Ha! Ads be gone!

On 2020-08-18, Ron wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 04:48:57 -0000 (UTC), Gremlin
wrote:

Snit
Thu, 13 Aug 2020 17:30:05 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

My INTRO students, by the end of the class, can tell you that drag
and drop is not the same as copy and paste. You two are so twisted
up in your need to be "right" that you insist they are.

It is too damned funny!

Snit, I'm sure your students understand the word concept; it's a
shame that you do not, and yet, you're in charge of their education.
How long on average did these teaching gigs actually last, Snit? Long
enough for your students to report in high enough numbers that you
weren't qualified to be teaching them?

A long time ago when snit was bragging about where he was teaching
class I did contact the school to verify his employment there because
I suspected that snit had taken over someone else's identity and
really wasn't the person he was claiming to be.
At the time, the results were inconclusive.

Could you imagine how much that would suck for the person whose identity was stolen?
There is a lot about snit that doesn't add up to a full deck. For example how can
a teacher have what seems to be the worst reading comprehension skills on planet Earth?

Then there is his whiny, nasal, irritating voice. Would you want to listen to him
wheezing and whining for an entire class?
He sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard.
Snit is such a prolific liar that it's anyone's guess what is true about him and what
is false information he purposely planted for others to discover.

I'm going to clone your signature with the snit websites if you don't mind?
It should help seed Google if anything.


--
Bob Bunker
Locked and Loaded

Snit wrote:

On Aug 18, 2020 at 12:24:22 PM MST, "VanguardLH" wrote:

...

https://www.marke****ch.com/story/wh...?mod=home-page

....

Apple's Safari does not offer its Reader View on that page... it at least
knows it cannot do it correctly.

I hunted around. Safari doesn't use the open-source readability.js
script that Firefox uses. Not a big surprise since Apple prefers
proprietary over open source.

They use a lot of open source, too -- they just seem to use whatever they
think will serve them (and their customers) best.

Instead Apple decided, back in 2010 with
Safari 5, to use Apache-licensed Arc90's original Readbility extension,
and not the current one available at that time. Apparently Safari's
readability code is hosted at https://github.com/amumu/safari-reader-js,
but that hasn't been updated in 5 years. Arc90's readability.com web
site doesn't exist anymore (since late 2017 according web.archive.org).

I don't bother tracking what Safari has since I don't use Apple stuff,
so no incentive to research into whose readability script it now uses.

Makes sense. I did not really look into how Safari handled it -- just if it
did (and if it had I would have provided an image or whatever to show it).

Is an extension listed in Safari for Reader View mode? I went to:

https://apps.apple.com/
which redirected to
https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/

When I searched on "reader view", the only candidate was at:

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/readerview/id954343811
(not free, costs $3)

I was speaking of the Reader View that it has by default.

Firefox also has a reader view extension (free) at
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...reader-viewer/. Unless
an extension provides MORE or better results than the integral
readability code in the web browser, there wouldn't be a need for these
extensions. So, if an extension provides different readability code,
maybe using someone else's readability code would work better in Safari.

What they have now works quite well -- though not perfectly. And I can have
sites set to use it automatically, which is sorta cool.

However, if the reader extension just reuses Safari's Reader API then
the extension offers nothing more besides perhaps a different GUI in
reader mode.


https://developer.apple.com/library/...theReader.html

Apple has already announced they will be supporting the open API for
extensions in the future ... so it should get much of what FireFox and Chrome
have. Being Apple, though, they also have a focus on privacy and will allow
you to have them work on a per-site basis... and will report privacy concerns.

Yeah, Apple decided to drop 12 APIs due to privacy concerns.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-...vacy-concerns/

That they "declined to include in Safari" hints that the user gets no
choice. Seems a bit rude. Perhaps the user does want the magnetometer
API to let apps use the magnometer in a device; example, a compass app.
Maybe I want a compassing extension in the web browser, but Apple
decided No on my, ahem, behalf. Of course, that doesn't prevent other
apps from accessing the device's magnetometer. Without the geolocation
API (which should always be a user choice to enable or disable), how
would asking "restaurants" find any in your area when looking at a map?
Firefox lets the user enable/disable geolocation. Chrome lets users
choose between blocked or ask before allow. Just Safari is going to
toss the entire geolcation API. Yeah, use a separate map app as a
workaround for a feature removed from the web browser. Guess Apple is
taking a different stance than Google with the ChromeOS platform where
the OS is a web browser in disguise. Dropping the Serial API seems to
make Safari an unusable client for someone to manage their smart home
through a web site that monitors the serial devices (microcontrollers)
at a remote location, or to let users use an extension that uses the
serial API instead of writing a separate standalone app that would have
to add all the code for a GUI.

As for reducing fingerprinting, when I looked into this, NONE of this
crap was used in fingerprinting you to track you. For example, I don't
see Apple disintegrating the Canvas feature in HTML5 to prevent a web
client generating a unique ID based on how it happened to render a
crafted image. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas_fingerprinting.
There are several HTML5 functions that are employed in fingerprinting,
but Apple isn't dismantling HTML5 to revert what they support back to
HTML4. Is Apple going to disable all HTML features that get tested to
check your potential fingerprinting exposure, like the tests at
https://panopticlick.eff.org/? Who thinks Apple is going to kill
support for WebGL, Canvas, User-Agent, web fonts (lets a 3rd party font
factory, like Google and Adobe, track wherever and whenever you visited
a site that uses 3rd party fonts instead of delivering them from their
own server), cookies, DOM storage, WebRTC, and CSP reports (see
https://preview.tinyurl.com/y5usubyw) from their Safari web browser?
Puh-leeze, not going to happen. Apple now considers these APIs as
privacy issues when it was *they* who decided to add them?

With Firefox, the user can enable/disable many features whether using
the GUI config screens or by going to about:config. Seems Apple should
let users choose which APIs are privacy risks. Sure, default to
disable, but let the user choose to enable. Apple doesn't appear to let
users choose. Yeah, Apple knows what is best, uh huh. A case of
overprotecting parenting syndrome: their web browser is their "home" no
matter where it is, and you will do what they say while you live in
their home. Hmm, isn't this why many users leave Chrome after a while?

"Carlos E.R." wrote:

On 18/08/2020 14.34, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 07/08/2020 20.42, Ken Blake wrote:
On 8/7/2020 11:31 AM, Snit wrote:
Ken Blake wrote:
On 8/7/2020 11:05 AM, Snit wrote:
Ken Blake wrote:
On 8/6/2020 2:36 PM, Snit wrote:
On Aug 6, 2020 at 1:45:52 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey""
wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2020 21:38:50 +0100, Snit
wrote:

Thank, I use FireFox, and never knew about Reader View.

No problem.

I just tried it on a couple of sites, and it turned out to be
terrible for me. It took away things I wanted to see. On one site,
it took away the only things I went to the site for.

Can you share the URL? I will test with Safari. Curious as to how they
compare.


https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb...free-web-pages


But that's about FireFox. I don't know anything about what's
available with Safari.

I meant sites that it showed poorly.


Here's the worst one: https://www.marke****ch.com/watchlist

I go there to see quotes for various stocks and funds. Reader View
eliminates all the quotes.

I noticed yesterday on a BBC news item that reader view (firefox)
removed half the text of the article itself.

I don't remember for sure the exact link, but it was not in English
anyway. I can search it if its of interest.


It was this one: https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-53358407

But today it is working correctly.

humor
According to web.archive.org, that page changed 9 times this year
between July 10 to July 19, inclusive. Since the last detected change
was 2 months ago back on July 19, but because you said yesterday
something was different, you need to get an ultraviolet light to see
those gremlins that normally only a cat sees (ever wonder why they
quickly snap their head to look at something that isn't there?) who are
using your keyboard and mouse.
/humor

I suppose it's possible some other extension causes the problem. After
all, for example, the purpose of an adblocker extension is to break a
web document by blocking some of its content. If it happens again,
reload the web browser with all extensions disabled and retest the site.

On Aug 18, 2020 at 2:24:26 PM MST, "VanguardLH" wrote:

Snit wrote:

On Aug 18, 2020 at 12:24:22 PM MST, "VanguardLH" wrote:

...


https://www.marke****ch.com/story/wh...?mod=home-page

....

Apple's Safari does not offer its Reader View on that page... it at least
knows it cannot do it correctly.

I hunted around. Safari doesn't use the open-source readability.js
script that Firefox uses. Not a big surprise since Apple prefers
proprietary over open source.

They use a lot of open source, too -- they just seem to use whatever they
think will serve them (and their customers) best.

Instead Apple decided, back in 2010 with
Safari 5, to use Apache-licensed Arc90's original Readbility extension,
and not the current one available at that time. Apparently Safari's
readability code is hosted at https://github.com/amumu/safari-reader-js,
but that hasn't been updated in 5 years. Arc90's readability.com web
site doesn't exist anymore (since late 2017 according web.archive.org).

I don't bother tracking what Safari has since I don't use Apple stuff,
so no incentive to research into whose readability script it now uses.

Makes sense. I did not really look into how Safari handled it -- just if it
did (and if it had I would have provided an image or whatever to show it).

Is an extension listed in Safari for Reader View mode? I went to:

https://apps.apple.com/
which redirected to
https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/

When I searched on "reader view", the only candidate was at:

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/readerview/id954343811
(not free, costs $3)

I was speaking of the Reader View that it has by default.

Firefox also has a reader view extension (free) at
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...reader-viewer/. Unless
an extension provides MORE or better results than the integral
readability code in the web browser, there wouldn't be a need for these
extensions. So, if an extension provides different readability code,
maybe using someone else's readability code would work better in Safari.

What they have now works quite well -- though not perfectly. And I can have
sites set to use it automatically, which is sorta cool.

However, if the reader extension just reuses Safari's Reader API then
the extension offers nothing more besides perhaps a different GUI in
reader mode.



https://developer.apple.com/library/...theReader.html

Apple has already announced they will be supporting the open API for
extensions in the future ... so it should get much of what FireFox and
Chrome
have. Being Apple, though, they also have a focus on privacy and will allow
you to have them work on a per-site basis... and will report privacy
concerns.

Yeah, Apple decided to drop 12 APIs due to privacy concerns.


https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-...vacy-concerns/

Interesting. Thanks.

That they "declined to include in Safari" hints that the user gets no
choice. Seems a bit rude.

All companies decide to include some things and exclude others -- and both are
important.

Perhaps the user does want the magnetometer
API to let apps use the magnometer in a device; example, a compass app.
Maybe I want a compassing extension in the web browser, but Apple
decided No on my, ahem, behalf. Of course, that doesn't prevent other
apps from accessing the device's magnetometer. Without the geolocation
API (which should always be a user choice to enable or disable), how
would asking "restaurants" find any in your area when looking at a map?

Sites can ask for your location now. Apple is changing it so you can grant
only approximate location, which I think is pretty cool.

Firefox lets the user enable/disable geolocation. Chrome lets users
choose between blocked or ask before allow. Just Safari is going to
toss the entire geolcation API.

Nope. They have now "Ask", "Deny", and "Allow" -- and are adding approximate
location.

Yeah, use a separate map app as a
workaround for a feature removed from the web browser. Guess Apple is
taking a different stance than Google with the ChromeOS platform where
the OS is a web browser in disguise.

And with Apple they get to integrate their browser and the OS very well -- I
suppose similar to ChromeOS but the OS is far more than the browser with a bit
more.

Dropping the Serial API seems to
make Safari an unusable client for someone to manage their smart home
through a web site that monitors the serial devices (microcontrollers)
at a remote location, or to let users use an extension that uses the
serial API instead of writing a separate standalone app that would have
to add all the code for a GUI.

Do not know about this... but Apple does have home control. Maybe the site
would just point to the app where it is handled better? Just guessing.

As for reducing fingerprinting, when I looked into this, NONE of this
crap was used in fingerprinting you to track you. For example, I don't
see Apple disintegrating the Canvas feature in HTML5 to prevent a web
client generating a unique ID based on how it happened to render a
crafted image. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas_fingerprinting.
There are several HTML5 functions that are employed in fingerprinting,
but Apple isn't dismantling HTML5 to revert what they support back to
HTML4. Is Apple going to disable all HTML features that get tested to
check your potential fingerprinting exposure, like the tests at
https://panopticlick.eff.org/? Who thinks Apple is going to kill
support for WebGL, Canvas, User-Agent, web fonts (lets a 3rd party font
factory, like Google and Adobe, track wherever and whenever you visited
a site that uses 3rd party fonts instead of delivering them from their
own server), cookies, DOM storage, WebRTC, and CSP reports (see
https://preview.tinyurl.com/y5usubyw) from their Safari web browser?
Puh-leeze, not going to happen. Apple now considers these APIs as
privacy issues when it was *they* who decided to add them?

There is a balance in security... so far Apple tends to do well there but they
are not perfect. I do not know what they will do with the specifics you point
to.

With Firefox, the user can enable/disable many features whether using
the GUI config screens or by going to about:config. Seems Apple should
let users choose which APIs are privacy risks.

They do -- you can use Firefox.

Or you can use Safari and know you have at least some privacy concerns
handled.

I tend to use Safari, but then jump to Chrome when needed. Safari has a menu
item to open the page you are on in other browsers on your system.

Sure, default to
disable, but let the user choose to enable. Apple doesn't appear to let
users choose. Yeah, Apple knows what is best, uh huh. A case of
overprotecting parenting syndrome: their web browser is their "home" no
matter where it is, and you will do what they say while you live in
their home. Hmm, isn't this why many users leave Chrome after a while?

I just use whatever browser serves me best. For most of my browsing that is
Safari, but there are exception. As with IE in the past, many sites are now
tested more on Chrome than anything else.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 10:49:56 +0100, David_B wrote:

On 18/08/2020 06:32, Snit wrote:
[....]
See, you deny basic facts out of your own insecurity and ignorance:

https://ibb.co/fpJry4K
https://youtu.be/xRvaRLlb3b8
https://youtu.be/xNvMu5fwUxQ

I find it amusing how much you are freaking out over it. I really do.

FYI
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/i...dress.4017295/

That reminds me, I once ****ed someone off when he posted my postcode, of where I lived a decade ago. He was then forced to reveal where he got the info from - the voting register. Then he got very angry with me for not telling the voting register I'd moved. Like I give a ****. The government has no right to know where I live.

On 18/08/2020 22:54, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 10:49:56 +0100, David_B
wrote:

On 18/08/2020 06:32, Snit wrote:
[....]
See, you deny basic facts out of your own insecurity and ignorance:

** https://ibb.co/fpJry4K
** https://youtu.be/xRvaRLlb3b8
** https://youtu.be/xNvMu5fwUxQ

I find it amusing how much you are freaking out over it. I really do.

FYI
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/i...dress.4017295/


That reminds me, I once ****ed someone off when he posted my postcode,
of where I lived a decade ago.* He was then forced to reveal where he
got the info from - the voting register.* Then he got very angry with me
for not telling the voting register I'd moved.* Like I give a ****.* The
government has no right to know where I live.

Yes, they do!

If you don't tell them, you will not be paid a State Pension! ;-)

Snit wrote:

There is a balance in security... so far Apple tends to do well there but they
are not perfect. I do not know what they will do with the specifics you point
to.

Sorry, but the uber-boobs don't visit here. For those here, they have
more expertise or, at least, more initiative to investigate privacy
settings or leaks in their choice of web client. Apple is removing the
APIs. Why not leave that choice to the *users*? The default could be
to disable, but let users make different choices. After all, they
already had the code in their web client, so just add a toggle.

I hate when web client authors shove in new functionality that I don't
want and cannot disable. I also hate when they take away functionality
that I do use, but they choose to remove it which sours me on their
product.

With Firefox, the user can enable/disable many features whether using
the GUI config screens or by going to about:config. Seems Apple should
let users choose which APIs are privacy risks.

They do -- you can use Firefox.

Or you can use Safari and know you have at least some privacy concerns
handled.

Yep, and without your permission. Shades of "Nineteen Eighty-Four: A
Novel" by Orwell (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52wis_sLT1I). By the
way, John Hurt loses in the end. They get him programmed. Instead of
choices, Apple spews FUD. Just because something can be abused doesn't
men it does get abused. God forbid you give users choices. If they're
too dumb or lazy to research the options, let 'em use the defaults. Not
all users fit that category of user.

Google pulls the same **** in their web browser, Chrome. Firefox also
does the same, but often the user still has a choice in about:config.

On Aug 18, 2020 at 6:28:18 PM MST, "VanguardLH" wrote:

Snit wrote:

There is a balance in security... so far Apple tends to do well there but
they
are not perfect. I do not know what they will do with the specifics you
point
to.

Sorry, but the uber-boobs don't visit here. For those here, they have
more expertise or, at least, more initiative to investigate privacy
settings or leaks in their choice of web client. Apple is removing the
APIs.

I will care more about functionality.

Why not leave that choice to the *users*?

The users are not the ones programming it. The programmers ALWAYS make
choices.

Now if there is functionality they lack, as they do now with so few extensions
(and we can look at specific ones) then I am more concerned.

The default could be
to disable, but let users make different choices. After all, they
already had the code in their web client, so just add a toggle.

I hate when web client authors shove in new functionality that I don't
want and cannot disable. I also hate when they take away functionality
that I do use, but they choose to remove it which sours me on their
product.

I can see where you are coming from -- but my focus is more on workflows and
what I can do with a tool.

With Firefox, the user can enable/disable many features whether using
the GUI config screens or by going to about:config. Seems Apple should
let users choose which APIs are privacy risks.

They do -- you can use Firefox.

Or you can use Safari and know you have at least some privacy concerns
handled.

Yep, and without your permission. Shades of "Nineteen Eighty-Four: A
Novel" by Orwell (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52wis_sLT1I).

Not in the slightest. As I said you can run other browsers if you want to (and
for some sites I do want to).

By the
way, John Hurt loses in the end. They get him programmed. Instead of
choices, Apple spews FUD. Just because something can be abused doesn't
men it does get abused. God forbid you give users choices.

Apple offers choices others do not... and others off choices Apple does not.
That is MORE choice, not less.

And FOR THE MOST PART I am pretty happy with the choices I have with macOS...
though I also do use Linux and Windows.

If they're
too dumb or lazy to research the options, let 'em use the defaults. Not
all users fit that category of user.

Google pulls the same **** in their web browser, Chrome. Firefox also
does the same, but often the user still has a choice in about:config.


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

Snit wrote:

As I said you can run other browsers if you want to (and
for some sites I do want to).

And you could build your own rocket to reach another habitable planet if
you don't like the air here. Extreme solution. You like to bounce
between web clients. That's not the typical use by others. Same for
bouncing between different operating systems: end users tend to stick
with just one, not boot between or have multiple hosts to have multiple
choices. Plus there is the learning curve, especially regarding
differences in usage, behavior, and feature sets of each OS or client.

How many text editors do you use?
How many word processors?
How many spreadsheet programs?
How many registry editors?
How many command shells within the same OS?
How many local e-mail clients?
How many NNTP clients connecting to Usenet?

I'm not asking about backup or secondary software in case there is a
severe problem with the primary solution. I'm talking about actively
used software. Yeah, I can have Chrome, Firefox, Edge, and others
currently installed and available, but I'm not bouncing between them
just because there are some preferences in one that another doesn't
have. I pick which is the actively used solution based on well it
covers ALL my preferences. In fact, while I have Chrome and Edge
available in Windows 10, I never use them. Yeah, they are backups, but
they are never-used backups. I rarely resort to the backup solutions
because there is a problem or defect in my primary choice. Instead I
figure out if there is a fix to my primary choice, a workaround, an
extension, or if perhaps I need to reconsider my primary solution and
change to another.

While some selections offer better solutions, users tend to find one
that is sufficient for the majority of their tasks and demands.
Installing and using multiple solutions just to employ a few differences
or preferences in each is not how the vast majority of users choose
their software. They find the *one* that is best for them from what is
available.

Saying there is choice by using something else is feminine logic. It
skirts the issue. If you discuss the deficiencies, bugs, or wants of a
particular web browser, you focus on that client. Per your rationale,
saying a text-only web browser (e.g., Lynx) is a choice. No, it isn't,
not on today's web sites.

On Aug 6, 2020 at 10:29:57 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey""
wrote:

Found it. To prevent adblocker detection, disable javascript for that
site. In Opera you click the padlock to the left of the URL. I think all
browsers are the same.


Often you can just open the URL in a private window:

https://youtu.be/kwFmbrIHfkw

But sometimes I have to turn off javascript:

https://youtu.be/byLhAY1YqKQ



--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On Aug 18, 2020 at 9:04:01 PM MST, "VanguardLH" wrote:

Snit wrote:

As I said you can run other browsers if you want to (and
for some sites I do want to).

And you could build your own rocket to reach another habitable planet if
you don't like the air here. Extreme solution.

Right. Same with using a tool -- you can use what is provided in the tool or
you can want to fiddle with every little thing no matter if it really is going
to make coherent whole or not, and for many users this means a lower
experience.

Apple tends to offer limits, but those limits are, generally, well thought out
(there are exceptions!). But all software offers limits, and all software has
things which can -- and thing which cannot -- be configured (well, with open
source your can alter the code and change even those, but must users will not
do this and over time it will get very cumbersome to do so).

You like to bounce
between web clients. That's not the typical use by others.

Sure. And for typical users any of the major browsers will work well.

Same for
bouncing between different operating systems: end users tend to stick
with just one, not boot between or have multiple hosts to have multiple
choices. Plus there is the learning curve, especially regarding
differences in usage, behavior, and feature sets of each OS or client.

Absolutely agree.

How many text editors do you use?

On a regular basis? Mostly just BBEdit... oh, and TextEdit. I used to use vi
but have not been a regular user of that in far too long to have it count. I
use a number of other tools to edit text... so it depends on how you split
things (word processors, notes tools, etc.)

How many word processors?

These days mostly Pages, but also MS Word and sometimes LibreOffice Writer.
And Google Docs sometimes.

How many spreadsheet programs?

Same basic list of suites.

How many registry editors?

Generally none, though I did recently use a Registry Cleaner with pretty
amazing results. Did not spend the time to see what it really did, but my
"dead" Windows VM is running well again. Yippeee! I have Photoshop again (even
though it is an older version).

How many command shells within the same OS?

Generally just one.

How many local e-mail clients?

I used to use Apple Mail and Thunderbird -- now almost nothing but Mail

How many NNTP clients connecting to Usenet?

Thunderbird, Usenapp, and Newstap. Sometimes tinker with others.

I'm not asking about backup or secondary software in case there is a
severe problem with the primary solution. I'm talking about actively
used software.

Depends on my needs for each... with Text Editors, for example, BBEdit and
TextEdit serve rather different needs. So do Pages and MS Word. I do use MS
Word less than I used to, but I used to use both often.

And I use QuickTime player, Apple TV, and VLC to watch videos... and Apple
News and Google News... and Apple Maps and Google Maps... and iMovie and
ScreenFlow (both movie editors)... and Skype and Zoom for teleconferencing
(and Facebook -- but only on Chrome because it does not work on Safari).

I get where this is NOT what many do... and I think that is your point.

Yeah, I can have Chrome, Firefox, Edge, and others
currently installed and available, but I'm not bouncing between them
just because there are some preferences in one that another doesn't
have.

I mostly use Safari and Chrome -- each has features that I like. And it is
good to have Chrome where I do not care about bookmarks for the most part.

I pick which is the actively used solution based on well it
covers ALL my preferences.

I tend to jump around a lot, but I think your usage is quite common. Certainly
not putting you down for it.

In fact, while I have Chrome and Edge
available in Windows 10, I never use them. Yeah, they are backups, but
they are never-used backups. I rarely resort to the backup solutions
because there is a problem or defect in my primary choice. Instead I
figure out if there is a fix to my primary choice, a workaround, an
extension, or if perhaps I need to reconsider my primary solution and
change to another.

For me I tend to learn how to get a task done best no matter the tool --
though of course I do not try all tools! But if I know a number of them
reasonably well I can intelligently pick between making a video in iMovie or
ScreenFlow (or even things like Keynote -- or often a combo). And I might use
images edited in Photoshop, Preview (with extensions), Krita, Paint S, etc.

While some selections offer better solutions, users tend to find one
that is sufficient for the majority of their tasks and demands.
Installing and using multiple solutions just to employ a few differences
or preferences in each is not how the vast majority of users choose
their software. They find the *one* that is best for them from what is
available.

Yes. While *I* often do not do that I am not claiming you are wrong about
that.

Saying there is choice by using something else is feminine logic.

I sincerely have no clue what you could even mean by this... though I suspect
it is some misogynistic insult. Can you explain.

It
skirts the issue. If you discuss the deficiencies, bugs, or wants of a
particular web browser, you focus on that client. Per your rationale,
saying a text-only web browser (e.g., Lynx) is a choice. No, it isn't,
not on today's web sites.

There are times I have wanted a text only browser... but, sure, I would not
use it as my main client.

But nothing here suggests for most people Safari does not work well (other
than voice and video not working on FaceBook and a few other areas were it
does not work well).

On that last point: why do some sites which work better on Chrome on MacOS not
work well on Chrome on ChromeOS. That is rather maddening!

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

Snit wrote:

why do some sites which work better on Chrome on MacOS not work well
on Chrome on ChromeOS. That is rather maddening!

https://www.whatismybrowser.com/guid...r-agent/chrome

If the site is not using the correct User Agent (UA) strings in their
tables regarding recognition of the visiting client, they could be
altering their HTML code or scripts to match on the wrong client.

Still hunting for the UA string sent by Chrome on a Chromebook. Ooh,
maybe these are them:

https://www.whatismybrowser.com/guid...gent/chrome-os

While the "Safari" substring is the same in all the UA strings with
Chrome on different OS platforms, the OS substring differs to match the
OS platform.

https://www.cnet.com/news/vivaldi-br...es-dont-break/

Extensions have been around for a long time to let the user lie in the
UA string as to what web client they are using when connecting to a
site. In Firefox, you can use about:config to change the UA string
without needing an extension (although it's very manual editing, and you
need to ensure you are substituting a valid UA string that tables in the
sites will recognize). UA is deprecated because of this ability to lie
to the server which client is connecting to it. The recommendation is
to test the client if it supports functions needed by the site's
document code or their services. That requires more code than just
using the UA string the client already gives the server and use a lookup
table of UA strings to decide what the web document will contain.

Another problem with Chrome is that Google and other webdevs have made
some sites to work only if you visit using Chrome. They fail or are
crippled if you visit with any other web browser. That is, there are
some Chrome-only web sites. Just wonderful! Microsoft did this, too,
back when they were the web browser king. There were sites that would
only with with IE's HTML and only when using IE's Jscript (not
Javascript, but Microsoft's own Jscript variant of Javascript).

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/4/16...-web-standards

While Google claims the problem is less prevalent than before, I just
hit one of those Chrome-only web sites just over a week ago. Alas, I
dismissed it so fast by going elsewhere for the same information that I
don't remember where was the site that puked on me when connecting there
with Firefox.

Otherwise, and without further information, I don't know why Chrome
buried in ChromeOS would behave differently than Chrome on macOS or
Windows. Other doing some repairs on a few Chromebooks, I'm not
familiar with that OS (which used to be Chrome in disguise, but Google
had to add ancilliary functionality to be competitive to iPads).


In addition ...

When Google threatened to move to Manifest v3 (well, it already has)
that limits the list size for extensions, adblockers will become far
less effective in Chrome. Google wanted to limit the in-memory list to
just 30K entries while totally neglecting that adblockers have long
compressed and tweaked their lists to use minimal memory (Adblock Plus
needed a fix which severely reduced their memory footprint). I'm using
uBlock Origin (uBO) and have around 130K network entries (and 150K
cosmetic filters, but I might disable those) for the various blacklists
to which I have uBO subscribed. EasyList alone is over 70K entries, so
it immediately puts the adblock user over Google's initially proposed
30K limit. Google backed off from the 30K limit and went up to 150K. I
don't subscribe to any of hosts files for adblocking. If I did add the
hosts files (Peter Lowe, Dan Pollock, and MVPS), that would add another
27K entries (well, another 23K since uBO eliminates the duplicates), so
I'd be above Google's 150K limit. No one knowledgeable about Google's
new limit is expecting Google's backpeddling to be permanent.

https://www.ghacks.net/2019/11/13/go...ome-canary-80/

I'm now at Chrome v84. When Google announced the severely restricted
in-memory list size, adblock authors denounced the move as it would make
adblockers far less effective. But that's what Google wants. They
don't want users to use large blocklists, especially an aggregate of
blacklists to overlap on type of blocked content (uBO removes the
duplicates before writing the blocklists into memory, and I suspect do
others, too, like Adblock Plus). They don't want their analytics or
other tracking disabled (through blocking) because they rely on revenue
generated by selling those services to sites that want to analyze,
troubleshoot, and tweak their sites based on the telemetry.

https://developer.chrome.com/extensi...to_manifest_v3
https://www.xda-developers.com/googl...extension-api/

I don't see a list maximum specified in V3. I suspect Google will
eventually decide on a list maximum, and we'll get V3.1. If Google does
make good on their initial list size restriction, many adblock authors
have stated they will discontinue supporting Chrome (and its variants).
It's a "**** us? **** you!" response.

Manifest V3 change also denied access to the WebRequest API. That
allowed adblockers to interrogate a web document BEFORE it got rendered
thereby preventing any initial connection to resources that would
otherwise get blocked.

By default, Chrome and Firefox will pre-fetch web documents that are
hyperlinked in the current web document being rendered. Their rationale
is that the user will likely visit those other web pages by clicking on
hyperlinks in the current web page. When pre-fetching is active, the
user will supposedly experience all of a 250 ms speedup to render the
pre-fetched (cached) web pages. Yet what user goes clicking on EVERY
link in a web page? The operation is backgrounded, but it still
consumed bandwidth.

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wi...e-pre-fetching

In Firefox, pre-fetching is an about:config setting, so an extension can
disable web document pre-fetching. I use uBO for both Firefox and
Chrome, and have it disable pre-fetching by the web browser.
Pre-fetching not only subverts adblocking, but it lets the current site
to track where you went: while at a web page, that server in cooperation
with another server can see you pre-fetched documents from the other
server. Of course, this is only one method the web browsers have
catered to analytics/telemetry wanted by sites at the expense of user
privacy. Not many users disable the Javascripted hyperlink auditing.

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wi...rlink-auditing

I haven't bothered to investigate how to natively disable the auditing
in Firefox or Chrome, because uBO has an option to block that, um,
feature.

https://blog.malwarebytes.com/privac...sable-it-gone/
Oh oh, if the article is correct, Firefox will follow by removing the
option. So, I don't know if uBO will remain effective in however it is
currently disabling hyperlink auditing. For a long time, web browsers
have moved to catering to the wants of web sites to track you while
pretending they are adding other features to protect your privacy. Give
some, taketh away, and end result is zero.

When Google removed several tab management functions, and because
extensions are not allowed to modify the chrome (little "c") in Chrome,
I decided I had enough of trying to massage Chrome into a decent web
client. Google claimed their telemetry returned to them from Chrome
showed few users used those tab options, they proved they were spying on
their users even more. I used the Reopen Closed Tab all the time.
Firefox still has it (as "Undo Close Tab").

While I have Chrome installed, it is a clean setup where only the config
screens are used to change options for Chrome. No extensions are
installed. Privacy is not a concern since Chrome will only be used when
I cannot figure out why Firefox isn't working. I could use a fresh/new
profile in Firefox that is devoid of extensions and about:config tweaks,
but that won't eliminate if their is an inherent problem within Firefox
itself, like in a new version.

Now that Edge has moved from the EdgeHTML to Blink (Chromium) renderer,
there's even less reason to keep Chrome as a backup web client,
especially since Chromium Edge has more privacy options than Chrome. It
sure will be a pain to eradicate all the file and registry remnants left
after an uninstall of Chrome (or of Google anything). I really only
need one backup or alternate-test web browser, not two.

I've repeatedly tried to go to Chrome, but end up leaving it, try it
again, leave it again, ad nauseum. It is just not tweak-able. Hell,
users have been clamoring for a new-tab foreground focus option ever
since Chrome showed up. Google never listened. The solution to many
deficiencies in Chrome is to install yet another extension. My opinion
is the more extensions you need the more proof the web browser doesn't
meet your criteria and the more fragile becomes the web browser in
relying on 3rd party code.

In article , Snit
wrote:

If you think I am wrong about Apple being in the process of moving away
from Intel and to their own Silicon, or their own Silicon doing things
they specifically say it does not, then show evidence.

And you showed no evidence and tried to pretend I said something else, but
you, of course, do not even suggest what you think I said.

several people provided clear evidence that clearly shows you to be
wrong, which despite repeated explanations, you did not understand.

I noted, correctly, that if Apple cared deeply about Intel virtualization
(specifically in terms of x86 Windows) -- in context more than they care about
other things this transition is offering them -- that they would not move away
from Intel (or would provide better virtualization, I suppose).

apple never cared much about virtualizing windows, making your notation
incorrect.

this is fundamental to your misunderstanding about what apple is and is
not doing.

But you felt the need to have content-free trolling as your response. You do
that a lot.

that would be you.

significant content was provided, which you immediately ignored to
further your trolling.

Really, there is nothing controversial about what I am saying... why do you
argue just to argue? What do you get out of it? Why not move away from that
and talk about tech? At least when Gremlin went off topic in his reply he
focused on the tech, and I appreciate that.

you are delusional if you believe that, let alone expect others to fall
for it.

it's always been focused on the tech, which shows you to be wrong.

you are not interested in learning why you're wrong and continue to
argue, making your claim that you'd appreciate that it should be
focused on tech laughable.

In article , Snit
wrote:

Apple's Safari does not offer its Reader View on that page... it at
least knows it cannot do it correctly.

I hunted around. Safari doesn't use the open-source readability.js
script that Firefox uses. Not a big surprise since Apple prefers
proprietary over open source.

not true. apple is a very strong proponent of open source.

safari uses webkit, which apple created and is open source.

They created it based on an existing projects (KHTML and KJS for the most
part).

khtml is where it started, however, apple rewrote just about all of it.

google is
one of several companies that uses apple's webkit, which they forked
and called blink, and is the basis of chrome.

It is interesting how you note (correctly) that Blink is a fork of Webkit but
do not note what Webkit is a fork of.

the origins of webkit are entirely irrelevant.

what you fail to understand (a recurring theme) is that apple's
competitors are using apple's open source code.

the original claim that apple is against open source is bogus. apple is
a very strong proponent of open source, with a myriad of projects
they've created and contributed to.

In article , VanguardLH
wrote:


Yeah, Apple decided to drop 12 APIs due to privacy concerns.


https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-...-apis-in-safar
i-due-to-privacy-concerns/

That they "declined to include in Safari" hints that the user gets no
choice. Seems a bit rude.

what's rude are companies that use that and other metrics for no
purpose other than to track users.

there is no credible reason why a web site would need to use the
magnetometer. if there was, then it would not have been blocked.

Perhaps the user does want the magnetometer
API to let apps use the magnometer in a device; example, a compass app.

compass apps are unaffected and work fine.

Maybe I want a compassing extension in the web browser, but Apple
decided No on my, ahem, behalf. Of course, that doesn't prevent other
apps from accessing the device's magnetometer. Without the geolocation
API (which should always be a user choice to enable or disable), how
would asking "restaurants" find any in your area when looking at a map?
Firefox lets the user enable/disable geolocation. Chrome lets users
choose between blocked or ask before allow. Just Safari is going to
toss the entire geolcation API.

safari is not tossing the entire geolocation api.

Yeah, use a separate map app as a
workaround for a feature removed from the web browser. Guess Apple is
taking a different stance than Google with the ChromeOS platform where
the OS is a web browser in disguise. Dropping the Serial API seems to
make Safari an unusable client for someone to manage their smart home
through a web site that monitors the serial devices (microcontrollers)
at a remote location, or to let users use an extension that uses the
serial API instead of writing a separate standalone app that would have
to add all the code for a GUI.

why would anyone want to manage their smart home in a browser when
there are far better and more efficient methods?

in fact, apple provides an entire framework for managing a smart home
and iot devices so that users are not forced to use proprietary apps
that usually don't work well and covertly spy on them.

however, users can still use a browser if they prefer.

As for reducing fingerprinting, when I looked into this, NONE of this
crap was used in fingerprinting you to track you.

the unfortunate reality is that websites will use whatever they can get
to fingerprint and track users.

For example, I don't
see Apple disintegrating the Canvas feature in HTML5 to prevent a web
client generating a unique ID based on how it happened to render a
crafted image.

they block a substantial amount of browser fingerprinting.

they obviously can't 'disintegrate' everything or a lot of sites will
cease to work.

With Firefox, the user can enable/disable many features whether using
the GUI config screens or by going to about:config. Seems Apple should
let users choose which APIs are privacy risks. Sure, default to
disable, but let the user choose to enable. Apple doesn't appear to let
users choose.

users can choose whatever they want and always have been able to do so.

use firefox or chrome or any of a number of other browsers if you
prefer. they're not as focused on privacy, but they are nonetheless
available options.