Jump to content

ArcticFoxie/NotHereToPlayGames -- 360Chrome v13.5.1030 rebuild 8


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Milkinis said:

the Mini Browser looks like the brother of the following one which is pretty unstable :}

https://msfn.org/board/topic/184266-arcticfoxienotheretoplaygames-360chrome-v1351030-rebuild-7/page/22/#comment-1239460

screenshot-27.png

Yeah, it does have some stability issues. But disabling the USB backend fixes most of them!

I’ve always liked Mini but prefer 360 for its greater speed, better interface and nearly identical web capabilities. If the things being done with 360 now could in theory be applied to Mini, I’d be very excited to do beta testing. But I am very thankful for 360 and have no issues with it, so Mini isn’t too important to me at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Everything is fine, thank you!
 I downloaded the browser from your first link, then I downloaded uBlock 1.26.2. I checked "Developer Mode" on the Extensions page, then I dragged the uBlock folder from My Documents... Every time I restart the browser, I get this popup: "Disable extensions in developer mode"... Could you please remove it?

Link to uBlock O. version 1.26.2https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/1.26.2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, msfntor said:

Every time I restart the browser, I get this popup: "Disable extensions in developer mode"... Could you please remove it?

Link to uBlock O. version 1.26.2https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/1.26.2

what does ublock origin for Firefox have to do with 360chrome ?

 

 

 

 

screenshot.18.png

Edited by Milkinis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, msfntor said:

Under Assets, you have the chromium link

I only use the ''developer mode'' for two extensions that can't be downloaded straight from chrome store anymore  which is not the case (for now...) for ublock origin 1.4.7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, msfntor said:

I've downloaded version 1.26.2 ...I prefer...

Ghostery is up for download on the chrome store but the latest release 8.9.9 is missing the main buttons so it bacame unusable.

if using the developer mode 8.9.8 it will report a source code error

Untitled-2.png

Edited by Milkinis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, I've spoked about uBlock Origin, not Ghostery...:rolleyes: Very bad, this cumbersome Ghostery.

To see trackers and other External Domain Requests, I use Browser JSGuard, very light. I have sent the link, already...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, msfntor said:
1 hour ago, msfntor said:

I've downloaded version 1.26.2 ...I prefer...

... The Release Notes for your preferred version 1.26.2 clearly state that no code changes exist between it and previous version 1.26.0; the whole purpose served by that .2 release was to address an Easylist-related fonts issue, affecting ONLY Firefox, not Chromium-based forks...

You can safely use the .crx file of v1.26.0 hosted on crx4chrome and be done with; it doesn't need "developer mode" enabled and it's just an archive of the very same file as it was available in CWS... Life is hard as it is, one need not make it even harder ;) ...

Regards :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, msfntor said:

Hmm, I've spoked about uBlock Origin, not Ghostery...:rolleyes: Very bad, this cumbersome Ghostery.

this is quite frustrating. if one doesn't accept the terms it won't work :realmad:

if you download it from the chrome store you don't get this privacy policy agreement window

so I want to guess any other chrome extension is sending data back without requesting for permissions. @VistaLover

screenshot-27.png

Edited by Milkinis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Milkinis said:

if you download it from the chrome store you don't get this privacy policy agreement window

so I want to guess any other chrome extension is sending data back without requesting for permissions.

That's because if you download from the Chrome Store, then you have a browser that enables a persistent cookie and yes, that cookie does send data back without requesting permission.

If you use any browser that mimmicks Ungoogled Chromium, then this data link is disabled and now you have to manually create that data link.

No privacy-conscious consumer should ever use any non-ungoogled Chromium fork, in my humble opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Milkinis said:

so I want to guess any other chrome extension is sending data back without requesting for permissions.

This type of discussion very easily falls into the same type of "surface discussions" here at MSFN that if we get too "detailed" or provide actual "links", then we break MSFN Forum Rules.

MSFN does not promote violating Software License Agreements yet MSFN does allow "surface discussions" on things like POSReady and extended kernels.  It's a very fine line.

 

7 hours ago, Milkinis said:

this is quite frustrating. if one doesn't accept the terms it won't work

MSFN does not promote violating Software Terms.  There are, however, "Fair Use" clauses (I may have the wrong "legal term", but you still get the gist) whereby you ACCEPT the Software Terms but OPT OUT of the sharing of non-personal information.

This OPT OUT is often such fine print that the average consumer is completely unaware that they even CAN "opt out".

I have not read the Softwware Terms for Ghostery and make no claims on how its Software Terms are worded.

 

I would claim that most of us here at MSFN are well "above average" consumers so as far as "surface discussions" go, I will add this -

If you BREAK your dependency on the Chrome Web Store (ie, use Ungoogled Forks) and download archived .crx files instead, that .crx is just a .zip file - open that .crx and you can see everything!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

That's because if you download from the Chrome Store, then you have a browser that enables a persistent cookie and yes, that cookie does send data back without requesting permission.

if you read the permissions of most extensions, they mostly ask  to ''read and change all your data on the website you visit''

I could not imagine they were actually sniffing around and sending one's data somewhere back.

as long as they don't get to steal my saved passwords I am not concerned about privacy.

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...