My Browser Builds (Part 5)

[UCyborg]

That's not what I said...

Anyway, for reference, it was asked before on PM forum: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30059

[John Carter]

1 minute ago, UCyborg said:

That's not what I said...

Anyway, for reference, it was asked before on PM forum: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30059

Hmm, interesting. Looks like I wasn't the only one with a good idea. Guess it won't happen until the official Pale Moon browser adds it.

[adata]

The browser does not refresh the contents of the top bar.
When going, for example: from page 45 to page 48, the top bar still displays page 45.
Only refreshing the page by refreshes the top bar and changes the description from 45 to 48.

[UCyborg]

Nothing to do with the browser I think, the site is simply not coded to update the title on quick navigation between thread pages.

[AstroSkipper]

2 hours ago, John Carter said:

Lol. Dude, how exactly adding a simple setting to change DNS would make the browser die? That would actually make it even better. Every other browser has it.

It is not really a necessary feature. You can change that in a very simple way inside your OS.  Even by using a third party tool. Anyway! In general, New Moon 28 and Serpent 52 will get what has been developed for Pale Moon and Basilisk.

[UCyborg]

1 hour ago, AstroSkipper said:

In general, New Moon 28 and Serpent 52 will get what has been developed for Pale Moon and Basilisk.

True, roytam1 may do some own tweaks every once in a while, but all the big stuff comes from upstream.

1 hour ago, AstroSkipper said:

You can change that in a very simple way inside your OS.

True, but you can only directly configure Windows versions released in last 4 years or so to use DOH (eg. https://www.howtogeek.com/765940/how-to-enable-dns-over-https-on-windows-11/). Older ones require to use a sort of DNS proxy or special support from the browser side.

Edited May 4 by UCyborg

[AstroSkipper]

6 hours ago, UCyborg said:

7 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

You can change that in a very simple way inside your OS.

True, but you can only directly configure Windows versions released in last 4 years or so to use DOH (eg. https://www.howtogeek.com/765940/how-to-enable-dns-over-https-on-windows-11/). Older ones require to use a sort of DNS proxy or special support from the browser side.

In Windows XP, you can either directly insert the desired DNS service in the native network configuration window, or you do it more convenient with a very few clicks by using a third-party tool like, for example, ChrisPC DNS Switch. I use the Pro version which has more features and is more convenient. 

Edited May 4 by AstroSkipper
Update of content

[Mathwiz]

On 5/1/2024 at 11:23 AM, VistaLover said:

... IIANM , the last (stable) version of Mozilla Firefox that has "official" native support for Windows 7 SP1 (both 32 & 64-bit) is the ESR channel of v115, currently at version 115.10.0 ...

... Release channel Fx-115.0 does indeed lack that fix, however that's NOT the case for the ESR channel of 115 (patched version was 115.2.1):

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/advisories/mfsa2023-40/

Well, that explains the otherwise odd-seeming upping of the required minimum from 113 to 115, at least, if it's the last Win 7-compatible version.

In any event, Chase lowered the boom rather quickly this time. I can no longer sign in using either Serpent or 360EE. There appears to be a JSON parsing error in my Chase-specific StructuredClone polyfill. @UCyborg's more sophisticated polyfill doesn't do the trick either since it doesn't handle self-referential objects (same problem as with the StructuredClone built into UXP).

Also not working: Chrome 106 on Android 6.0. Edge 109 (on Win 7) still works (so, I assume, Chrome 109 would too), but for how long? It too now has the ominous "We'll stop supporting this browser soon" nag. FF 115 ESR will presumably have a somewhat longer lifespan, but the end is in sight there too.

Looks like it's gonna be Thorium and/or Supermium in my future, whether I like non-unGoogled Chromium derivatives or not.

On 5/1/2024 at 2:56 PM, VistaLover said:

Most websites, at least those that matter the most to everyone this day and age (e.g. social media, media portals, government and state agencies sites, bank sites etc.), have been (and will continue to be) optimised to render best on Chrome and "associated" web engines (Firefox included)

On 5/1/2024 at 4:01 PM, NotHereToPlayGames said:

In my not-so-humble-opinion - "good".

I appreciate your honesty; but I daresay your "not-so-humble" opinion very likely puts you out of step with the vast majority of MSFN members.

Yes, I know you "upgraded" to Windows 10 and are currently using Chromium 114, so perhaps you don't care what happens to those of us who still use earlier Windows versions (even 8.1); but there will come a day when your OS/browser will stop working too, at which point I will be overjoyed to remind you of your "not-so-humble" opinion!

12 hours ago, John Carter said:

How exactly do you update the New Moon browser without having to start over with a clean new version every time roytam1 releases an update? Since there's no option to update the browser within the browser itself.

I just rename the folder; e.g., rename "New Moon" to "Old Moon" (delete the "Old Moon" folder first, if it still exists from the last update) and restore the new version into a new "New Moon" folder. I even wrote a batch file that automates the process. You don't lose any settings (unless you made your New Moon installation portable).

9 hours ago, adata said:

The browser does not refresh the contents of the top bar.
When going, for example: from page 45 to page 48, the top bar still displays page 45.
Only refreshing the page by refreshes the top bar and changes the description from 45 to 48.

Yes, I noticed that too, some time ago. It's a longstanding bug that also affects the pages shown by long-clicking the Back button. I just decided to live with it.

4 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

In Windows XP, you can either directly insert the desired DNS service in the native network configuration window

I think their discussion was specifically about DNS over HTTPS, which wasn't a thing until long after XP EOS.

11 hours ago, John Carter said:

Hmm, interesting. Looks like I wasn't the only one with a good idea. Guess it won't happen until the official Pale Moon browser adds it.

Unfortunately, not likely, given MCP's position:

Quote

Pale Moon intentionally does not support D'OH.

DoH is a double-edged sword. It can be used to conceal your browsing habits from your ISP (probably a good thing) but it can also be used by apps to thwart ad blockers like Pi-Hole, which most users would consider a bad thing. But as usual, MCP fails to understand that their decision not to support DoH will have exactly zero effect on its "bad" uses coming to fruition; all it does is mean that Pale Moon users can't easily avail themselves of its "good" uses. (The apostrophe - D'OH - was clever though.)

[NotHereToPlayGames]

1 hour ago, Mathwiz said:

Looks like it's gonna be Thorium and/or Supermium in my future, whether I like non-unGoogled Chromium derivatives or not.

Your profile cites Win7 x64.

So you have two 360Chrome options newer than v13.5 (Chrome v86).

There is 360Chrome v22.3.3015 which is Chrome v122 (same as Thorium and Supermium).

But there is also 360Chrome v22.1.1084 which is Chrome v119.

I've only been working with the two in seemingly rarer and rarer free time, but I've come to see the Chrome v119 as probably my "next primary" as far as my system.

[j7n]

With more support for DNS over HTTP it may become the only option in the future. And then simple, low CPU overhead adblock on the router will no longer be possible.

[AstroSkipper]

9 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

14 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

In Windows XP, you can either directly insert the desired DNS service in the native network configuration window

I think their discussion was specifically about DNS over HTTPS, which wasn't a thing until long after XP EOS.

@UCyborg brought DNS over HTTPS into play. However, the original enquiry only mentioned DNS.

21 hours ago, John Carter said:

Lol. Dude, how exactly adding a simple setting to change DNS would make the browser die? That would actually make it even better. Every other browser has it.

Hence my answer. 

[UCyborg]

1 hour ago, AstroSkipper said:

@UCyborg brought DNS over HTTPS into play. However, the original enquiry only mentioned DNS.

There was a picture from Chrome with the question, DNS settings there are explicit about secure DNS.

23 hours ago, John Carter said:

[AstroSkipper]

57 minutes ago, UCyborg said:

There was a picture from Chrome with the question, DNS settings there are explicit about secure DNS.

Ok. Didn't notice that. Then it wasn't a request for normal DNS after all 

[Mathwiz]

22 hours ago, j7n said:

With more support for DNS over HTTP it may become the only option in the future. And then simple, low CPU overhead adblock on the router will no longer be possible.

You're right, but it's not a matter of DoH someday becoming the "only option" because the last holdout, MCP, finally caved and supported it! DoH's mere existence threatens ad blocking at the router.

Let's say you have a Roku app, which of course is completely unrelated to your computer or Web browser. The author of that app doesn't want you to block ads, so he/she/it already has a huge financial incentive to build DoH into the app so you can't. And DoH already exists, so there's nothing (besides a little development cost) to stop the author from doing so.

22 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Your profile cites Win7 x64. So you have two 360Chrome options newer than v13.5 (Chrome v86).

There is 360Chrome v22.3.3015 which is Chrome v122 (same as Thorium and Supermium). But there is also 360Chrome v22.1.1084 which is Chrome v119.

Thanks for the suggestions, but what does it buy me? You of all people should know how much work it takes to remove all the telemetry from 360Chrome.

BTW, the soon-to-be-minimum versions at chase.com are Chrome 116 and FF 115. The former won't run on W7, so it's either Supermium, Thorium, one of the 360Chrome versions above, or Mo (my new abbreviation for modern Firefox) 115 ESR. I think I trust Supermium v118 most, but in any case, there's very little true choice left among "modern" browsers. Edit: I just learned of r3dfox (pronounced "red fox"), a Win 7-compatible fork of Mo that will hopefully outlast v115 ESR.

22 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I've only been working with the two in seemingly rarer and rarer free time, but I've come to see the Chrome v119 as probably my "next primary" as far as my system.

Which proves the point @VistaLover was making - that's only five versions above your current "primary" and only five versions older than the "latest and [supposedly] greatest." Google has us all on their "upgrade" treadmill now, even if you skip a handful of versions each time.

Edited May 6 by Mathwiz

[j7n]

What was MCP's reasoning for not adding it until now? Developers always want to show that they have more security.