehand, you get a current list of all cookies. Actually that can't be the intention. Right? So, is this a bug or really by design? When calling up the internal site chrome://browser/content/preferences/siteDataSettings.xul directly after browser restart, it is empty, broken and non-functional.

@feodor2 I noticed this issue when creating a custom button for calling up the cookie manager. For reproducing this issue, call up chrome://browser/content/preferences/siteDataSettings.xul, delete a site cookie of your choice, close it, open the site whose cookie you deleted and call up chrome://browser/content/preferences/siteDataSettings.xul again. You will then notice its cookie is not listed although it is there.  And when now restarting the browser, the call up of this internal chrome site leads to an empty, broken and non-functional interface.  Here is a screenshot of this issue including the TypeError message

Uncaught TypeError: this._getQuotaUsagePromise is null                                                           SiteDataManager.jsm:255:5
    getSites resource:///modules/SiteDataManager.jsm:255
    init chrome://browser/content/preferences/siteDataSettings.js:127
    onload chrome://browser/content/preferences/siteDataSettings.xul:1

in the Browser Console:



Only by calling up the about:preferences page will it work again.

BTW, when doing so in an UXP browser as, for example, New Moon 28 or Serpent 52 by calling up chrome://browser/content/preferences/cookies.xul, there is no such problem.

Edited October 17, 2024 by AstroSkipper
Update of content

[Guest]

13 hours ago, dmiranda said:

hI, creepjs is one of the best fingerprinting testers out there. I have managed to fool many of its tests, but there is one I cant: https://abrahamjuliot.github.io/creepjs/tests/iframes.html

Basically creepjs, in my setup, manages to get browser and version through iframes, specified in he image below.  i wonder if that can be prevented, somehow. Cheers!

The simplest method is always the same.
The js block in the case of the image due to uBlock Origin,which is restricted to the website in question, blocks what you are asking for.

 

[AstroSkipper]

On 8/30/2024 at 1:50 PM, UCyborg said:

But that applies to classic extensions, of which very few may run in Mypal, I doubt anyone that maintains them checks Mypal. Firefox needs some hacks to load specially adapted bootstrapped extensions, one and only remaining kind of classic extensions that may still be loaded.

https://github.com/xiaoxiaoflood/firefox-scripts

FYI, I have tested this, and it doesn't work for me in Mypal 68. Neither the implementation for loading of scripts nor the one for loading of specially adapted bootstrapped extensions from xiaoxiaoflood's project userChromeJS works in Mypal 68.14.4b. The whole project seems to be related to more recent versions of Firefox. Here is a quotation from the GitHub page:

Quote

userChromeJS

Tested on Firefox Developer Edition 131.0b4.

The specially adapted bootstrapped extension Download Manager (S3), for example, targets Firefox 125.0a1 and higher.

Edited October 17, 2024 by AstroSkipper
Update of content

[UCyborg]

I thought so, those scripts need updates every couple of versions to continue working with Firefox. Git is version control system so you can go back to any point of the project's history, maybe it reaches the era of whatever version of Firefox Mypal is supposed to resemble these days.

[AstroSkipper]

1 hour ago, UCyborg said:

Git is version control system so you can go back to any point of the project's history, maybe it reaches the era of whatever version of Firefox Mypal is supposed to resemble these days.

I never did that before. How do you go back to an earlier point in a project? 

[UCyborg]

If you go to https://github.com/xiaoxiaoflood/firefox-scripts/commits/master/, there's a <> button near each commit entry - Browse repository at this point. For easier browsing, you can filter by time period, there's a calendar in the upper-right corner.

Edited October 17, 2024 by UCyborg

[dmiranda]

" The js block in the case of the image due to uBlock Origin,which is restricted to the website in question, blocks what you are asking for. "

Yeah. Thanks. I was hoping for something less radical that could be applied more broadly to different sites. I wonder if it is those iframes browser version's information that is behind the failure of UA since the last years or so.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, dmiranda said:

" The js block in the case of the image due to uBlock Origin,which is restricted to the website in question, blocks what you are asking for. "

Yeah. Thanks. I was hoping for something less radical that could be applied more broadly to different sites. I wonder if it is those iframes browser version's information that is behind the failure of UA since the last years or so.

You can try blocking (for all websites by default) third-party iframes.
It is not decisive for test you brought to attention,but there are huge security/privacy benefits with a low probability of website breakage.

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering:-Benefits-of-blocking-3rd-party-iframe-tags

Edited October 18, 2024 by Sampei.Nihira