Analog screwed up their website...

[legg]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 23:24:50 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
wrote:

On 04/25/2022 11:01 PM, Mike Monett wrote:
Firefox is far superior to Chrome, Opera, SeaMonkey, or any other browser.
I have tried them all.

Your experience differs from mine, at least for the last several years.
I\'m running Firefox 99.0.1 on my Linux box. At least it no longer locks
the machine up but it crashes on a couple of websites I visit and at
other odd times.

It\'s been losing market share for several years. Mozilla made several
bad decisions and hasn\'t been keeping up. Your problem with Canadian
Tire is one symptom.

It is better than Safari though. Even if you put FF on an Apple device
it uses webkit.

Firefox, which started out as the web-browser component of
Mozilla\'s Seamonkey, has been updated regularly. Seamonkey
has released it\'s first revision in some time, only lately.
This wasn\'t so much an update as a re-install.

There was also an update of Java released lately, so there
could be issues/bugs associated with that.

Operating system, browser and java rev all affect the
ability to negotiate some newer web-sites, so alternate
browser availability is sometimes prudent and useful.

My preference is to avoid browsers that are tied to data
collectors/vendors and don\'t allow users to restrict
specific java functions/operations.

RL

 

[Don Y]

On 4/28/2022 6:52 AM, legg wrote:

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 23:24:50 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:

On 04/25/2022 11:01 PM, Mike Monett wrote:
Firefox is far superior to Chrome, Opera, SeaMonkey, or any other browser.
I have tried them all.

Your experience differs from mine, at least for the last several years.
I\'m running Firefox 99.0.1 on my Linux box. At least it no longer locks
the machine up but it crashes on a couple of websites I visit and at
other odd times.

I\'ve not seen a FF crash/lockup. But, it has nasty, persistent
memory leaks. Plan on restarting it periodically. Especially
on the consumer \"8GB\" machines.

It\'s been losing market share for several years. Mozilla made several
bad decisions and hasn\'t been keeping up. Your problem with Canadian
Tire is one symptom.

It is better than Safari though. Even if you put FF on an Apple device
it uses webkit.

Firefox, which started out as the web-browser component of
Mozilla\'s Seamonkey, has been updated regularly. Seamonkey
has released it\'s first revision in some time, only lately.
This wasn\'t so much an update as a re-install.

There was also an update of Java released lately, so there
could be issues/bugs associated with that.

Operating system, browser and java rev all affect the
ability to negotiate some newer web-sites, so alternate
browser availability is sometimes prudent and useful.

My preference is to avoid browsers that are tied to data
collectors/vendors and don\'t allow users to restrict
specific java functions/operations.

+42

I run with damn near all script disabled. Then, selectively
TEMPORARILY reenable domains -- avoiding those that are likely
there just to facilitate tracking and ad pushes.

If I can\'t get the site to function with a reasonable set of *enabled*
domains, then I abandon the page (there are very few such sites that
I would \"miss\" if I couldn\'t access them!)

When done, I \"disable all temporaries\" to return to the set of
domains that I\'m comfortable leaving \"on\" at all times.

I\'m waiting for NoScript to *remember* the domains enabled for a specific
page/webdomain so I don\'t have to repeat this exercise each time I
visit a particular site.

By far, my biggest peeve is with ecommerce sites with stupid search engines.
E.g., searching for something very specific (lots of terms) ends up as a
very GENERAL search -- as if each term was conjoined with the others with
an \"OR\" operator.

[\"Yes, I\'m sure you would like to get me to buy SOMETHING, hence all
of the possibilities you\'re offering me. But, have you noticed that
I don\'t even bother to scroll down past the first item -- as it
clearly ISN\'T the SPECIFIC item I was seeking? Let\'s see what
your competitor shows for that search...\"]

 

[rbowman]

On 04/28/2022 01:43 AM, Don Y wrote:

On 4/27/2022 10:28 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 04/27/2022 09:48 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 4/27/2022 8:10 PM, rbowman wrote:

But what\'s the motivation for a browser-based solution?
Are you trying to have a \"no install\" application (which
makes it immediately available to EVERY seat)?
Or, streamline maintenance (server-side updates)?
Or...?\'

All of the above... In the last few years I\'ve been seeing a lot of
RFP\'s calling for zero footprint solutions. Some of that is justified
paranoia about hacking. They don\'t advertise but an embarrassing
number of sites have been pwned. Zero footprint means you can lock the
workstations down tight and not let the users wander off to watch cat
videos or whatever.

So, you\'re using the browser to give you the functionality of an \"X
Terminal\"?
But, you\'re still letting that build on a COTS OS (e.g., windows)? Does
the
user *need* the \"generic PC\" to be present IN ADDITION to the browser?
I.e.,
why not replace the OS and browser and make a dedicated appliance (with
deliberately limited functionality)?\'\'

Yes, you need a generic something with a browser. Windows XX,
Chromebook, Apple Tablet, Android Tablet, Linux box, whatever else you
can find... Particularly with Apple if they have the tablet, they\'re
good to go. We did an app a few years ago. Android, sideload the apk.
Apple, go through the whole Apple Store vetting hoops even for a
proprietary app that couldn\'t even be used by the general public.

A dedicated appliance would be a tough sell. They understand \'buy a
Panasonic Toughbook\'. It\'s the old \'nobody ever got fired for buying
IBM\'. Well, they may have. Historically our desktop suite ran on RS6000
boxes with AIX. Then the bean counters noticed you could but Windows
boxes a lot cheaper so we ported everything to Windows.

Or, do you want MS to deal with the \"multiple vendor support\" issues (so
YOU
don\'t have to develop network and video drivers for an unlimited number of
potential hardware configurations)?

There is that too. The less we deal with hardware, the better.

They\'ve backed off the cloud based fad. AWS has dumped often enough to
take the

Hmmmm... that\'s an interesting observation (the whole \"cloud\" idea
struck me
as seriously flawed)

It has issues.

So, do you deploy the server-side code on commodity hardware? Or,
\"certified\"
(commodity) hardware -- so you have some control over that performance?

Yes. Typically very healthy servers with a Stratus everRun HA setup.

If \"local\", then the trip to the server isn\'t as costly. So, why not move
everything into the server (eliminating script altogether)? Or, does that
solution not scale adequately (i.e., you\'re relying on the clients to
effectively share some of the computational load)?

It wouldn\'t scale too well. We went that route a long time ago and it
had issues. Connectivity is also a factor for mobile users. It isn\'t
great but you have some usability if the network goes down or if the
user goes out of cell coverage.

I assume you aren\'t deploying personnel to each site but, rather, doing
remote
administration? Presumably, you\'ve got that locked down tight so *you*
aren\'t
the attack vector? (all traffic in an encrypted tunnel?)

There are site visits during the initial deployment to set up the system
and train the personnel but day to day is remote. It used to be casual
but now access to the system is locked down tight, two factor auth, the
whole nine yards.

If you\'ve looked in a police car, fire truck, or ambulance lately they
are fully wired. Have to physically update a couple of hundred mobile
laptops is a problem. Even updating desktops in the dispatch center
can be tricky. You try to pick a quiet time to take stations offline
one by one and hope there isn\'t a mass casualty incident.

But you\'re NOT updating those things, right? That\'s the whole point of
pushing script into the clients \"on demand\"...

Right. That\'s the incentive to go browser based rather than our legacy
software.

Instead of something truly minimalist (like a Sun Ray), you\'re relying
on the browser to give you \"advanced primitives\" that you can invoke,
via script?

Yes, although we\'re working at a higher level of abstraction. With
Angular you\'re creating the UI with the assumption something will make
it happen.

But, by doing so, you are now at the mercy of the browser(s) that you
want (?) to support.

Yes. We test on most of the popular browsers but, as this thread
started, we do find bugs that need to be addressed because Browser X has
quirks. In our experience X == Firefox. Because of the inclusion of
tablets etc, there are further problems for rendering and layout.

Is this just another repeat of the centralized/distributed cycle
(mainframe->workstations->server/clients-> ...)

Most certainly. IBM\'s revenge. Money is always an issue and with a
thin client you don\'t have to go overboard on the computer and can put
the money into big 4K monitors.

Yeah, I fully embraced the thin client ideology many years ago. It made
maintenance SO much easier! (By contrast, my workstations incur LOTS of
maintenance). My current project relies completely on a bare bones
client -- more like the Sun Rays than a browser or even an X Terminal
(so, NEVER a need to update the client!)

Left to my own devices we\'d still be using ADM-3A\'s... My first
exposure to Windows was \'this is going to suck sooner or later\'

Not our system but scroll down a little and that\'s a typical dispatch
center. Those people love their monitors. The more the merrier.

Yeah, it\'s addictive. I run 5-6Kx2K on my workstations. The limit
being how
much I can take in with my eyes WITHOUT moving my head (the \"tennis match\"
syndrome gets old, quick!)

I\'m old school. I run multiple virtual desktops on one monitor. Our IT
guy keeps asking if I want another monitor and I take a pass. I was a
very happy camper when MS finally figured out how to do desktops.

 

[Don Y]

On 4/28/2022 7:27 AM, rbowman wrote:

So, you\'re using the browser to give you the functionality of an \"X
Terminal\"?
But, you\'re still letting that build on a COTS OS (e.g., windows)? Does
the
user *need* the \"generic PC\" to be present IN ADDITION to the browser?
I.e.,
why not replace the OS and browser and make a dedicated appliance (with
deliberately limited functionality)?\'\'

Yes, you need a generic something with a browser. Windows XX, Chromebook, Apple
Tablet, Android Tablet, Linux box, whatever else you can find... Particularly
with Apple if they have the tablet, they\'re good to go. We did an app a few
years ago. Android, sideload the apk. Apple, go through the whole Apple Store
vetting hoops even for a proprietary app that couldn\'t even be used by the
general public.

But, then you\'re also opening the door for <whatever> to coexist with \"you\"
on the device (?). How much grief does that cause your support staff as
they end up having to troubleshoot \"unrelated\" problems caused by some
crud Joe User opted to install on his box?

We\'re developing a STEM program for local schools. Part of it is to
provide a \"development platform\" to the students enrolled. The obvious
solution is just to give them a laptop.

But, then you\'re stuck dealing with all the cruft that will inevitably get
ADDED to the laptop as the student (or, someone else in the household
eyeing the laptop as something THEY could make use of) leverages your
\"gift\". Likewise, when they want to go online (malware).

So, we\'re locking down the BIOS so it won\'t run COTS OS\'s, just our own.
I.e., it becomes a dedicated \"teaching appliance\" instead of a ubiquitous
laptop. (as we\'re operating under a grant, we can\'t afford a big support
staff like you might in a general educational setting; we want the grant
monies to go towards \"buying\" extra seats, not extra *staff*!)

[There are some tools -- free and otherwise -- that will let you lock down
a box against persistent changes. But, that still lets the box be used
for other purposes, if only transiently (if they are willing to not reboot
for days/weeks, then the change is effectively permanent... and now a
support problem!)]

A dedicated appliance would be a tough sell. They understand \'buy a Panasonic
Toughbook\'. It\'s the old \'nobody ever got fired for buying IBM\'. Well, they
may have. Historically our desktop suite ran on RS6000 boxes with AIX. Then the
bean counters noticed you could but Windows boxes a lot cheaper so we ported
everything to Windows.

But, can you have a list of \"qualified\" machines? Or, does that cut down
your value-added? Perhaps even preparing a set of install images that
you just dd(1) onto \"select\" machines (turn-key install)?

If \"local\", then the trip to the server isn\'t as costly. So, why not move
everything into the server (eliminating script altogether)? Or, does that
solution not scale adequately (i.e., you\'re relying on the clients to
effectively share some of the computational load)?

It wouldn\'t scale too well. We went that route a long time ago and it had
issues. Connectivity is also a factor for mobile users. It isn\'t great but you
have some usability if the network goes down or if the user goes out of cell
coverage.

I\'ve been addressing server-side scale with support to seamlessly add
processors. As everything is inherently distributed, talking to another
server-side processor is just as cheap as if talking to another \"smart
client\" (the \"smart\" part residing server-side).

Wireless bandwidth is my shortcoming (as users will typically not be
sited at wired devices)

If you\'ve looked in a police car, fire truck, or ambulance lately they
are fully wired. Have to physically update a couple of hundred mobile
laptops is a problem. Even updating desktops in the dispatch center
can be tricky. You try to pick a quiet time to take stations offline
one by one and hope there isn\'t a mass casualty incident.

But you\'re NOT updating those things, right? That\'s the whole point of
pushing script into the clients \"on demand\"...

Right. That\'s the incentive to go browser based rather than our legacy software.

How do you address the Principle of Least Surprise when the possibility
exists that a user may encounter a radically different \"application\",
next time he \"logs on\"? Have you codified the types of changes that
you will allow yourself to make/deploy to avoid this?

[I\'m sure everyone has dealt with a site that has \"suddenly\" -- from their
personal perspective -- changed in ways that make using it, NOW, difficult
(even if it is a long-term improvement)]

This is the number one complain I see with push updates. (Imagine your CAR
behaving differently, today, than it did, yesterday! Surely you wouldn\'t
allow such changes to an airframe! Safety is important, there -- not so
much with cars, eh? :> )

Instead of something truly minimalist (like a Sun Ray), you\'re relying
on the browser to give you \"advanced primitives\" that you can invoke,
via script?

Yes, although we\'re working at a higher level of abstraction. With Angular
you\'re creating the UI with the assumption something will make it happen.

OK. That\'s similar to my UI; apps indicate what the UI should be and the
actual *device* figures out how to \"render\" that to the user. E.g., a
blind user wouldn\'t benefit from a graphic presentation; nor would a deaf
user benefit from an audible commentary!

[And the last thing you want to do is force the app to decide on the
presentation as they\'ll just concentrate on the modalities with which
they are most familiar, at the expense of users who can\'t effectively
use them!]

But, by doing so, you are now at the mercy of the browser(s) that you
want (?) to support.

Yes. We test on most of the popular browsers but, as this thread started, we do
find bugs that need to be addressed because Browser X has quirks. In our
experience X == Firefox. Because of the inclusion of tablets etc, there are
further problems for rendering and layout.

But the tablet/form-factor issue is unrelated to the browser. You\'d still
have to accommodate that size/formfactor regardless of browser.

Or, disallow those platforms.

Is this just another repeat of the centralized/distributed cycle
(mainframe->workstations->server/clients-> ...)

Most certainly. IBM\'s revenge. Money is always an issue and with a
thin client you don\'t have to go overboard on the computer and can put
the money into big 4K monitors.

Yeah, I fully embraced the thin client ideology many years ago. It made
maintenance SO much easier! (By contrast, my workstations incur LOTS of
maintenance). My current project relies completely on a bare bones
client -- more like the Sun Rays than a browser or even an X Terminal
(so, NEVER a need to update the client!)

Left to my own devices we\'d still be using ADM-3A\'s... My first exposure to
Windows was \'this is going to suck sooner or later\'

I think any bit of code on which the UI relies has that \"problem\".
How often do you recall firmware updates for glass TTYs?

This is the thinking behind my \"minimalist\" i/f; so I can make those
devices dirt cheap (the most commonly used one will retail for < $10)
so you don\'t care if they \"walk off\". And, so a user can afford to
buy many \"spares\" to address battery charge (if battery dies after
12 hours of use, place on charger and pick up another FRESH unit
for the next 12 hours!)

Not our system but scroll down a little and that\'s a typical dispatch
center. Those people love their monitors. The more the merrier.

Yeah, it\'s addictive. I run 5-6Kx2K on my workstations. The limit
being how
much I can take in with my eyes WITHOUT moving my head (the \"tennis match\"
syndrome gets old, quick!)

I\'m old school. I run multiple virtual desktops on one monitor. Our IT guy
keeps asking if I want another monitor and I take a pass. I was a very happy
camper when MS finally figured out how to do desktops.

I have two workspaces (desktops) on each workstation. But, you (I) still need
real estate.

If I\'m laying out a PCB, then I want to see the layout, the schematic, possibly
a datasheet (or two) AND some notes. Stacking windows is a PITA -- as is
swapping desktops.

If I\'m building a 3D model, then I\'ll want to see the wireframe AND the
rendered model. And, maybe watch an animation built on it.

Etc.

I use the second desktop for consoles to other devices -- \"System Management\".
E.g., if I have to mount a volume on a NAS, I\'ll open a console/webpage into
that device on the \"Alternate\" desktop to interact with it, then flip back to
the \"Primary\" desktop to continue whatever I was originally doing. It\'s
a convenient distinction to keep in mind... instead of having to remember
which *app* is where.

Single monitor machines (e.g., my AiO\'s) tend to have specific roles... more
like appliances than general workstations.

[I think back to the 14\", 16 color monitor I started with and shudder! :>
Amusing to see how easily we can be \"corrupted\"! ]

 

[boB]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 09:07:17 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 10:15:22 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

rbowman wrote:
On 04/25/2022 05:04 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2022-04-25 11:19, Jan Panteltje wrote:
?? [...]
Face it, internet is dead, back to posting pigeons. [...]

It\'s getting worse by the day, indeed. I\'ve seen sites that
are *only* JavaScript, several Mbytes of it, which then load
the equivalent of a mere kbyte or two of real content, and
even that only if you have the very latest browser.

It\'s like a resurgence of the flash-sites of the late \'90s / early \'00s
all over again.

This one may be here to stay. Angular, React, Vue, etc. Users have come
to expect single page applications and they take JavaScript -- a lot of
it. We\'re developing an Angular app and I don\'t even want to think about
how much JS.

I run every browser instance in its own disposable Qubes VM, so whatever
cruft they leave behind goes away when I close the browser (which shuts
down the VM). Good Medicine.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


I keep my bookmarks in a Dropbox folder, all sorted. Firefox lets me
drag/drop links from the address bar into my bookmarks folder.

The browser can die and I still have the bookmarks.

I save my bookmarks to a file once in a while.

For cookie and tracking mitigation, Privacy Badger takes care of that.

I used to use FF and Noscript but it got kind of annoying to unblock
things after a while.

boB

 

[Mike Monett]

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 04/27/2022 11:32 PM, Mike Monett wrote:
Why does Canadian Tire require one specific browser?

Simply put, because they don\'t care or the website was developed by
someone\'s cousin\'s kid. Looking at their page source they\'re not doing
anything fancy.

Youtube settings now requires Chrome. Firefox 96.0.2 no longer works.

It looks like more companies are going the way of Android. They think
everyone has a cellphone. Forget about desktops. They don\'t count.

I wonder if posting a suggestion to Mozilla would do any good.

First, I\'ll try the latest and greatest version of Firefox.

Unfortunately, that means I have to bypass the update restriction I have in
the registry.

It also means I would be stuck with the update, even if it destroys other
features that I need.

Fortunately, I am running on VirtualBox, which means I can restore any
previous version simply by reloading the .VDI file.

Everyone should be on VirtualBox!




--
MRM

 

[Tauno Voipio]

On 29.4.22 11.15, Mike Monett wrote:

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 04/27/2022 11:32 PM, Mike Monett wrote:
Why does Canadian Tire require one specific browser?

Simply put, because they don\'t care or the website was developed by
someone\'s cousin\'s kid. Looking at their page source they\'re not doing
anything fancy.

Youtube settings now requires Chrome. Firefox 96.0.2 no longer works.

It looks like more companies are going the way of Android. They think
everyone has a cellphone. Forget about desktops. They don\'t count.

I wonder if posting a suggestion to Mozilla would do any good.

First, I\'ll try the latest and greatest version of Firefox.

Unfortunately, that means I have to bypass the update restriction I have in
the registry.

It also means I would be stuck with the update, even if it destroys other
features that I need.

Fortunately, I am running on VirtualBox, which means I can restore any
previous version simply by reloading the .VDI file.

Everyone should be on VirtualBox!

Your Firefox may be obsolete, the settings work fine on 99.0.1.

--

-TV

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2022-04-29 10:15, Mike Monett wrote:

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 04/27/2022 11:32 PM, Mike Monett wrote:
Why does Canadian Tire require one specific browser?

Simply put, because they don\'t care or the website was developed by
someone\'s cousin\'s kid. Looking at their page source they\'re not doing
anything fancy.

Youtube settings now requires Chrome. [...]

[...]

Of course it does. There\'s a ferocious battle for web dominance going
on. Every clan continually invents new tricks to render the opposition\'s
software inoperative, influencing people to switch to /their/ version.
They will then abuse that to pry private information out of you, and
spray you with propaganda to manipulate you to commercial and political
ends. With billions of subjects, the stakes are staggering and the
tiniest details can have huge effects.

Jeroen Belleman

 

[rbowman]

On 04/29/2022 02:24 AM, Tauno Voipio wrote:

On 29.4.22 11.15, Mike Monett wrote:
rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 04/27/2022 11:32 PM, Mike Monett wrote:
Why does Canadian Tire require one specific browser?

Simply put, because they don\'t care or the website was developed by
someone\'s cousin\'s kid. Looking at their page source they\'re not doing
anything fancy.

Youtube settings now requires Chrome. Firefox 96.0.2 no longer works.

It looks like more companies are going the way of Android. They think
everyone has a cellphone. Forget about desktops. They don\'t count.

I wonder if posting a suggestion to Mozilla would do any good.

First, I\'ll try the latest and greatest version of Firefox.

Unfortunately, that means I have to bypass the update restriction I
have in
the registry.

It also means I would be stuck with the update, even if it destroys other
features that I need.

Fortunately, I am running on VirtualBox, which means I can restore any
previous version simply by reloading the .VDI file.

Everyone should be on VirtualBox!


Your Firefox may be obsolete, the settings work fine on 99.0.1.

No problem here with 99.0.1 on OpenSUSE either. The only problem I\'ve
had lately is Amazon Prime video not working with Brave so I used Edge.
I think that may be Brave\'s privacy enhancements and I could have worked
around somehow.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

Jeroen Belleman wrote:

On 2022-04-29 10:15, Mike Monett wrote:
rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 04/27/2022 11:32 PM, Mike Monett wrote:
Why does Canadian Tire require one specific browser?

Simply put, because they don\'t care or the website was developed by
someone\'s cousin\'s kid.  Looking at their page source they\'re not doing
anything fancy.

Youtube settings now requires Chrome. [...]

[...]

Of course it does. There\'s a ferocious battle for web dominance going
on. Every clan continually invents new tricks to render the opposition\'s
software inoperative, influencing people to switch to /their/ version.
They will then abuse that to pry private information out of you, and
spray you with propaganda to manipulate you to commercial and political
ends. With billions of subjects, the stakes are staggering and the
tiniest details can have huge effects.

Jeroen Belleman

\"DOS isn\'t done till Lotus won\'t run.\"

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[Mike Monett]

Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

On 2022-04-29 10:15, Mike Monett wrote:
rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 04/27/2022 11:32 PM, Mike Monett wrote:
Why does Canadian Tire require one specific browser?

Simply put, because they don\'t care or the website was developed by
someone\'s cousin\'s kid. Looking at their page source they\'re not doing
anything fancy.

Youtube settings now requires Chrome. [...]

[...]

Of course it does. There\'s a ferocious battle for web dominance going
on. Every clan continually invents new tricks to render the opposition\'s
software inoperative, influencing people to switch to /their/ version.
They will then abuse that to pry private information out of you, and
spray you with propaganda to manipulate you to commercial and political
ends. With billions of subjects, the stakes are staggering and the
tiniest details can have huge effects.

Jeroen Belleman

Android is probably responsible for most of the shift to Chrome.

For the rest of us, Ublock Plus is very effective at eliminating ads.

e4ward.com and Pimmy are very effective at eliminating spam.

Ubuntu and VirtualBox are very effective at maintaining multiple
configurations (XP, Win7, Chrome, etc.)

SysInternals is very effective at eliminating Malware and 100% CPU
problems.

We have much stronger defenses than the opposition.


--
MRM

 

[Mike Monett]

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 04/29/2022 02:24 AM, Tauno Voipio wrote:
On 29.4.22 11.15, Mike Monett wrote:
rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 04/27/2022 11:32 PM, Mike Monett wrote:
Why does Canadian Tire require one specific browser?

Simply put, because they don\'t care or the website was developed by
someone\'s cousin\'s kid. Looking at their page source they\'re not
doing anything fancy.

Youtube settings now requires Chrome. Firefox 96.0.2 no longer works.

It looks like more companies are going the way of Android. They think
everyone has a cellphone. Forget about desktops. They don\'t count.

I wonder if posting a suggestion to Mozilla would do any good.

First, I\'ll try the latest and greatest version of Firefox.

Unfortunately, that means I have to bypass the update restriction I
have in
the registry.

It also means I would be stuck with the update, even if it destroys
other features that I need.

Fortunately, I am running on VirtualBox, which means I can restore any
previous version simply by reloading the .VDI file.

Everyone should be on VirtualBox!


Your Firefox may be obsolete, the settings work fine on 99.0.1.


No problem here with 99.0.1 on OpenSUSE either. The only problem I\'ve
had lately is Amazon Prime video not working with Brave so I used Edge.
I think that may be Brave\'s privacy enhancements and I could have worked
around somehow.

Thanks. I have 99.0.1 but hesitated to use it since it opens a lot more
threads than 96.0.2. Now that I have solved the 100% CPU problems on
YouTube, it might be worth trying it again.





--
MRM

 

[Mike Monett]

Mike Monett <spamme@not.com> wrote:

> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

[...]

Your Firefox may be obsolete, the settings work fine on 99.0.1.


No problem here with 99.0.1 on OpenSUSE either. The only problem I\'ve
had lately is Amazon Prime video not working with Brave so I used Edge.
I think that may be Brave\'s privacy enhancements and I could have worked
around somehow.

Thanks. I have 99.0.1 but hesitated to use it since it opens a lot more
threads than 96.0.2. Now that I have solved the 100% CPU problems on
YouTube, it might be worth trying it again.

OK, I upgraded to 99.0.1. It has three more threads than 96.0.2 and takes
about 70 MB more memory.

To eliminate 100% CPU problem on Youtube, I disabled the following:

Start -> services.msc: disable

Internet Connection Sharing (ICS)
Media Center Extender Service
Microsoft .NET Framework
Net.Msmq Listener Adapter
Net.Pipe Listener Adapter
Net.Tcp Listener Adapter
Net.Tcp Port Sharing Service
Routing and Remote Access
Superfetch
Windows Defender
Windows Firewall
Windows Installer
Windows Media Center Receiver Service
Windows Media Center Scheduler Service
Windows Media Player Network Sharing Service
Windows Modules Installer
Windows Remote Management
Windows Search
Windows Update

Now Youtube Settings and Canadian Tire don\'t work:

https://www.canadiantire.ca/en/pdp/bow-cpvc-pipe-0631902p.0631902.html

It looks like I overdid it on disabling services. However, I won\'t need to
change the Youtube Settings, and if I ever need to order from Canadian Tire
again, I can reload the Chrome .VDI

I will probably go back to 96.0.2 and recover the 70 MB of memory. Note
that Firefox will not allow you to downgrade. You lose your profile. There
are ways around it, but VirtualBox is much simpler and faster.




--
MRM

 

[Don Y]

On 4/28/2022 4:49 PM, boB wrote:
> I save my bookmarks to a file once in a while.

I have found that *most* of my bookmarks are rarely revisited. Or, by
the time I decide to followup on something I \"stumbled upon\", the page
has moved.

Mortal of story, copy content as you encounter it instead of expecting
it to be there when you later want it.

> For cookie and tracking mitigation, Privacy Badger takes care of that.

Ghostery and AdBlock Plus with an overzealous censorship of script domains.

I used to use FF and Noscript but it got kind of annoying to unblock
things after a while.

The obvious upgrade to NS will be to track settings per site so you
don\'t have to manually reimpose them. Of course, there\'s no guarantee
that what \"works\" for a site, today, will continue to work, tomorrow.
But, that\'s the nature of server-side \"apps\"...

When you consider the dynamic nature of the standards and the motivation
of advertisers to \"seize your eyes\", it\'s a wonder that any of these
mechanisms are effective, at all!

 

[rbowman]

On 04/29/2022 12:30 PM, Mike Monett wrote:

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 04/29/2022 02:24 AM, Tauno Voipio wrote:
On 29.4.22 11.15, Mike Monett wrote:
rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 04/27/2022 11:32 PM, Mike Monett wrote:
Why does Canadian Tire require one specific browser?

Simply put, because they don\'t care or the website was developed by
someone\'s cousin\'s kid. Looking at their page source they\'re not
doing anything fancy.

Youtube settings now requires Chrome. Firefox 96.0.2 no longer works.

It looks like more companies are going the way of Android. They think
everyone has a cellphone. Forget about desktops. They don\'t count.

I wonder if posting a suggestion to Mozilla would do any good.

First, I\'ll try the latest and greatest version of Firefox.

Unfortunately, that means I have to bypass the update restriction I
have in
the registry.

It also means I would be stuck with the update, even if it destroys
other features that I need.

Fortunately, I am running on VirtualBox, which means I can restore any
previous version simply by reloading the .VDI file.

Everyone should be on VirtualBox!


Your Firefox may be obsolete, the settings work fine on 99.0.1.


No problem here with 99.0.1 on OpenSUSE either. The only problem I\'ve
had lately is Amazon Prime video not working with Brave so I used Edge.
I think that may be Brave\'s privacy enhancements and I could have worked
around somehow.

Thanks. I have 99.0.1 but hesitated to use it since it opens a lot more
threads than 96.0.2. Now that I have solved the 100% CPU problems on
YouTube, it might be worth trying it again.

99 seems a lot more civilized than previous versions as far as using
CPU. I\'ve seen it briefly kick up to 45% usually with a lot of \'Isolated
Web Content\' processes. Watching in top, those come and go even with the
browser just sitting there. It used to be so bad that I would be lucky
if I could get to a console to start killing it.

 

[rbowman]

On 04/29/2022 01:20 PM, Mike Monett wrote:

I will probably go back to 96.0.2 and recover the 70 MB of memory. Note
that Firefox will not allow you to downgrade. You lose your profile. There
are ways around it, but VirtualBox is much simpler and faster.

Thunderbird on Windows did that to me once. There was a major upgrade
that did not function on my system. Getting back to what did work was
painful. I should be used to that. At least Visual Studio warned that if
you upgraded your solution you ain\'t never going back.

 

[boB]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 16:58:31 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 4/28/2022 4:49 PM, boB wrote:
I save my bookmarks to a file once in a while.

I have found that *most* of my bookmarks are rarely revisited. Or, by
the time I decide to followup on something I \"stumbled upon\", the page
has moved.

Mortal of story, copy content as you encounter it instead of expecting
it to be there when you later want it.

I actually do this for some sites and things I do want to save. Save
them as PDF. None of the browsers really allow you to save a file as
shown anymore so I donated to and use FireShot which really works
well.

Once in a great while you can print to PDF from a browser but only
very simple pages. Just try to \"print\" a web page these days.
Last time I tried a couple years ago, none of the browsers I tried
worked worth a darn.

boB

For cookie and tracking mitigation, Privacy Badger takes care of that.

Ghostery and AdBlock Plus with an overzealous censorship of script domains.

I used to use FF and Noscript but it got kind of annoying to unblock
things after a while.

The obvious upgrade to NS will be to track settings per site so you
don\'t have to manually reimpose them. Of course, there\'s no guarantee
that what \"works\" for a site, today, will continue to work, tomorrow.
But, that\'s the nature of server-side \"apps\"...

When you consider the dynamic nature of the standards and the motivation
of advertisers to \"seize your eyes\", it\'s a wonder that any of these
mechanisms are effective, at all!

 

[Don Y]

On 4/30/2022 12:08 AM, boB wrote:

On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 16:58:31 -0700, Don Y
blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 4/28/2022 4:49 PM, boB wrote:
I save my bookmarks to a file once in a while.

I have found that *most* of my bookmarks are rarely revisited. Or, by
the time I decide to followup on something I \"stumbled upon\", the page
has moved.

Mortal of story, copy content as you encounter it instead of expecting
it to be there when you later want it.

I actually do this for some sites and things I do want to save. Save
them as PDF. None of the browsers really allow you to save a file as
shown anymore so I donated to and use FireShot which really works
well.

Once in a great while you can print to PDF from a browser but only
very simple pages. Just try to \"print\" a web page these days.
Last time I tried a couple years ago, none of the browsers I tried
worked worth a darn.

A lot depends on what you are trying to save.

E.g., A video *in* a page is a PITA to capture -- you typically need to
capture it separately and reassemble the page. And, some folks go out
of their way to make it hard to capture videos (with audio).

Some pages you\'re only interested in the text (sans typefaces).

Or, a particular image/illustration.

If I want to get the whole page, I resort to a screen capture tool
like SnagIt. It can capture (to varying degrees of satisfaction)
as an image or text -- and in a variety of different file formats.

Note that FF also has a \"snapshot\" capability (to PNGs, IIRC).

I\'ve not sorted out why capturing (rendering) to a file is any harder
than rendering to the screen... but, clearly there is *some* issue!

OTOH, relying on the page being there at some later date is largely folly.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 30 Apr 2022 00:08:17 -0700) it happened boB
<boB@K7IQ.com> wrote in <dtnp6hhon1aub5jllf5s0ooegdb5iqf4dq@4ax.com>:

On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 16:58:31 -0700, Don Y
blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 4/28/2022 4:49 PM, boB wrote:
I save my bookmarks to a file once in a while.

I have found that *most* of my bookmarks are rarely revisited. Or, by
the time I decide to followup on something I \"stumbled upon\", the page
has moved.

Mortal of story, copy content as you encounter it instead of expecting
it to be there when you later want it.

I actually do this for some sites and things I do want to save. Save
them as PDF. None of the browsers really allow you to save a file as
shown anymore so I donated to and use FireShot which really works
well.

I often just use
import website_name.gif

man import
import(1) import(1)
NAME
import - saves any visible window on an X server and outputs it as an image file. You can capture a single window, the entire screen, or any rectangular portion of the screen.
Linux of course.