Discussion:
Firefox!
(too old to reply)
John Jones
2020-05-03 17:39:18 UTC
Permalink
OK I have had a bad day, my apologies.
My problems began when my W7 HP 64bit Samsung 2011 laptop seized up.
I managed to see that the culprits were a) Skype (which I dont use)
taking 50% of my CPU, and b) Firefox which had 262 Gb of my RAM up its
back.
So I kill -2'd firefox.
Which really screwed things up.
Every time I launched the beast it fouled my entire computer.
So I have now uninstalled it and migrated to google chrome, which I dont
like.
Would it be safe to re-install Firefox, although it does seem to have
become bloatware?
Do you think it likely that the registry or system is somehow corrupted?
Really odd things were happening including not being able to launch
control panel, all the icons being blank, windows explorer falling over,
and a white screen of death. Even the bog-this button took a long time
to stop the works.
And I know this is a FAQ but there really seems to be very few trusty
browsers out there these days - what is the word on the street? Do I
have to go MS? (you do need a back-up do you not - lack of internet is a
kind of asphyxiation).
Cheers
JJ
Johnny
2020-05-03 17:45:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 3 May 2020 18:39:18 +0100
Post by John Jones
OK I have had a bad day, my apologies.
My problems began when my W7 HP 64bit Samsung 2011 laptop seized up.
I managed to see that the culprits were a) Skype (which I dont use)
taking 50% of my CPU, and b) Firefox which had 262 Gb of my RAM up
its back.
So I kill -2'd firefox.
Which really screwed things up.
Every time I launched the beast it fouled my entire computer.
So I have now uninstalled it and migrated to google chrome, which I
dont like.
Would it be safe to re-install Firefox, although it does seem to have
become bloatware?
Do you think it likely that the registry or system is somehow
corrupted? Really odd things were happening including not being able
to launch control panel, all the icons being blank, windows explorer
falling over, and a white screen of death. Even the bog-this button
took a long time to stop the works.
And I know this is a FAQ but there really seems to be very few trusty
browsers out there these days - what is the word on the street? Do I
have to go MS? (you do need a back-up do you not - lack of internet
is a kind of asphyxiation).
Cheers
JJ
If you want privacy and the speed of Firefox, use Waterfox.

https://www.waterfox.net/
Mike Easter
2020-05-03 17:50:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Jones
Would it be safe to re-install Firefox,
The problem w/ just reinstalling is that you are still using the same
profile.

For troubleshooting, I would start by starting Ffx in w/ add-ons
disabled.(accessed from Help/ the hamburger/ or help troubleshooting page).

If that doesn't help, you can start it w/ a different/ test/ profile

Start/ searchbar/ firefox --new-instance --ProfileManager.

Or safe/ disabled add-ons plus different test profile.

Then you will have a better idea of whether you have a problem w/ add-on
issues, profile issues, or installed issues so that you will be better
oriented as to needing a fresh install which will use an old profile or
if you need to dump some add-on/s or if you need an old install w/ a new
profile.
--
Mike Easter
none
2020-05-03 19:08:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Jones
OK I have had a bad day, my apologies.
My problems began when my W7 HP 64bit Samsung 2011 laptop seized up.
I managed to see that the culprits were a) Skype (which I dont use)
taking 50% of my CPU, and b) Firefox which had 262 Gb of my RAM up its
back.
So I kill -2'd firefox.
Which really screwed things up.
Every time I launched the beast it fouled my entire computer.
So I have now uninstalled it and migrated to google chrome, which I dont
like.
Would it be safe to re-install Firefox, although it does seem to have
become bloatware?
Do you think it likely that the registry or system is somehow corrupted?
Really odd things were happening including not being able to launch
control panel, all the icons being blank, windows explorer falling over,
and a white screen of death. Even the bog-this button took a long time
to stop the works.
And I know this is a FAQ but there really seems to be very few trusty
browsers out there these days - what is the word on the street? Do I
have to go MS? (you do need a back-up do you not - lack of internet is a
kind of asphyxiation).
Cheers
JJ
Add this Usenet server to your client:
news.mozilla org

Then subscribe to this newsgroup on it:
mozilla.support.firefox

They'll be happy to help with your Firefox issues but I wouldn't talk up
alternative browsers too much. Might make the moderator antzy.
Paul
2020-05-03 19:10:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Jones
OK I have had a bad day, my apologies.
My problems began when my W7 HP 64bit Samsung 2011 laptop seized up.
I managed to see that the culprits were a) Skype (which I dont use)
taking 50% of my CPU, and b) Firefox which had 262 Gb of my RAM up its
back.
So I kill -2'd firefox.
Which really screwed things up.
Every time I launched the beast it fouled my entire computer.
So I have now uninstalled it and migrated to google chrome, which I dont
like.
Would it be safe to re-install Firefox, although it does seem to have
become bloatware?
Do you think it likely that the registry or system is somehow corrupted?
Really odd things were happening including not being able to launch
control panel, all the icons being blank, windows explorer falling over,
and a white screen of death. Even the bog-this button took a long time
to stop the works.
And I know this is a FAQ but there really seems to be very few trusty
browsers out there these days - what is the word on the street? Do I
have to go MS? (you do need a back-up do you not - lack of internet is a
kind of asphyxiation).
Cheers
JJ
Here is a Skype URI exploit.

https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/11694

How that works, is you visit a webpage with Firefox,
and the webpage has the equivalent of skype://somebody
and the URI "somebody" and all the parameters on that
line, are sent to Skype. Skype is supposed to "vet" the
command and filter off things which might be an exploit.

If you're not using Skype, and have no plans for Skype,
you would uninstall it, so it will no longer intercept
"Skype:" and "Skype-Plugin" calls.

That's potentially part of your problem.

*******

The problem with antivirus scanners, is they don't trigger
on every possible kind of "bad behavior". If you scanned
the machine right now, you might not find a thing.

However, if you reinstalled Firefox, you'd want to make
sure the previous copy of Firefox is uninstalled first.
*Then*, look for "profiles.ini" and get the profile name
(ABCD1234.default or similar). The profile name is randomly
generated at install time, so I cannot tell you what your
profile folder name looks like. Both Firefox and Thunderbird
use similar profiles.ini files - make sure you're reading
the one for Firefox. The profile folder is right below
that file.

There are *two* profile folders with that same name. One
is larger than the other. Both could be removed as part of
your cleaning.

*******

If, whatever attacked your machine left a "tag team partner"
in the machine, it could be a Startup Item, a scheduled task,
or similar. This is additional work to uninstall.

You could start with an on-demand Malwarebytes scan. They
have a paid and a trial version of "real time protector"
which is overkill, and they'd really like to sell you a
copy. The trick then, is getting the on-demand scanner,
and not getting the trial one (tricked into a commercial
solicitation).

It's possible the Malwarebytes might pick it up, as Malwarebytes
is not a "standard AV". It has a tiny bit of heuristic
detection, looking for hooked subsystems.

*******

Maybe there's nothing on your machine, and I'm being a looney
at your expense.

What bothers me about your report, is both Firefox and Skype
being "busy busy" at the same time, and especially, when you
"don't use Skype". These are bad symptoms to me.

Microsoft offers an offline scanner now. Kaspersky has one.
Bitdefender has one. But the problem with these, is what
they choose to flag and what they treat as "grayware".

My batting average on these things is pretty poor, and
if you want real cleaning help, there are forums like
Bleepingcomputer, where they give you a series of
scanning tasks to perform. (Things like HijackThis
or equivalent.) They can then craft custom cleaning
scripts to be fed to a second tool, and that removes
the "pointy bits" of an exploit. But may leave residues
in the Registry that "trigger" an AV to display
a notification, but don't necessarily mean a pest
is still present.

So yeah, you could have a project on your hands. I'm not
good enough at this stuff to tell you how bad the
situation is. (As long as the extensions on files
are not changing by themselves {Ransomware], you'll
likely be OK.) The only style of malware that is
really deadly, is Sality, which cannot be repaired
by the staff at Bleepingcomputer, as it does too much
damage. Most pests are reversible, because they're
intended for commercial gain via click-fraud or similar
and the computer needs to be in a runnable state for
them to make money.

*******

Do your best to clean the machine, before reinstalling Firefox.
I you have no plans to use Skype, remove it. Or at least
upgrade to a version that has the security issue fixed.
Ideally, there's no excuse for accepting URIs at all,
those calls simply should not be possible. This is
called an "attack surface" when moron companies do this.
It's adding a feature that can *only* have negative consequences,
as has just been demonstrated on your computer. It's just
as clever as adding javascript to PDF files (requiring the
user to disable javascript usage in their PDF reader).

Paul
PeterC
2020-05-04 07:22:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Jones
OK I have had a bad day, my apologies.
My problems began when my W7 HP 64bit Samsung 2011 laptop seized up.
I managed to see that the culprits were a) Skype (which I dont use)
taking 50% of my CPU, and b) Firefox which had 262 Gb of my RAM up its
back.
So I kill -2'd firefox.
Which really screwed things up.
Every time I launched the beast it fouled my entire computer.
So I have now uninstalled it and migrated to google chrome, which I dont
like.
Would it be safe to re-install Firefox, although it does seem to have
become bloatware?
Do you think it likely that the registry or system is somehow corrupted?
Really odd things were happening including not being able to launch
control panel, all the icons being blank, windows explorer falling over,
and a white screen of death. Even the bog-this button took a long time
to stop the works.
And I know this is a FAQ but there really seems to be very few trusty
browsers out there these days - what is the word on the street? Do I
have to go MS? (you do need a back-up do you not - lack of internet is a
kind of asphyxiation).
Cheers
JJ
I abandoned Firefox as such and changed to Cyberfox; that 'died' due to the
developer being ill so I went to Pale Moon. It's sort of FF based but is now
on its own route; it takes most of the old FF extensions and can be made to
behave very like Opera 12.*. Mine is taking about 500MB with a lot of use
and some tabs open - the FF ESR that I keep takes up to twice that just by
opening it. I have Vivaldi (Chrome) that I don't really use and that'll take
a Gig on opening.
http://www.palemoon.org/
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway
Yousuf Khan
2020-05-04 07:55:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Jones
So I have now uninstalled it and migrated to google chrome, which I dont
like.
Would it be safe to re-install Firefox, although it does seem to have
become bloatware?
Do you think it likely that the registry or system is somehow corrupted?
Really odd things were happening including not being able to launch
control panel, all the icons being blank, windows explorer falling over,
and a white screen of death. Even the bog-this button took a long time
to stop the works.
And I know this is a FAQ but there really seems to be very few trusty
browsers out there these days - what is the word on the street? Do I
have to go MS? (you do need a back-up do you not - lack of internet is a
kind of asphyxiation).
Cheers
JJ
I'm mainly a FF user myself, but I always keep two or three other
browsers installed on my systems just for this sort of issue. At some
point every one of these browsers is going to bork, because of its own
internal bloat. You didn't mention how much RAM your laptop has, I have
2011 Toshiba myself with 8GB of RAM, and it's just now starting to feel
a little small, too much going to disk these days. But I got both Chrome
and IE installed. I'd say before reinstalling FF again, first do an AV
and Malware scan on it, see if some nasty little bug isn't eating up all
of your resources, which would affect Firefox too.

Yousuf Khan
John Jones
2020-05-04 12:21:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 3 May 2020 18:39:18 +0100, "John Jones" <***@hotamil.com>
wrote in article <***@reader.eternal-
september.org>...
Post by John Jones
OK I have had a bad day, my apologies.
...
Thanks all.
Looks like a bit of a project, although with ff's demise it is currently
fairly quiet on the home front.

Let's hope I dont suddenly get a pop up for 5000 bit coins.

BTW just before all hell broke loose I clicked on a link sent to me for
an article on Belgians having to eat more fries from www.gq.com which I
thought not to be a dodgy site, although not one I would normally visit.
Coincidence?
Take care
JJ
Brian Gregory
2020-05-12 00:12:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Jones
Let's hope I dont suddenly get a pop up for 5000 bit coins.
That's about 43 million US$ worth of bitcoins.
--
Brian Gregory (in England).
John Jones
2020-05-12 06:58:36 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 12 May 2020 01:12:36 +0100, "Brian Gregory" <void-invalid-dead-
Post by Brian Gregory
Post by John Jones
Let's hope I dont suddenly get a pop up for 5000 bit coins.
That's about 43 million US$ worth of bitcoins.
Ha! in that case I definitely wouldn't pay.
JJ
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2020-05-12 19:04:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Jones
On Tue, 12 May 2020 01:12:36 +0100, "Brian Gregory" <void-invalid-dead-
Post by Brian Gregory
Post by John Jones
Let's hope I dont suddenly get a pop up for 5000 bit coins.
That's about 43 million US$ worth of bitcoins.
Ha! in that case I definitely wouldn't pay.
JJ
Hmm, does that mean you'd consider it if they only asked for 1? (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

By the very definition of "news," we hear very little about the dominant
threats to our lives, and the most about the rarest, including terror.
"LibertyMcG" alias Brian P. McGlinchey, 2013-7-23
jetjock
2020-05-13 16:03:21 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 12 May 2020 20:04:19 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by John Jones
On Tue, 12 May 2020 01:12:36 +0100, "Brian Gregory" <void-invalid-dead-
Post by Brian Gregory
Post by John Jones
Let's hope I dont suddenly get a pop up for 5000 bit coins.
That's about 43 million US$ worth of bitcoins.
Ha! in that case I definitely wouldn't pay.
JJ
Can be found at: https://www.filehorse.com/download-directx-12/

No guarantee that it will work on Win 7 though as MS specifically says
that Win 10 is required for DX12
Post by John Jones
Post by Brian Gregory
Post by John Jones
jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
Mayayana
2020-05-04 13:10:45 UTC
Permalink
"John Jones" <***@hotamil.com> wrote

| OK I have had a bad day, my apologies.
| My problems began when my W7 HP 64bit Samsung 2011 laptop seized up.
| I managed to see that the culprits were a) Skype (which I dont use)
| taking 50% of my CPU, and b) Firefox which had 262 Gb of my RAM up its
| back.
| So I kill -2'd firefox.
| Which really screwed things up.

It's really a matter of personal preference. To my
mind the Mozilla family of browsers are the lesser of
the evils. I wouldn't use MS browsers and I definitely
don't want a Google product. And even the supposedly
clean versions like SR Iron will call home to Google,
given a chance.

I mainly use New Moon
with virtually all interaction disabled. No cookies, script,
frames, 3rd-party images, etc. If I need more functionality
I have Firefox 52.9 with NoScript. (On another machine I
use Waterfox, but only for streaming movies.) I change
the userAgents to tell websites I'm running a recent FF
version. V. 143.8, or whatever they're shipping this week. :)

It's surprising how many websites will refuse to work without
the very latest version of 2 or 3 browsers. So if you use
something older yuou should spoof the UA. It used to be
the golden rule that a webpage should "degrade gracefully".
That is, that it should work well for as many visitors as
possible. There should be no-script, no-flash options. The
teenagers who made websites that said, "This site best viewed
in Internet Explorer 5.00.231" were made fun of. Now it's
reversed. They say, "Our site is so special you'll need
one of these recent browser versions. Come back when you've
got your act together."

It turns out such requirements are
rarely relevant. Like the teenagers of the 90s, they just don't
want to bother testing their code. And usually the webmaster
doesn't know how to write webpage code, anyway. That's why
it's so bloated. They use WYSIWYG software that turns out
bloated pages, then plug in things like jquery script "libraries"
to get special effects. The end result is 10 MB of slop and
they don't even know how it works.

I think the Pale Moon/New Moon options are best. They're
Firefox with less bloat. (New Moon is an XP fork of Pale
Moon, because PM stopped supporting XP.) But you also
need to adjust them
a lot. Stop prefetching. Limit cache size. (It's virtually
uselesss these days, anyway.) Stop letting it update
itself. Always use NoScript. That's not even getting into
privacy tweaks. Script has gone crazy. Some sites are
using several MB of it and it's very work intensive, as
well as being unsafe. You should really *at least* block
unrelated script on a site that's only spying or providing
ads. There are also other options like uBlock Origin,which
is sort of like browser tweaking for dummies.

In general, FF is getting worse as the versions go up.
Like everyone else, they've adopted a worldview that
the Internet is no longer the information superhighway
and should properly be viewed as a shopping mall. So
FF makes it difficult to control script, privacy, etc. They're
adding functionality for push notifications, webcam,
microphone, location data, etc. The general aim is to provide
a highly functional shopping tool that you can use easily
with "web services". To some extent that makes sense.
A lot of people want that. But the Mozilla people are trying
to prevent other options. You have to jump through hoops
to get things like a menu and status bar. Disabling script
has become an esoteric secret that requires going into
the prefs.js settings. And of course it's crazy bloated. Like
the old days when software would show a splash screen to
let you know it was working on starting up. But in the old
days there was an excuse. A CPU was only a single core
at 300 MHz, and 32 MB of RAM.

Mozilla get almost all their money from Google. so on the
one hand they're open source. On the other hand they've
made a deal with the devil and can't afford to antagonize
their benefactor by making a "user-first" browser.

But before you deal with browsers, remove Skype, since
you don't use it, anyway. Don't stop for a glass of
water on the way. Don't go to the bathroom. Do not
pass Go or collect $200. Just remove Skype. It's a very
intrusive item that wants to run all the time and call
home regularly. It allows Microsoft to have a backdoor
to your system. And it's had a number of security
problems in the past.
John Jones
2020-05-05 08:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
| OK I have had a bad day, my apologies.
| My problems began when my W7 HP 64bit Samsung 2011 laptop seized up.
| I managed to see that the culprits were a) Skype (which I dont use)
| taking 50% of my CPU, and b) Firefox which had 262 Gb of my RAM up its
| back.
| So I kill -2'd firefox.
| Which really screwed things up.
It's really a matter of personal preference. To my
mind the Mozilla family of browsers are the lesser of
the evils. I wouldn't use MS browsers and I definitely
don't want a Google product. And even the supposedly
clean versions like SR Iron will call home to Google,
given a chance.
I mainly use New Moon
with virtually all interaction disabled. No cookies, script,
frames, 3rd-party images, etc. If I need more functionality
I have Firefox 52.9 with NoScript. (On another machine I
use Waterfox, but only for streaming movies.) I change
the userAgents to tell websites I'm running a recent FF
version. V. 143.8, or whatever they're shipping this week. :)
...
I think the Pale Moon/New Moon options are best. They're
Firefox with less bloat. (New Moon is an XP fork of Pale
Moon, because PM stopped supporting XP.) ...
Thank you for this. And I have now removed Skype, although I did pause
for a cup of coffee :-)

I take your point over pernickity websites. My Greek class is currently
in lockdown, like the rest of the world, and we are using MS team
something. It didnt operate with ff, but loves chrome. And chrome works
well except everything goes through google hq so they know more about me
than mesen.

I was interested to hear how mozilla makes money. One problem with
having a team of maintainers is that they feel they have to bugger about
with stuff. I think MS suffers from the same phenomenon. What we need is
user led wish lists rather than internal 'beacons' with mad ideas!

anyway, going well off topic now.
Cheers
JJ
Mayayana
2020-05-05 13:03:45 UTC
Permalink
"John Jones" <***@hotamil.com> wrote

| I was interested to hear how mozilla makes money. One problem with
| having a team of maintainers is that they feel they have to bugger about
| with stuff.

Exactly. I don't know their exact present status, but I
know that several years ago they were making $300
million per year from Google, which was almost all of their
income. Google paid $1 per download to be the default
search engine. Then for some reason they switched to
Yahoo. Then back to Google. I suspect Google don't much
care how much they dump on Mozilla, so long as it keeps
Mozilla from honoring the OSS ideals and making a browser
that's *unmistakeably* superior to Chrome.

| anyway, going well off topic now.

Somewhat. But those of us who use Firefox a lot have
learned over time that their newsgroups are run by a fanatical
groupie who doesn't allow any criticism and, like Microsoft with
their web forums, tries to run Mozilla usenet as a marketing
venue. So if you actually want FF information you need to go
to Windows groups. It's technically OT, but everyone uses
a browser.
jetjock
2020-05-05 16:42:08 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 5 May 2020 09:03:45 -0400, "Mayayana"
Post by Mayayana
| I was interested to hear how mozilla makes money. One problem with
| having a team of maintainers is that they feel they have to bugger about
| with stuff.
Exactly. I don't know their exact present status, but I
know that several years ago they were making $300
million per year from Google, which was almost all of their
income. Google paid $1 per download to be the default
search engine. Then for some reason they switched to
Yahoo. Then back to Google. I suspect Google don't much
care how much they dump on Mozilla, so long as it keeps
Mozilla from honoring the OSS ideals and making a browser
that's *unmistakeably* superior to Chrome.
| anyway, going well off topic now.
Somewhat. But those of us who use Firefox a lot have
learned over time that their newsgroups are run by a fanatical
groupie who doesn't allow any criticism and, like Microsoft with
their web forums, tries to run Mozilla usenet as a marketing
venue. So if you actually want FF information you need to go
to Windows groups. It's technically OT, but everyone uses
a browser.
I totally agree about the fanatic. However, if you go to
news.mozilla.com and subscribe to mozilla.general you can get help
from a lot of the folks who used to inhabit the support group before
getting fed up with "the fanatic". This group is NOT moderated by him
so it is much friendlier.
Post by Mayayana
jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
Mayayana
2020-05-05 18:03:23 UTC
Permalink
"jetjock" <***@unkown.com> wrote

| I totally agree about the fanatic. However, if you go to
| news.mozilla.com and subscribe to mozilla.general you can get help
| from a lot of the folks who used to inhabit the support group before
| getting fed up with "the fanatic". This group is NOT moderated by him
| so it is much friendlier.
|
Thanks. I'll try that. He had recommended that in
the past but when I checked it out it seemed to
be mostly uninhabited.
jetjock
2020-05-06 19:19:30 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 5 May 2020 14:03:23 -0400, "Mayayana"
Post by Mayayana
| I totally agree about the fanatic. However, if you go to
| news.mozilla.com and subscribe to mozilla.general you can get help
| from a lot of the folks who used to inhabit the support group before
| getting fed up with "the fanatic". This group is NOT moderated by him
| so it is much friendlier.
|
Thanks. I'll try that. He had recommended that in
the past but when I checked it out it seemed to
be mostly uninhabited.
It varies from day to day. Sometimes a hot topic gets opened and it
will be pretty lively for a couple days. Some days...zilch! Today I
think there were about 10 new posts. The guys & gal (The Real Bev) are
there lurking. :-)
Post by Mayayana
jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
Mayayana
2020-05-05 18:15:29 UTC
Permalink
"jetjock" <***@unkown.com> wrote

| I totally agree about the fanatic. However, if you go to
| news.mozilla.com and subscribe to mozilla.general

I just tried that group and it's still as before. Mostly
nonsense posted by someone using the name GerardJan.
Zaidy036
2020-05-06 02:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
| I totally agree about the fanatic. However, if you go to
| news.mozilla.com and subscribe to mozilla.general
I just tried that group and it's still as before. Mostly
nonsense posted by someone using the name GerardJan.
look at mozilla.support.firefox
Mayayana
2020-05-06 12:47:52 UTC
Permalink
"Zaidy036" <***@air.isp.spam> wrote
| On 5/5/2020 2:15 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| > "jetjock" <***@unkown.com> wrote
| >
| > | I totally agree about the fanatic. However, if you go to
| > | news.mozilla.com and subscribe to mozilla.general
| >
| > I just tried that group and it's still as before. Mostly
| > nonsense posted by someone using the name GerardJan.
| >
| look at mozilla.support.firefox

That's under the control of Chris Ilias. That's the
problem we're talking about. It's aggressively
moderated. If he doesn't like your "attitude" or
if you criticize Mozilla/Firefox, he just blocks the
posting.
jetjock
2020-05-06 19:21:39 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 5 May 2020 14:15:29 -0400, "Mayayana"
Post by Mayayana
| I totally agree about the fanatic. However, if you go to
| news.mozilla.com and subscribe to mozilla.general
I just tried that group and it's still as before. Mostly
nonsense posted by someone using the name GerardJan.
Just about everyone in the group has him kill-filed. He has admitted
that he is mentally unstable and occasionally goes off his meds.
Post by Mayayana
jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
R.Wieser
2020-05-06 07:19:50 UTC
Permalink
jetjock,
However, if you go to news.mozilla.com and subscribe to
mozilla.general you can get help from a lot of the folks who
used to inhabit the support group before getting fed up with
"the fanatic".
In the past I've tried to post some questions about programming against the
FF provided DLLs (especially the SSL ones), and either didn't see my post
appear or never got a reply. Do you perhaps have any idea which newsgroup
would be best for such questions ?

In specific, I've been able to set up a basic SSL connection thru FFs DLLs,
but have never been able to figure out how to verify the received host
certificate - other than by implementing my own pinning.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Steve Hayes
2020-05-07 05:08:25 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 4 May 2020 09:10:45 -0400, "Mayayana"
Post by Mayayana
It used to be
the golden rule that a webpage should "degrade gracefully".
That is, that it should work well for as many visitors as
possible. There should be no-script, no-flash options. The
teenagers who made websites that said, "This site best viewed
in Internet Explorer 5.00.231" were made fun of. Now it's
reversed. They say, "Our site is so special you'll need
one of these recent browser versions. Come back when you've
got your act together."
Saved, for future reference. Hope you won't mind if I spread it
around.
--
Steve Hayes
http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://khanya.wordpress.com
Mayayana
2020-05-07 12:20:51 UTC
Permalink
"Steve Hayes" <***@telkomsa.net> wrote

| Saved, for future reference. Hope you won't mind if I spread it
| around.
|

:) By all means. It's a frustrating and discouraging
trend. Not only the commercialization of the Internet
but also the lack of Web-literacy. 20 years ago a lot
of people were making their own websites. Now most
people don't understand that that's possible. And the
one's who do set up a site are usually using middleman
things like wordpress or wix.

But it's also a very practical issue. The woman I live
with visits more interactive sites than I do. Shopping
and such. Periodically she gets shut out
of a site for having a browser that won't work. I then
check the Firefox version. Oh, yeah, I haven't updated
the userAgent spoof for awhile. So I change it to last
week's Firefox version and... whaddaya know... it works
now!
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2020-05-07 13:15:43 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 May 2020 at 08:20:51, Mayayana <***@invalid.nospam>
wrote:
[]
Post by Mayayana
But it's also a very practical issue. The woman I live
with visits more interactive sites than I do. Shopping
and such. Periodically she gets shut out
of a site for having a browser that won't work. I then
check the Firefox version. Oh, yeah, I haven't updated
the userAgent spoof for awhile. So I change it to last
week's Firefox version and... whaddaya know... it works
now!
Which makes one wonder why the check is there in the first place. Do
some HTML generators (or whatever phrase is current this week) put them
in by default?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"This is a one line proof... if we start sufficiently far to the left."
[Cambridge University Math Dept.]
Mayayana
2020-05-07 14:53:51 UTC
Permalink
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <***@255soft.uk> wrote

| Which makes one wonder why the check is there in the first place. Do
| some HTML generators (or whatever phrase is current this week) put them
| in by default?

Good question. I don't know the details of that. I do
know that few sites are coded by people who actually know
webpage coding. And javascript usage has gone through
the roof. All those popovers, slide-across, and other fancy,
dynamic functionality is coming packaged as complex code
that the webmaster can just call in with a line of their own
javascript.

My guess would be that they're just testing in the latest
Edge/Chrome/Firefox/Safari, which is now really just two
browser cores: Gecko and Webkit. It's probably easier to
just test in a limited way and then refuse all other browsers.
But people may not even be making that decision. It could
be that a webpage will accept IE7 but not Firefox 62. Why?
Because that's what the code they have is written to deal
with. And they don't know anything more than that.

It's also a different emphasis than it used to be. There
used to be more sense of accommodation; trying to be
prepared for all visitors. That was partly good business
but even more it was a sense of good manners. That was
the idea with degrading gracefully. It was a sense of making
your site available to all. It was also a sense of just doing
a good job. A well designed webpage was like well-designed
anything else. Worth doing.

Today so
many sites are just calculated to make money. They
don't care to accommodate. If you're not on a phone with
a self-updating browser and a credit card, they probably
don't want you, anyway. Though I still come across
beautifully built sites and some are very complex. I don't
know if they'll all work in IE7, but at least they work.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2020-05-07 17:37:37 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 May 2020 at 10:53:51, Mayayana <***@invalid.nospam>
wrote:

[Singing from the same hymnsheet as me, basically.]
Post by Mayayana
| Which makes one wonder why the check is there in the first place. Do
| some HTML generators (or whatever phrase is current this week) put them
| in by default?
Good question. I don't know the details of that. I do
know that few sites are coded by people who actually know
I wouldn't mind that as such: we all have things we're good and bad at,
and also things we can't be bothered with even though we could do (I
don't cook or garden, and mostly pay someone else to fix car faults).
But that just shifts the blame: the sloppiness/laziness as such becomes
the fault of the HTML-generator tool authors.
Post by Mayayana
webpage coding. And javascript usage has gone through
the roof. All those popovers, slide-across, and other fancy,
dynamic functionality is coming packaged as complex code
that the webmaster can just call in with a line of their own
javascript.
Again, I don't mind that - _if_ it worked robustly. (Mind you, I find it
refreshing when I find a site that _doesn't_ do it! It's a losing -
well, lost really - battle though; even the weather and news programming
on my TV loves slide-in, slide-up captions - not only are they
distracting, but it detracts from the time available to actually read
what they say - which is what they're there for!)
Post by Mayayana
My guess would be that they're just testing in the latest
Edge/Chrome/Firefox/Safari, which is now really just two
browser cores: Gecko and Webkit. It's probably easier to
just test in a limited way and then refuse all other browsers.
But people may not even be making that decision. It could
be that a webpage will accept IE7 but not Firefox 62. Why?
Because that's what the code they have is written to deal
with. And they don't know anything more than that.
So the fault is with the code generator they're using.
Post by Mayayana
It's also a different emphasis than it used to be. There
used to be more sense of accommodation; trying to be
prepared for all visitors. That was partly good business
but even more it was a sense of good manners. That was
Hah, long gone )-:.
Post by Mayayana
the idea with degrading gracefully. It was a sense of making
your site available to all. It was also a sense of just doing
a good job. A well designed webpage was like well-designed
anything else. Worth doing.
Indeed.
Post by Mayayana
Today so
many sites are just calculated to make money. They
don't care to accommodate. If you're not on a phone with
a self-updating browser and a credit card, they probably
don't want you, anyway.
But it spreads. The BBC are among the worst offenders, when it comes to
script and page design; I don't mean the pages where they're trying to
control access, which is fair enough, but their general pages - news and
the like - where if I _do_ use my up-to-date Chrome, all the information
is available to me free anyway, with no mention of any money. And other
people probably think the BBC is something to be emulated in their own
site design.
Post by Mayayana
Though I still come across
beautifully built sites and some are very complex. I don't
Agreed.
Post by Mayayana
know if they'll all work in IE7, but at least they work.
2
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Experience is that marvelous thing that enables you to recognize a mistake when
you make it again. -Franklin P. Jones
Mayayana
2020-05-07 19:14:25 UTC
Permalink
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <***@255soft.uk> wrote

| > Good question. I don't know the details of that. I do
| >know that few sites are coded by people who actually know
|
| I wouldn't mind that as such: we all have things we're good and bad at,
| and also things we can't be bothered with even though we could do (I
| don't cook or garden, and mostly pay someone else to fix car faults).
| But that just shifts the blame: the sloppiness/laziness as such becomes
| the fault of the HTML-generator tool authors.
|
It's not just that. People are finding snippets of script
online to jazz up their page, which typically require using
some kind of javascript "library". In other words, someone
wrote the real code and provided an option to call that
code to do X. Then someone wrote some simple code for
that. Then they posted it online. Then the yahoos found
it and pasted it into their webpages. They don't know
about compatibility. They don't know about security updates.
To say you don't mind is like saying you don't mind if the
plumber knows how to do plumbing. This is their job.

A good example of that problem is Wordpress. Many
people use Wordpress without knowing anything at all.
They let the site make their pages for them. Many other
people use Wordpress templates and plugins, to avoid
having to actually learn how to code. Then a plugin gets
hacked. But the people using it don't know anything about
updating server-side plugins. So before long, Chinese hackers
have taken over their website through the plugin vulnerability
and they're installing driveby malware. You'd never know it
because their site seems so innocent. And it is. The webmaster
has no idea how to operate a website, but WP let them
put in shopping carts, bulletin boards, and so on.

Wordpress attacks have been one of the most common
in the past. It's like people making software without knowing
about security and compatibility. You assume their software
is OK, but you'd be surpised how many programmers don't
think it's their job to know that stuff.


| > My guess would be that they're just testing in the latest
| >Edge/Chrome/Firefox/Safari, which is now really just two
| >browser cores: Gecko and Webkit. It's probably easier to
| >just test in a limited way and then refuse all other browsers.
| >But people may not even be making that decision. It could
| >be that a webpage will accept IE7 but not Firefox 62. Why?
| >Because that's what the code they have is written to deal
| >with. And they don't know anything more than that.
|
| So the fault is with the code generator they're using.

No. The primary fault is that they're not testing in
different browsers. The secondary fault is that they don't
know what they're doing. If they're using a code generator
it may be faulty or outdated. But you can't just assume
a code generator can do the job. People need to know
what they're doing.
pyotr filipivich
2020-05-08 16:32:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
| > My guess would be that they're just testing in the latest
| >Edge/Chrome/Firefox/Safari, which is now really just two
| >browser cores: Gecko and Webkit. It's probably easier to
| >just test in a limited way and then refuse all other browsers.
| >But people may not even be making that decision. It could
| >be that a webpage will accept IE7 but not Firefox 62. Why?
| >Because that's what the code they have is written to deal
| >with. And they don't know anything more than that.
|
| So the fault is with the code generator they're using.
No. The primary fault is that they're not testing in
different browsers. The secondary fault is that they don't
know what they're doing. If they're using a code generator
it may be faulty or outdated. But you can't just assume
a code generator can do the job. People need to know
what they're doing.
I suspect that there are people who have web pages, who don't have
any more idea what a web page is, than they do when they use Google
Docs for writing letters or class/work paperwork..
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?
Mayayana
2020-05-08 18:20:18 UTC
Permalink
"pyotr filipivich" <***@mindspring.com> wrote

| I suspect that there are people who have web pages, who don't have
| any more idea what a web page is, than they do when they use Google
| Docs for writing letters or class/work paperwork..

Yes. It's really two different categories: The people making
their own sites with WYSIWYG tools who don''t know what
they're doing, and the people using something like Wix, who
just create site via drag/drop. The latter group have no idea
what they're doing, but at least they're not plugging in
unsafe script. They don't even know there's code. So while
Wix is a monstrosity that produces websites completely
broken without script, it's probably at least fairly safe.
pyotr filipivich
2020-05-08 22:19:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
| I suspect that there are people who have web pages, who don't have
| any more idea what a web page is, than they do when they use Google
| Docs for writing letters or class/work paperwork..
Yes. It's really two different categories: The people making
their own sites with WYSIWYG tools who don''t know what
they're doing, and the people using something like Wix, who
just create site via drag/drop. The latter group have no idea
what they're doing, but at least they're not plugging in
unsafe script. They don't even know there's code. So while
Wix is a monstrosity that produces websites completely
broken without script, it's probably at least fairly safe.
"fairly". Sigh, the good news is that people can get a web site
without having to be a computer geek, or know one, or have to deal
with one. (I mean, it's not like lawyers, where wearing gloves is
only a little overboard.)
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?
😉 Good Guy 😉
2020-05-08 18:40:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by pyotr filipivich
I suspect that there are people who have web pages, who don't have
any more idea what a web page is, than they do when they use Google
Docs for writing letters or class/work paperwork..
"You mean like you? Have you thought of learning basic HTML/CSS and
JavaScript first? This is class 101 stuff. "
--
With over 1.2 billion devices now running Windows 10, customer
satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.
jetjock
2020-05-07 16:39:06 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 May 2020 08:20:51 -0400, "Mayayana"
Post by Mayayana
| Saved, for future reference. Hope you won't mind if I spread it
| around.
|
:) By all means. It's a frustrating and discouraging
trend. Not only the commercialization of the Internet
but also the lack of Web-literacy. 20 years ago a lot
of people were making their own websites. Now most
people don't understand that that's possible. And the
one's who do set up a site are usually using middleman
things like wordpress or wix.
But it's also a very practical issue. The woman I live
with visits more interactive sites than I do. Shopping
and such. Periodically she gets shut out
of a site for having a browser that won't work. I then
check the Firefox version. Oh, yeah, I haven't updated
the userAgent spoof for awhile. So I change it to last
week's Firefox version and... whaddaya know... it works
now!
Is it possible to change userAgent spoof in my old 52.9 ESR to reflect
the newest version of FF? If so, how please?
Post by Mayayana
jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
Mayayana
2020-05-07 19:26:03 UTC
Permalink
"jetjock" <***@unkown.com> wrote

| Is it possible to change userAgent spoof in my old 52.9 ESR to reflect
| the newest version of FF? If so, how please?
|

Yes. But as with most things, the Mozilla people have
done their best to make it too confusing. First you'll
need this value:

general.useragent.enable_overrides true

That was something they added to trip people up.
It didn't used to exist. Then you need this:

general.useragent.override xxx

xxx can be something like so:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:75.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/75.0

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:75.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/75.0

If either setting doesn't exist in about:config, create it.
The first is boolean. The second is string type.

I've been tempted to just set it to 99 so it will be
valid for awhile, but it's possible that might not work.
If their code looks for something like > 62 then you're
fine. But if the code looks for > 62 and <= 76 then
it won't work.
jetjock
2020-05-08 15:25:20 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 May 2020 15:26:03 -0400, "Mayayana"
Post by Mayayana
| Is it possible to change userAgent spoof in my old 52.9 ESR to reflect
| the newest version of FF? If so, how please?
|
Yes. But as with most things, the Mozilla people have
done their best to make it too confusing. First you'll
general.useragent.enable_overrides true
That was something they added to trip people up.
general.useragent.override xxx
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:75.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/75.0
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:75.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/75.0
If either setting doesn't exist in about:config, create it.
The first is boolean. The second is string type.
I've been tempted to just set it to 99 so it will be
valid for awhile, but it's possible that might not work.
If their code looks for something like > 62 then you're
fine. But if the code looks for > 62 and <= 76 then
it won't work.
Thank you sir for the great info & explanation!

Might I be so bold as to ask the meaning or derivation of "Mayayana? I
have found "Mahayana"...a branch of Buddhism, but nothing about
Mayayana. I have been curious about this for a long time.
Post by Mayayana
jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
jetjock
2020-05-08 16:47:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by jetjock
On Thu, 7 May 2020 15:26:03 -0400, "Mayayana"
Post by Mayayana
| Is it possible to change userAgent spoof in my old 52.9 ESR to reflect
| the newest version of FF? If so, how please?
|
Yes. But as with most things, the Mozilla people have
done their best to make it too confusing. First you'll
general.useragent.enable_overrides true
That was something they added to trip people up.
general.useragent.override xxx
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:75.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/75.0
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:75.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/75.0
If either setting doesn't exist in about:config, create it.
The first is boolean. The second is string type.
Ok, I've added both to about:config (see attached). However, when I
open the "User Agent" window in PrefBar, all I see is (attached 1).
What did I do wrong? Does the PrefBar window not work? Is there
another place to set the UA?
Post by jetjock
Post by Mayayana
I've been tempted to just set it to 99 so it will be
valid for awhile, but it's possible that might not work.
If their code looks for something like > 62 then you're
fine. But if the code looks for > 62 and <= 76 then
it won't work.
Thank you sir for the great info & explanation!
Might I be so bold as to ask the meaning or derivation of "Mayayana"? I
have found "Mahayana"...a branch of Buddhism, but nothing about
Mayayana. I have been curious about this for a long time.
Post by Mayayana
jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
Char Jackson
2020-05-08 18:25:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by jetjock
Ok, I've added both to about:config (see attached). However, when I
open the "User Agent" window in PrefBar, all I see is (attached 1).
What did I do wrong? Does the PrefBar window not work? Is there
another place to set the UA?
Looks like your NSP, aioe, stripped your attachment. If you post it at an
image hosting site, you can just include a link here.
--
Char Jackson
jetjock
2020-05-08 20:24:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Char Jackson
Post by jetjock
Ok, I've added both to about:config (see attached). However, when I
open the "User Agent" window in PrefBar, all I see is (attached 1).
What did I do wrong? Does the PrefBar window not work? Is there
another place to set the UA?
Looks like your NSP, aioe, stripped your attachment. If you post it at an
image hosting site, you can just include a link here.
Thanks. Done (see my other post).
Post by Char Jackson
Post by jetjock
jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
Mayayana
2020-05-08 18:43:53 UTC
Permalink
| Ok, I've added both to about:config (see attached). However, when I
| open the "User Agent" window in PrefBar, all I see is (attached 1).
| What did I do wrong? Does the PrefBar window not work? Is there
| another place to set the UA?

PrefBar? You type about:config into the address bar,
do a search on useragent, and see what comes up.
If you don't see those two settings, you add them.
It sounds like you did that. I don't know what PrefBar is.
If you do a search at duckduckgo for useragent you
should then see the new useragent come up. If it
doesn't look like what you entered then you'll need to
recheck the two values. If they're OK then it's possible
the mozilla people have recently added another trick to
block it.

If you attached an image it didn't come through.
This is a text-only newsgroup.

Mayayana: It means "vehicle of illusion" in Sanskrit.
Mahayana means great vehicle. Yana is vehicle.
(Hinayana: lesser vehicle. Vajrayana: indestructible vehicle...
or diamond, or adamantine vehicle.)

Maya is illusion. Years ago when I needed a pen name
for newsgroups I thought of that. It seemed appropriate
and not likely to be common. (By contrast, I get
confused over who's Peter T, Peter K, Mike D, Mike S,
etc.)
Interestingly, few people notice. Much more common is
people thinking I'm a woman because it looks like "Maryanne",
or because Latin womens' names typically end with "a".
Even the most rudimentary Asian/Buddhist literacy
is rare. Most people only know things like the common
misuse of words like mantra, and even then they probably
have no idea that's Sanskrit. It just leaked into popular
English in the 70s, to mean something like personal
guidelines. As in, "His mantra is wheat germ and exercise."

I've always found that striking. I guess because I'm a child
of the 60s/70s and didn't go to college. I learned more of
Eastern thought than Western. Everyone who goes
to college learns who Plato, Kant and Augustine are.
Everyone knows about the official great authors. No one
knows about Asian philosophy. It just occasionally leaks into
popular culture as dopey consumer items: mindfulness,
vipashyana, meditation, prayer beads, buddha statues,
magic mandalas, and so on. Lately, mindfulness has become
the best thing since sliced bread. You can buy it on
your iPhone or in adult ed classes. :)
jetjock
2020-05-08 20:23:24 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 8 May 2020 14:43:53 -0400, "Mayayana"
Post by Mayayana
| Ok, I've added both to about:config (see attached). However, when I
| open the "User Agent" window in PrefBar, all I see is (attached 1).
| What did I do wrong? Does the PrefBar window not work? Is there
| another place to set the UA?
PrefBar? You type about:config into the address bar,
do a search on useragent, and see what comes up.
If you don't see those two settings, you add them.
It sounds like you did that. I don't know what PrefBar is.
If you do a search at duckduckgo for useragent you
should then see the new useragent come up. If it
doesn't look like what you entered then you'll need to
recheck the two values. If they're OK then it's possible
the mozilla people have recently added another trick to
block it.
Here is what my search shows:
Your user agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0)
Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0
Other HTTP headers
Accept:
text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8
Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate, br
Accept-Language: en-US,en;q=0.5
Host: duckduckgo.com
Referer: https://duckduckgo.com/
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0)
Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0
COOKIE: ax=v155-3; 5=2; ad=en_US
DNT: 1
UPGRADE-INSECURE-REQUESTS: 1
Post by Mayayana
If you attached an image it didn't come through.
This is a text-only newsgroup.
I uploaded a screenshot of my About:Config settings to:
Loading Image.../file

And, just so you could see what PrefBar looks like:
Loading Image.../file

It is basically just an Add-on for FF that allows one to make quick
changes. There are more settings but those are all I use.
Post by Mayayana
Mayayana: It means "vehicle of illusion" in Sanskrit.
Mahayana means great vehicle. Yana is vehicle.
(Hinayana: lesser vehicle. Vajrayana: indestructible vehicle...
or diamond, or adamantine vehicle.)
Maya is illusion. Years ago when I needed a pen name
for newsgroups I thought of that. It seemed appropriate
and not likely to be common. (By contrast, I get
confused over who's Peter T, Peter K, Mike D, Mike S,
etc.)
Interestingly, few people notice. Much more common is
people thinking I'm a woman because it looks like "Maryanne",
or because Latin womens' names typically end with "a".
Even the most rudimentary Asian/Buddhist literacy
is rare. Most people only know things like the common
misuse of words like mantra, and even then they probably
have no idea that's Sanskrit. It just leaked into popular
English in the 70s, to mean something like personal
guidelines. As in, "His mantra is wheat germ and exercise."
Very interesting! Thanks for taking the time to explained that. I,
too, wondered as to whether you might be male or female. But since it
really doesn't matter (only the quality of your advice) I never
worried about it. Now the veil has been lifted! :-)
Post by Mayayana
I've always found that striking. I guess because I'm a child
of the 60s/70s and didn't go to college. I learned more of
Eastern thought than Western. Everyone who goes
to college learns who Plato, Kant and Augustine are.
We're drifting off topic here, but as much as you help here I think
you are entitled to a bit of leeway!

It sounds like maybe you are a "Military Brat" since you were exposed
to the Eastern philosophies. I am truly impressed with the depth of
your knowledge without a college education. Well done!!
Post by Mayayana
Everyone knows about the official great authors. No one
knows about Asian philosophy. It just occasionally leaks into
popular culture as dopey consumer items: mindfulness,
vipashyana, meditation, prayer beads, buddha statues,
magic mandalas, and so on. Lately, mindfulness has become
the best thing since sliced bread. You can buy it on
your iPhone or in adult ed classes. :)
jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
Mayayana
2020-05-08 21:31:36 UTC
Permalink
"jetjock" <***@unkown.com> wrote

|
| I uploaded a screenshot of my About:Config settings to:
| https://www.mediafire.com/view/lpj3x9kfjzcmab3/useragent.jpg/file

You left out an r in each. override. overrides.

|
| And, just so you could see what PrefBar looks like:
| https://www.mediafire.com/view/beeyseqqm4v6yup/PrefBar.jpg/file
|
| It is basically just an Add-on for FF that allows one to make quick
| changes. There are more settings but those are all I use.

I see. I wasn't aware of that.

| We're drifting off topic here, but as much as you help here I think
| you are entitled to a bit of leeway!
|

Especially with coronavirus. I think pyotr
has opened the dam.

| It sounds like maybe you are a "Military Brat" since you were exposed
| to the Eastern philosophies. I am truly impressed with the depth of
| your knowledge without a college education. Well done!!
|

Not a military brat. Almost the opposite. A very
white bread, suburban upbringing. But that kind of
thing just interested me. I was reading things like
Zen, Jung, and Joseph Campbell in high school. But
that was also the 70s. Pop songs were often
philosophical, not just anti-social strutting. And there
were a lot of ideas around. Spiritual teachers.
Philosophers. Thinkers. Jung. Buckminster Fuller.
R. D. Laing. Alan Watts. Fritzof Capra. Richard
Schultes. John Lilly. Alvin Toffler. Herbert Marcuse.
Dean MacCannell. Theosophists... On and on.
All kinds of ideas were out there and people were
interested in talking about them.

Then it seemed to fade. In the 80s/90s there was
disco, then there were nihilist clowns like Derrida.
(The French seem to turn out a self-satisfied prophet
every generation. Lately we have Bernard-Henri Lévy.)
There were the post-modernists, elevating godlessness
to perfection and redefining aesthetic as a consumer
item. All of them pulling a rabbit of false profundity out
of the sterile hat of scientific materialism. And that
was about it.

Lately it seems even worse. I was listening to
Jordan Peterson and Camille Paglia recently. So there
are people talking. But they seem to be the exception.
Naive academia still rules. Sam Harris and the new
atheists pass for philosophers. And we have glib stuff
like TED talks. "Technology, entertainment and design".
Huh?

Last week I saw Michael Moore's new movie wherein
he questions left-wing, environmentalist religious
dogma. The leftie religious zealots are tripping over
each other to attack him. Yet all he did was to say,
"Look, we need to look at this more closely and be
more intelligent, rather than just naively taking sides."
What jhappened? The left side decided he had gone
to the right side. There's no place to stand between
the opposing dogmas.


Meaning and ethics are now defined by SJWs, spoiled
youngsters who've made a full time hobby out of
taking offense, so that they can feel important and
righteous while they suck on their trust fund nipples.
Yesterday I watched Tara Reade
interviewed by Megyn Kelly, proposing that Joe
Biden should withdraw from the election; that she
alone -- one person with dubious allegations --
has a right to control the American presidential
election. And in the current atmosphere of hysteria
she could just get away with it. It's tantrum culture.
Crazy stuff.... And if we weren't OT before, we sure
are now. :)

I've known a number of military brats. It often
seems to make people more open. I suppose because
they have to adapt to new worlds during childhood.
jetjock
2020-05-09 16:49:30 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 8 May 2020 17:31:36 -0400, "Mayayana"
Post by Mayayana
|
| https://www.mediafire.com/view/lpj3x9kfjzcmab3/useragent.jpg/file
You left out an r in each. override. overrides.
|
| https://www.mediafire.com/view/beeyseqqm4v6yup/PrefBar.jpg/file
|
| It is basically just an Add-on for FF that allows one to make quick
| changes. There are more settings but those are all I use.
I see. I wasn't aware of that.>
SNIP<
I added the "r"s & here is what I get when I DuckDuckGo useragent:

(screen shots)

Loading Image.../file

Loading Image.../file

Your user agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:75.0)
Gecko/20100101 Firefox/75.0
Other HTTP headers
Accept:
text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8
Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate, br
Accept-Language: en-US,en;q=0.5
Host: duckduckgo.com
Referer: https://duckduckgo.com/
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:75.0)
Gecko/20100101 Firefox/75.0
COOKIE: ax=v155-3; 5=2; ad=en_US
DNT: 1
UPGRADE-INSECURE-REQUESTS: 1

However, (don't you just hate that word) if I shut down FF, when I
re-open it, the string value that I added to about config is gone and
I'm right back to: (see screen shot above)

Your user agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0)
Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0
Other HTTP headers
Accept:
text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8
Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate, br
Accept-Language: en-US,en;q=0.5
Host: duckduckgo.com
Referer: https://duckduckgo.com/
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0)
Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0
COOKIE: ax=v155-3; 5=2; ad=en_US
DNT: 1
UPGRADE-INSECURE-REQUESTS: 1

Any ideas?
Post by Mayayana
jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
Mayayana
2020-05-09 17:39:05 UTC
Permalink
"jetjock" <***@unkown.com> wrote

| However, (don't you just hate that word) if I shut down FF, when I
| re-open it, the string value that I added to about config is gone and
| I'm right back to: (see screen shot above)
|

I've never heard of that happening. Do you perhaps
have some kind of AV that's locking prefs.js? The setting is
in your profile folder, so that shouldn't be an issue, but
I don't know how you can lose the setting.

The only other things I could think of would be:

1) Edit prefs.js directly while FF is closed.

2) Put the line in user.js. User.js is an optional
file that works like prefs.js. If it's there, FF will
read it and apply the settings as a modification
of the prefs.js settings.

But I'm also using 52.9 with the setting in about:config
and it works fine for me. So the question is why your
prefs.js is getting edited, and by what.
jetjock
2020-05-09 20:22:18 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 9 May 2020 13:39:05 -0400, "Mayayana"
Post by Mayayana
| However, (don't you just hate that word) if I shut down FF, when I
| re-open it, the string value that I added to about config is gone and
| I'm right back to: (see screen shot above)
|
I've never heard of that happening. Do you perhaps
have some kind of AV that's locking prefs.js? The setting is
in your profile folder, so that shouldn't be an issue, but
I don't know how you can lose the setting.
1) Edit prefs.js directly while FF is closed.
2) Put the line in user.js. User.js is an optional
file that works like prefs.js. If it's there, FF will
read it and apply the settings as a modification
of the prefs.js settings.
But I'm also using 52.9 with the setting in about:config
and it works fine for me. So the question is why your
prefs.js is getting edited, and by what.
I'm about to switch to Chrome!!! This is driving me crazy. I've edited
both user.js & prefs.js, Tried user first...didn't work. Tried
prefs...didn't work, and then both...same result. I checked to see if
either( or both) were write protected...they're not. Turned off Avast
& MWB...no help No matter how I try putting that string setting in, it
just disappears when FF shuts down & restarts. The boolean setting
will stay but not the string. Here are the two settings I added. Maybe
you can see if there is something wrong with either. The string is all
one line, but it wraps here.

user_pref("general.useragent.enable_overrides", true);
user_pref("general.useragent.override" Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1;
Win64; x64; rv:75.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/75.0)
Post by Mayayana
jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
Mayayana
2020-05-09 21:35:48 UTC
Permalink
"jetjock" <***@unkown.com> wrote

| I'm about to switch to Chrome!!! This is driving me crazy. I've edited
| both user.js & prefs.js, Tried user first...didn't work. Tried
| prefs...didn't work, and then both...same result. I checked to see if
| either( or both) were write protected...they're not. Turned off Avast
| & MWB...no help No matter how I try putting that string setting in, it
| just disappears when FF shuts down & restarts. The boolean setting
| will stay but not the string. Here are the two settings I added. Maybe
| you can see if there is something wrong with either. The string is all
| one line, but it wraps here.
|
| user_pref("general.useragent.enable_overrides", true);
| user_pref("general.useragent.override" Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1;
| Win64; x64; rv:75.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/75.0)
|

I wouldn't let MWB or Avast onto my system, but I know
a lot of people like them. I once tried MWB out of curiosity.
It told me I had 10 problems. No explanations. Every one
of the items was not a problem. One, which MWB specifically
identified as a known virus, was my BootIt disk image program!

I think the trouble is that they get a worse reputation for
missing bugs than for false positives, so they tend to go
overboard. And they tend to take things over without asking,
like blocking HOSTS file edits. If you use a firewall that might
also be interfering. You say you turned off MWB and Avast,
but something is editing prefs.js. The only thing I can think
of is to run something like Filemon or Procmon after you
change the value and let it run until after you shut down
and restart FF. Then check for anything accessing prefs.js.

Also, I did a quick check and it turns out FF is actually
quite buggy in this respect. There are several things that can
cause it to not hold changes:

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Preferences_not_saved

So you could try those. But don't switch to Chrome.
Life is still worth living. :)
jetjock
2020-05-10 18:29:21 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 9 May 2020 17:35:48 -0400, "Mayayana"
Post by Mayayana
| I'm about to switch to Chrome!!! This is driving me crazy. I've edited
| both user.js & prefs.js, Tried user first...didn't work. Tried
| prefs...didn't work, and then both...same result. I checked to see if
| either( or both) were write protected...they're not. Turned off Avast
| & MWB...no help No matter how I try putting that string setting in, it
| just disappears when FF shuts down & restarts. The boolean setting
| will stay but not the string. Here are the two settings I added. Maybe
| you can see if there is something wrong with either. The string is all
| one line, but it wraps here.
|
| user_pref("general.useragent.enable_overrides", true);
| user_pref("general.useragent.override" Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1;
| Win64; x64; rv:75.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/75.0)
|
I wouldn't let MWB or Avast onto my system, but I know
a lot of people like them. I once tried MWB out of curiosity.
It told me I had 10 problems. No explanations. Every one
of the items was not a problem. One, which MWB specifically
identified as a known virus, was my BootIt disk image program!
I think the trouble is that they get a worse reputation for
missing bugs than for false positives, so they tend to go
overboard. And they tend to take things over without asking,
like blocking HOSTS file edits. If you use a firewall that might
also be interfering. You say you turned off MWB and Avast,
but something is editing prefs.js. The only thing I can think
of is to run something like Filemon or Procmon after you
change the value and let it run until after you shut down
and restart FF. Then check for anything accessing prefs.js.
Also, I did a quick check and it turns out FF is actually
quite buggy in this respect. There are several things that can
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Preferences_not_saved
So you could try those. But don't switch to Chrome.
Life is still worth living. :)
I have restored an earlier profile...no help. tried disabling Classic
Theme Restorer...no help. Put both the boolean & string entries in
user.js. The boolean is entered into prefs.js when FF starts, but the
string entry just disappears from both user & prefs.js every time FF
restarts. I'll try Filemon & Procmon to see what I can. BTW, you never
told me if the settings I used (see above) for the boolean & string
entries were correct or not.

I bet you wish you had never answered this post now! :-)
Post by Mayayana
jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
Mayayana
2020-05-10 18:49:08 UTC
Permalink
"jetjock" <***@unkown.com> wrote

| I have restored an earlier profile...no help. tried disabling Classic
| Theme Restorer...no help. Put both the boolean & string entries in
| user.js. The boolean is entered into prefs.js when FF starts, but the
| string entry just disappears from both user & prefs.js every time FF
| restarts. I'll try Filemon & Procmon to see what I can. BTW, you never
| told me if the settings I used (see above) for the boolean & string
| entries were correct or not.
|
| I bet you wish you had never answered this post now! :-)
|

I don't mind. I blame Mozilla for this madness. No one
should have to be a Firefox expert just to change settings.

The entries are correct, yes. Did you look at the page
with possible solutions? I think, though, that since one of
the settings stuck then it's probably an extension or
software. I use Secret Agent extension to customize UA
and it does exactly what you describe. If I disable SA then
the new setting will stick, but if I enable SA it removes
that settings and adds its own. So you might check all
extensions to make sure nothing is controlling the UA, then
try Procmon to check for "nanny software" or something
else controlling the setting.

Filemon is easier and more efficient than Procmon, which
bogs down when you try to stop it. Procmon also includes
Registry. So I prefer to use Filemon and Regmon, but if
you don't already have those you probably won't be able
to get them. So Procmon would be the tool to use.
jetjock
2020-05-10 22:13:27 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 10 May 2020 14:49:08 -0400, "Mayayana"
Post by Mayayana
| I have restored an earlier profile...no help. tried disabling Classic
| Theme Restorer...no help. Put both the boolean & string entries in
| user.js. The boolean is entered into prefs.js when FF starts, but the
| string entry just disappears from both user & prefs.js every time FF
| restarts. I'll try Filemon & Procmon to see what I can. BTW, you never
| told me if the settings I used (see above) for the boolean & string
| entries were correct or not.
|
| I bet you wish you had never answered this post now! :-)
|
I don't mind. I blame Mozilla for this madness. No one
should have to be a Firefox expert just to change settings.
The entries are correct, yes. Did you look at the page
with possible solutions? I think, though, that since one of
the settings stuck then it's probably an extension or
software. I use Secret Agent extension to customize UA
and it does exactly what you describe. If I disable SA then
the new setting will stick, but if I enable SA it removes
that settings and adds its own. So you might check all
extensions to make sure nothing is controlling the UA, then
try Procmon to check for "nanny software" or something
else controlling the setting.
Filemon is easier and more efficient than Procmon, which
bogs down when you try to stop it. Procmon also includes
Registry. So I prefer to use Filemon and Regmon, but if
you don't already have those you probably won't be able
to get them. So Procmon would be the tool to use.
Man, something is really messed in Mozilla. I was able to get the
string to stick if I started in safe mode and added it. If I then
clicked on "Restart with add-ons enabled" it would still be there, but
I did not have a close x on my tabs. If I then just restarted, the
string would be gone and my close x on the tabs was back.

I finally gave up and dug into PrefBar options and found some
instructions for adding a string value to that drop down menu I showed
you in one of the screen shots. SUCCESS!!! It still defaults back
to "Real UA" whenever it restarts, but all I have to do is click the
drop-down arrow and select Mozilla 75 and I'm there. Easy peasy. If
you might be interested in PrefBar, I'll send you link.

Many, many thanks for all the help!
Post by Mayayana
jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
Mayayana
2020-05-11 00:19:04 UTC
Permalink
"jetjock" <***@unkown.com> wrote

| I finally gave up and dug into PrefBar options and found some
| instructions for adding a string value to that drop down menu I showed
| you in one of the screen shots. SUCCESS!!!

Ah. I hadn't noticed PrefBar had that feature. That's
probably what was blocking your setting. It probably
needs to remove it in order to control the setting
dynamically.

| If you might be interested in PrefBar, I'll send you link.
|

Thanks, but I don't think I need such a thing. I don't
change settings, generally. I use NoScript and only
enable script if necessary. I've never installed Flash.
I've never enabled referrers. I like to always use a
typical UA: recent FF version on Win7. So I don't
really need to have easy access to those things.
jetjock
2020-05-11 14:53:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 10 May 2020 20:19:04 -0400, "Mayayana"
Post by Mayayana
| I finally gave up and dug into PrefBar options and found some
| instructions for adding a string value to that drop down menu I showed
| you in one of the screen shots. SUCCESS!!!
Ah. I hadn't noticed PrefBar had that feature. That's
probably what was blocking your setting. It probably
needs to remove it in order to control the setting
dynamically.
I thought the same...but no. I tried disabling PrefBar as one of my
many attempts to solve the problem. I guess it's possible that it
might have needed to be un-installed though.
Post by Mayayana
| If you might be interested in PrefBar, I'll send you link.
|
Thanks, but I don't think I need such a thing. I don't
change settings, generally. I use NoScript and only
enable script if necessary. I've never installed Flash.
I've never enabled referrers. I like to always use a
typical UA: recent FF version on Win7. So I don't
really need to have easy access to those things.
jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
Mayayana
2020-05-11 00:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Actually there is one setting I toggle: CSS. I got
a Disable Style Button extension that gives me a stop
sign icon on the toolbar. I love it. I'm increasingly
finding that pages are broken or hard to read and
I want to toggle CSS. But the latest New Moon breaks
that extension, so I can't update that....
it's always something. :)
Stan Brown
2020-05-12 11:23:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by jetjock
I'm about to switch to Chrome!!! This is driving me crazy. I've edited
both user.js & prefs.js, Tried user first...didn't work. Tried
prefs...didn't work, and then both...same result.
At the beginning of prefs.js it specifically says not to edit that
file, and tells you to make any edits in user.js. It implies, but
does not state explicitly, that you need to do that while Firefox
is not running.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Shikata ga nai...
Mayayana
2020-05-12 12:22:12 UTC
Permalink
"Stan Brown" <***@fastmail.fm> wrote

| At the beginning of prefs.js it specifically says not to edit that
| file, and tells you to make any edits in user.js. It implies, but
| does not state explicitly, that you need to do that while Firefox
| is not running.

Both need to be done while FF is not running.
But there's no problem with editing prefs.js. Of course, it
makes more sense to do it through about:config, but if for
some reason that's not available, editing prefs.js directly
is not a problem. Just don't screw up the formatting. :)

It seems fairly certain at this point that jetjock has some
kind of plugin or extension that's rewriting prefs.js, but at
least he solved the problem. I hadn't realized that extensions
might do such a thing, but I discovered with Secret Agent
that they do, when necessary. I guess that makes sense.
Apparently if a userAgent string is in prefs.js then an
extension can't override that.
Steve Hayes
2020-05-08 06:46:07 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 May 2020 08:20:51 -0400, "Mayayana"
Post by Mayayana
| Saved, for future reference. Hope you won't mind if I spread it
| around.
|
:) By all means. It's a frustrating and discouraging
trend. Not only the commercialization of the Internet
but also the lack of Web-literacy. 20 years ago a lot
of people were making their own websites. Now most
people don't understand that that's possible. And the
one's who do set up a site are usually using middleman
things like wordpress or wix.
But it's also a very practical issue. The woman I live
with visits more interactive sites than I do. Shopping
and such. Periodically she gets shut out
of a site for having a browser that won't work. I then
check the Firefox version. Oh, yeah, I haven't updated
the userAgent spoof for awhile. So I change it to last
week's Firefox version and... whaddaya know... it works
now!
How can I do that? Various sites that I used top use no longer work --
Linked-In, for instance, and Wordpress.
--
Steve Hayes
http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://khanya.wordpress.com
Mayayana
2020-05-08 13:29:05 UTC
Permalink
"Steve Hayes" <***@telkomsa.net> wrote

| >the userAgent spoof for awhile. So I change it to last
| >week's Firefox version and... whaddaya know... it works
| >now!
|
| How can I do that? Various sites that I used top use no longer work --
| Linked-In, for instance, and Wordpress.
|

See my post yesterday to jetjock.

But of course that's just userAgent. There could be
other changes on their sites. If you're blocking
things in HOSTS then that's always something to
consider. For instance, I can't see Google's Recaptcha
tests because I block gstatic.com. So try the UA
change. If that doesn't work you might have to look
at other possible causes.

(Example: LinkedIn has changed
over time. I just block that site entirely because since
MS bought it they closed it down and want people to
join before letting them see peoples' listings. And if I
remember correctly it's now completely broken without
script.)
Steve Hayes
2020-05-07 04:58:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Jones
I managed to see that the culprits were a) Skype (which I dont use)
taking 50% of my CPU, and b) Firefox which had 262 Gb of my RAM up its
back.
I dropped Skype when it announced that it was having automatic updates
without veto. I deleted it.
Post by John Jones
And I know this is a FAQ but there really seems to be very few trusty
browsers out there these days - what is the word on the street? Do I
have to go MS? (you do need a back-up do you not - lack of internet is a
kind of asphyxiation).
I've been using Maxthon, which seemed less bloated than Firefox.
--
Steve Hayes
http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://khanya.wordpress.com
m***@invalid.com
2020-05-07 06:21:20 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 07 May 2020 06:58:28 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by John Jones
I managed to see that the culprits were a) Skype (which I dont use)
taking 50% of my CPU, and b) Firefox which had 262 Gb of my RAM up its
back.
I dropped Skype when it announced that it was having automatic updates
without veto. I deleted it.
Post by John Jones
And I know this is a FAQ but there really seems to be very few trusty
browsers out there these days - what is the word on the street? Do I
have to go MS? (you do need a back-up do you not - lack of internet is a
kind of asphyxiation).
I've been using Maxthon, which seemed less bloated than Firefox.
A Chinese browser? Never.
Steve Hayes
2020-05-08 06:50:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@invalid.com
On Thu, 07 May 2020 06:58:28 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
I've been using Maxthon, which seemed less bloated than Firefox.
A Chinese browser? Never.
Well the alternative seems to be no browser at all, or one that
doesn't work.
--
Steve Hayes
http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://khanya.wordpress.com
pyotr filipivich
2020-05-08 16:27:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by m***@invalid.com
On Thu, 07 May 2020 06:58:28 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
I've been using Maxthon, which seemed less bloated than Firefox.
A Chinese browser? Never.
Well the alternative seems to be no browser at all, or one that
doesn't work.
And here is where I channel my former computer geek and say "I'll
write my own">

Which I shall.

Someday.

After I get the photograph files in order. B-)
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?
Shadow
2020-05-08 11:24:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@invalid.com
On Thu, 07 May 2020 06:58:28 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by John Jones
I managed to see that the culprits were a) Skype (which I dont use)
taking 50% of my CPU, and b) Firefox which had 262 Gb of my RAM up its
back.
I dropped Skype when it announced that it was having automatic updates
without veto. I deleted it.
Post by John Jones
And I know this is a FAQ but there really seems to be very few trusty
browsers out there these days - what is the word on the street? Do I
have to go MS? (you do need a back-up do you not - lack of internet is a
kind of asphyxiation).
I've been using Maxthon, which seemed less bloated than Firefox.
A Chinese browser? Never.
Why not? It probably runs well on the Chinese hardware most
people use.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
Lucifer
2020-05-23 04:43:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Jones
OK I have had a bad day, my apologies.
My problems began when my W7 HP 64bit Samsung 2011 laptop seized up.
I managed to see that the culprits were a) Skype (which I dont use)
taking 50% of my CPU, and b) Firefox which had 262 Gb of my RAM up its
back.
262 Gigabits? 26.2 GB?
Post by John Jones
So I kill -2'd firefox.
Which really screwed things up.
Every time I launched the beast it fouled my entire computer.
So I have now uninstalled it and migrated to google chrome, which I dont
like.
Would it be safe to re-install Firefox, although it does seem to have
become bloatware?
Do you think it likely that the registry or system is somehow corrupted?
Really odd things were happening including not being able to launch
control panel, all the icons being blank, windows explorer falling over,
and a white screen of death. Even the bog-this button took a long time
to stop the works.
And I know this is a FAQ but there really seems to be very few trusty
browsers out there these days - what is the word on the street? Do I
have to go MS? (you do need a back-up do you not - lack of internet is a
kind of asphyxiation).
Cheers
JJ
Paul
2020-05-23 06:59:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lucifer
Post by John Jones
OK I have had a bad day, my apologies.
My problems began when my W7 HP 64bit Samsung 2011 laptop seized up.
I managed to see that the culprits were a) Skype (which I dont use)
taking 50% of my CPU, and b) Firefox which had 262 Gb of my RAM up its
back.
262 Gigabits? 26.2 GB?
I think the OP meant "a lot of RAM", and was channeling Carl Sagan.

Loading Image...

That's a picture of Carl standing on Mars.

*******

Physical Memory Limits: Windows 7

Version Limit on X86 Limit on X64
------- ------------ ------------
Windows 7 Professional 4 GB 192 GB
Windows 7 Home Premium 4 GB ===> 16 GB <===
Windows 7 Home Basic 4 GB 8 GB
Windows 7 Starter 2 GB N/A

W7 HP 64bit just isn't big enough for any fun, and you
need the next size up. Later OSes pinched your toes a
little less.

If you have a dual Epyc motherboard, even Windows 10 Pro isn't
enough. The dual Epyc will hold something like 4TB of RAM
(32 sticks of 128GB for $38K), and you need a Workstation
license for that. The computer would be on the order of
$50K when you were finished with the RGB LEDs.

Windows 10 Pro 4 GB 2 TB
Windows 10 Pro (Workstations) 4 GB 6 TB

I predict "we'll never need more than 4TB of RAM".

For Firefox of course. While Firefox and Skype duke it out
in the Pits of Antares.

With that much RAM, I could open 4000 tabs
of the Yahoo News page in Firefox. Enough for ten years
of daily visits to the News page.

Imagine the looks on the Mozilla staff faces, when an
"about:memory" report comes in with Firefox using 4TB.

We need to get to work on this project, right away.

Paul
Sam E
2020-05-23 18:14:29 UTC
Permalink
On 5/23/20 1:59 AM, Paul wrote:

[snip]
Post by Paul
I predict "we'll never need more than 4TB of RAM".
How about 8EiB (2^63)?

[snip]
Post by Paul
   Paul
--
"Impeccable, adjective: something which cannot be destroyed by the beak
of a parrot."
Paul
2020-05-23 20:11:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam E
[snip]
Post by Paul
I predict "we'll never need more than 4TB of RAM".
How about 8EiB (2^63)?
Actually, you can't do that.

The upper bits in the address field have other purposes.

Since the OS owns the definition, and "mere programs"
are transparent to how this is done, it doesn't
matter what kind of platform you're on, and what
the page table happens to look like. For portability,
when they keep changing this, it still has to be
backward compatible.

https://superuser.com/questions/655121/on-x86-architecture-why-are-there-fewer-bits-for-virtual-address-space-than-phy

If you wrote a program for x64, got the address of a variable,
meddled with the bits above 52 or so, you'd just get a
segmentation violation, as areas an OS doesn't want you to
access, will be protected, one way or another.

Getting to exactly 2^63 would require that things
be done differently than how they are today. At a guess.

My little malloc64.exe test program, is never going to
get to 8EiB. Not ever.

Loading Image...

Paul

Loading...