Jump to content

My Browser Builds (Part 4)


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

Yes, Spectrum hasn't worked in some time. I always have to fall back to 360EE to access their site. (Although for bill payment, I rely on an amazing service called the "US Postal Service." It does cost me an extra $0.60 and a trip down my front sidewalk each month, though.)

It's probably javascript related, I use the newer Firefox without a problem. And yes, you can mail in the bill but my experience with that has at times been less than stellar. On more than one occasion they didn't process it for several months, even going so far as cutting me off because according to them they never received it. This even though it was mailed several weeks before the due date. Only paying online seems to have resolved the issues. Will have to look into 360EE and see what's that like.

Edited by DanR20
Link to comment
Share on other sites


On 2/15/2023 at 11:46 PM, UCyborg said:

By the way, YouTube still functions in vanilla Chromium 55, this version is from December 2016, at least as far as playback goes.

At the time of this writing, it also still functions in the last XP version, which is 49. (April 2016)

Edited by mina7601
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I see a 2/4, a 2/11, and a 2/18.  But no 2/9.

Do Help / About Serpent. The version released on 2/11 is dated 2/9. The one released 2/4 is dated 2/2. Apparently a day or two elapses between build and release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

I assume, @roytam1 updated the link in the form of a redirect, presumably to avoid having to manually change all existing links.

15 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

Or eclipse.cx did.

The second is true :whistle::

jaHbF5B.png

However, I still get AstroSkipper's point; it's not actually needed (for now, perhaps in the future the auto-redirection won't work), but the posted link "could" :P be edited to reflect the current valid one (that doesn't trigger an auto-redirection in the background) ;) ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DanR20 said:

Will have to look into 360EE and see what's that like.

360EE versions 13 and 13.5 are based on Chrome 86, and MiniBrowser on Chrome 87. Those should work at least until Spectrum gets around to implementing Googlisms even newer than those Chrome versions.

After that, all bets are off - Serpent / New Moon may once again become the preferred choice, at least as long as they're being maintained. 360EE is more "advanced" at the moment, but it doesn't seem likely we'll ever see newer Chrome versions backported to XP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, msfntor said:

this website on Firefox fork shows the face of an unshaven man ("homebanner opt3"),
and in Chrome forks (360Chrome, DCBrowser...) we see a woman's face instead ("homebanner opt4")...
so the site is for all tastes, cool...:rolleyes:

... Well, I couldn't reproduce with my Serpent 52.9.0 copy

kUSxO2z.png

... i.e. I got the short-haired, young lady with spectacles :P ...

And to avoid any chance of a possible misunderstanding, I'm not posting this to dismiss your claim, rather that for me, it was not the case ;) ...

Either it's a random thing or the algorithm they employ worked differently in my case vs yours :dubbio:...
Anyhow, I agree with you: "Variety" is the best thing, not sex-based stereotypes (oops :rolleyes: , bait for OT posts here, apologies :D) ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Mathwiz said:

Those should work at least until Spectrum gets around to implementing Googlisms even newer than those Chrome versions.

Kinda hate the word "Googlism", but anywhoo...

I am curious as to just what is the next "Googlism"?  And what version of Chrome/Chromium did it make its debut?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, VistaLover said:

Either it's a random thing

Yes, now I have the impression that I get these photos by pure chance in Firefox forks - Lady, or Unshaven Man... so the answer to their question: "How ProofHub Works" - is randomly,  "by pure chance"? LOL:buehehe:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VistaLover said:
20 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

I assume, @roytam1 updated the link in the form of a redirect, presumably to avoid having to manually change all existing links.

17 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

Or eclipse.cx did.

The second is true :whistle::

Ok, just to clarify what I actually meant. I assumed @roytam1 updated the link in the form of a redirect, of course by reporting to eclipse.cx. He is logically (at least with probability bordering on certainty) not the owner of eclipse.cx and not able to establish such a redirect. :P

Edited by AstroSkipper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I am curious as to just what is the next "Googlism"? 
And what version of Chrome/Chromium did it make its debut?

If you do remember, several pages back, the "discourse forum platform" breakage under UXP, it is caused by "them" (or by a web framework "they" use) implementing "??=", the nullish coalescing assignment operator (they didn't have to :angry: , their forum platform used to work fine without it :whistle:); by pure chance it seems, that "google-ism" was first implemented in Chromium 85, only one major version before 86, the basis for 360EEv13.x ...

Chrome stable is now on version 110, having abandoned Win7/8.1 support; do any of you reading this consider it "unthinkable" their web devs simply devise/create a "new" JS "shiny" that will be offered with some Chrome version >11x?
Judging by what has happened already, they'll then forcibly bundle it with whatever Node/React/etc. web framework the "trendy/secure" sites "du jour" employ, breaking the web for those on Ch109 who resist an OS "upgrade" to Win10/11...

I can't, at this time, answer precisely what the next "Googlism" is... I'm certain, though, it's already on Google's drawing boards - after all, if Google's dev teams don't break the web (and old clients) ever so often, they'll become redundant, won't they? :whistle:

Edited by VistaLover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VistaLover said:

Chrome stable is now on version 110, having abandoned Win7/8.1 support; do any of you reading this consider it "unthinkable" their web devs simply devise/create a "new" JS "shiny" that will be offered with some Chrome version >11x?
Judging by what has happened already, they'll then forcibly bundle it with whatever Node/React/etc. web framework the "trendy/secure" sites "du jour" employ, breaking the web for those on Ch109 who resist an OS "upgrade" to Win10/11...

Isn't there a kernelex project for Vista? Windows 7 has VxKex and from what I've read the developer is working on making Chromium 110+ compatible with Windows 7/8. 

Quote

Mathwiz said:

360EE versions 13 and 13.5 are based on Chrome 86, and MiniBrowser on Chrome 87. Those should work at least until Spectrum gets around to implementing Googlisms even newer than those Chrome versions.

Googlisms is a good word for it, they've been polluting the internet for years with their "standards" that everyone sheepishly follows. Even Mozilla, with the exception that they haven't gone Chromium... yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Just fresh from the oven:

Those among you here using MyPal68 with uBO (WE) as the main adblocker, it has just stopped supporting that browser choice... :angry: ; well, once again the "web on mobile" takes precedence over the "web on desktop/laptop" :realmad: ; gorhill decided to bump the minimum Firefox requirement in his extension from v68 to v79, to cater to Firefox Mobile users on Android (Google here, again :realmad: ... ) : 

https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/111vv2y/ublock_origin_147_announcement_thread/j8pbwtc/?depth=2

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/discussions/2497#discussioncomment-4997876

Quote

Yes, I need to bump desktop to 78, but since I don't want to have two separate extension packages for Firefox desktop and Firefox android, I will have to bump the minimum version to 79 for both.


Bottomline is that I don't have the resource/time to test uBO for oldest versions of browsers, I count on those minority of users using old versions to ensure the dev build work in their browser. I should have spotted that the usage of newer API required that I raised the minimum version but there is just so much I can juggle in my head

Edited by VistaLover
Link to comment
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...