If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
logging in to YouTube (Google)
In message , Mayayana
writes: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote FF used email as well, but had pre-filled it in for me. That's probably FF remembering form fields, rather than a cookie. Well, the page (in Normal Firefox) also shows my Google picture, which I wouldn't have thought would be remembered in anything. (Neither the email nor the picture appears in a Firefox "Private Browsing" window.) I don't know what to make of all that, but it does seem like you're getting different scripts. The two Seems likely - the two pages look different, and behave differently (well, the Chrome one doesn't do anything). [] There's no explanation for that based on simply using different browsers. But Google webpages are extremely complex, with a lot of script. It's Obviously too much so for their own good in this case! hard to know what they might be doing. It could also be a bug on their end. I wonder what would happen if you enter the FF URL into Chrome. Here's what I've just done: Opened a new Private Browsing window in Firefox 27. Gone to youtube.com. Clicked SIGN IN. Copied the URL to Chrome. It was https://accounts.google.com/ServiceL...2F%2Fwww.youtu be.com%2Fsignin%3Faction_handle_signin%3Dtrue%26ne xt%3D%252Fsupported_bro wsers%253Fnext_url%253D%25252F%26feature%3Dsign_in _button%26app%3Ddesktop %26hl%3Den-GB&passive=true&uilel=3&service=youtube&hl=en-GB#identifier I get what looks like the same page as I've had before in Chrome. Here's what I get: http://255soft.uk/temp/Clipboard01.jpg Shows the two windows side by side (I've narrowed the Firefox-private one so you can see all the Chrome one). Below is what's in the Chrome URL bar now - I don't know why it's different from the above, as it was cut and pasted _from_ the above; either it immediately redirected, or has changed as a result of my trying to enter an address and press enter or click NEXT. However, _whatever_ I do on the Chrome window (enter any address, including the fake one shown, and press enter or click NEXT; or, click on the Forgot ... or Create ... links), Nothing Happens - it just sits there. https://accounts.google.com/signin/v...ttps%3A%2F%2Fw ww.youtube.com%2Fsignin%3Faction_handle_signin%3Dt rue%26next%3D%252Fsuppo rted_browsers%253Fnext_url%253D%25252F%26feature%3 Dsign_in_button%26app%3 Ddesktop%26hl%3Den-GB&passive=true&uilel=3&service=youtube&hl=en-GB&flowN ame=GlifWebSignIn&flowEntry=ServiceLogin#identifie r I've just fired up IE11 (I had to look to see what it was - I never use it), entered youtube.com, and clicked Sign In. It takes me to https://accounts.google.com/signin/v...ttps%3A%2F%2Fw ww.youtube.com%2Fsignin%3Fnext%3D%252F%26hl%3Den-GB%26feature%3Dsign_in_b utton%26app%3Ddesktop%26action_handle_signin%3Dtru e&hl=en-GB&passive=true &service=youtube&uilel=3&flowName=GlifWebSignIn&fl owEntry=ServiceLogin , which looks identical to the Chrome window, with the _exception_ that it has "Google" in coloured letters (image rather than text) above "Sign in". But if I type in an email and press enter or click NEXT, it behaves as the Chrome one does - i. e. nothing happens. I'd be interested to hear what _you_ see with any of the above URLs in any of your browsers - and, if you get something that looks like what I see in Chrome or IE, whether _anything_ happens if you enter an email (a fake one will do) and press enter or click NEXT. Incidentally: YouTube's normal functions - the playing of video clips, searching for same, chaining to other video clips - works fine for me in Chrome, if I use their services _without_ signing in; I just can't (for example) leave comments, vote a video up or down, or similar. Just like anyone else using YouTube "anonymously". (Which I've put in quotes as I'm sure they do know enough about me from tracking etcetera.) Works better than in Firefox 27, in fact; some of those normal functions don't work in that old browser (videos usually play sound-only, for example). -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they don't want to hear. - Preface to "Animal Farm" |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
logging in to YouTube (Google) [SOLVED]
STOP PRESS:
I just tried: o blanking my hosts file (taking a copy of course!) o reload on YouTube login page on Chrome and this time, it actually let me log in. So YouTube's login, when accessed using up-to-date Chrome, obviously loads something from a different site (or set of sites) than their login when accessed with Firefox 27. Poor script/webpage design, though, to have designed a page that appears to do nothing, rather than generate an error message. I've restored my hosts file, and was still able to vote for a video, and add a comment to one. Let's hope it remembers enough cookies etc.! But at least I know how to get round it again if I have to. (No, I'm not going to work through all of my hosts file to see which was the line it needed!) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Some people don't seem to be happy without a reason to be unhappy - Roderick Stewart , in uk.tech.broadcast 2017-8-10 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Best Browser for WinXP?
Unbelievably, Chrome doesn't offer that option. There is an
extension - called, perhaps unsurprisingly, "Blank New Tab Page" that gives it to you (though it actually loads a blank page rather than no page, so it [a] appears in the history [b] takes a short but non-zero time). Can you not create your own local blank page and tell Chrome to make it your home page? Hi, Yes you can. I used an empty folder at the root of my HD as the default page. Example, "C:\BLANK". This solved that problem. John |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
logging in to YouTube (Google) [SOLVED]
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote
| (No, I'm not going to work through all of my hosts file to see which was | the line it needed!) Here's what I find it that page: (I keep a handy VBScript on my desktop to extract URLs from a downloaded webpage, for use with HOSTS.) accounts.google.com fonts.gstatic.com ssl.gstatic.com www.youtube.com www.gstatic.com support.google.com www.google.com accounts.youtube.com lh3.googleusercontent.com Though some of those, like the gstatic URLs, will allow Google to follow you around online if you enable them. You apparently don't mind, but anyone who doesn't like Google's spying should be aware that many commercial sites now load fonts from Google. Generally for no good reason. I suspect it might be part of Google analytics package. And a lot of commercial sites want to use Google analytics. By allowing Google to spy on their customers they get to share in the data. Even a lot of smaller sites use GA because they don't know how to read their own server logs, or because their websites are not directly hosted on a real server that has logs. (For instance, I doubt people who put their site on Wordpress or Wix get server logs. It's sort of like setting up a site on one's own ISP -- a limited functionality for people who want to build a website using drag-drop techniques. If they can figure out how to add Google analytics code then Google will give them access to a visitor report.) The URLs above are only the ones that are not obfuscated. There could be others. Google's webpages are incredibly messy; obfuscation on top of obfuscation. And almost pure script. It's not a webpage at all. It's a very large piece of secretive software. It's become fashionable to "minify" and obfuscate such code. So even if you try to read it, it's very difficult to figure out what it's doing. In some cases the code itself is encoded in Base64 or some other encoding. Then when that's decoded you just get something like: a=function(b,c,d,e,f) The first landing page even uses deliberately nonsensical CSS code to make it unreadable: div class="kRoyt MbhUzd" jsname="ksKsZd" I don't know what "jsname" is. It's not a valid HTML attribute. So it may be a custom thing that Google's using. Also worth noting is that Google is using code to block bots. But I don't know the details of that. | | Poor script/webpage design, though, to have designed a page that appears | to do nothing, rather than generate an error message. | Yes. That's surprisingly common. But I wouldn't rule out the possibility that they're trying to break other browsers. I'd consider it more likely than not. Google have become very pushy about their walled spyware garden. A few years ago Microsoft had a site. I don't remember exactly what it was now, but I think it was something like a survey for Windows developers, about what they wanted to see in products. At any rate, it was along those lines. Not meant for the general public. I went to the site and found it broken. A big discussion ensued in one of the programming groups. It turned out that MS had craftily broken the site for anything but IE. No messages or warnings. It was just broken. Interestingly, a number of party line programmers thought I was being anti-Microsoft to even suggest that. I had to prove it with code samples. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
logging in to YouTube (Google) [SOLVED]
In message , Mayayana
writes: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote | (No, I'm not going to work through all of my hosts file to see which was | the line it needed!) Here's what I find it that page: (I keep a handy VBScript on my desktop to extract URLs from a downloaded webpage, for use with HOSTS.) accounts.google.com fonts.gstatic.com ssl.gstatic.com www.youtube.com www.gstatic.com support.google.com www.google.com accounts.youtube.com lh3.googleusercontent.com Of those, the only ones in my hosts file were ssl.gstatic and www.youtube, and www.youtube was actually commented out. So ssl.gstatic could be the one - or, as you say, another one that's obfuscated beyond the capabilities of your VBscript. [] The URLs above are only the ones that are not obfuscated. There could be others. Google's webpages are incredibly messy; obfuscation on top of obfuscation. And almost pure script. It's not a webpage at all. It's a very large piece of secretive software. Along with many webpages these days )-:. [] Yes. That's surprisingly common. But I wouldn't rule out the possibility that they're trying to break other browsers. I'd consider it more likely than not. Google have become very pushy about their walled spyware garden. But in this case, pleasingly, it's their own Chrome in which it didn't work for me! [] I was going to add at least a comment to that line in the hosts file, but something's preventing me saving the modified hosts file. I had this a few months ago, and I can't remember what it was, other than that it was something highly unexpected. It's obviously happened in the last day or two, as I was able to save a completely blank one when I discovered that that's what was stopping the login page working. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Where [other presenters] tackle the world with a box of watercolours, he takes a spanner. - David Butcher (on Guy Martin), RT 2015/1/31-2/6 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Best Browser for WinXP?
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
logging in to YouTube (Google) [SOLVED]
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote
| I was going to add at least a comment to that line in the hosts file, | but something's preventing me saving the modified hosts file. I had this | a few months ago, and I can't remember what it was, other than that it | was something highly unexpected. Blocking HOSTS edits has become common because malware sometimes tries to edit it. So AV and firewalls may interfere, along with Windows file restrictions. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
logging in to YouTube (Google) [SOLVED]
In message , Mayayana
writes: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote | I was going to add at least a comment to that line in the hosts file, | but something's preventing me saving the modified hosts file. I had this | a few months ago, and I can't remember what it was, other than that it | was something highly unexpected. Blocking HOSTS edits has become common because malware sometimes tries to edit it. So AV and firewalls may interfere, along with Windows file restrictions. I didn't remember what the offender had been the last time. I managed to save the change this time by o saving from NotePad+ as hosts.txt o deleting hosts o renaming hosts.txt to hosts (IIRR accepting a warning window on the way) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Capital flows toward lower costs like a river to lowest ground. "MJ", 2015-12-05 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Best Browser for WinXP?
On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 12:22:51 -0400, wrote:
I like FF more than Chrome because I turned off Remember History. Also, I can specify a blank page when I launch FF. I was unable to find these options with Chrome. I reverted to FF 41, as the later versions were too bloated and kept crashing. You could also try Maxthon -- a bit clunky, but it works. --- Ignore the following - it's spammers for spambot fodder. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Best Browser for WinXP?
Steve Hayes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 12:22:51 -0400, wrote: I like FF more than Chrome because I turned off Remember History. Also, I can specify a blank page when I launch FF. I was unable to find these options with Chrome. I reverted to FF 41, as the later versions were too bloated and kept crashing. You could also try Maxthon -- a bit clunky, but it works. --- Ignore the following - it's spammers for spambot fodder. Then learn how to use a proper sigdash delimiter line! Else, your post is itself spam fodder and should be killfiled. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Best Browser for WinXP?
Steve,
I reverted to FF 41, as the later versions were too bloated and kept crashing. Do you know anything about the difference of encryption suites between FF 41 and 52 ? Some time ago I have sought for something, anything which would desccribe it in relation to the different FF versions, but could not find it. And I don't like that 52 too much either - for one it has got a nice number of URLs it wants to call "home" to, with nothing decent I could find to easily disallow it. Second is that IIRC "pocket" stuff that I have not been able to disable/remove. By the way: the webs dropping of older encryption suites is why I need to replace FF 16, and why I would like to know what 41 supports (no fun to keep replacing versions) Regards, Rudy Wieser |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Best Browser for WinXP?
On Wed, 4 Jul 2018 22:23:45 +0200, "R.Wieser"
wrote: Steve, I reverted to FF 41, as the later versions were too bloated and kept crashing. Do you know anything about the difference of encryption suites between FF 41 and 52 ? Some time ago I have sought for something, anything which would desccribe it in relation to the different FF versions, but could not find it. And I don't like that 52 too much either - for one it has got a nice number of URLs it wants to call "home" to, with nothing decent I could find to easily disallow it. Second is that IIRC "pocket" stuff that I have not been able to disable/remove. I think it was the "pocket" stuff that made FF so bloated and unusable, so I went back to a version that didn't have it, and would run without crashing, or freezing while it swapped to disk. By the way: the webs dropping of older encryption suites is why I need to replace FF 16, and why I would like to know what 41 supports (no fun to keep replacing versions) I'm not sure about that -- perhaps someone else knows. -- Steve Hayes http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm http://khanya.wordpress.com |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Best Browser for WinXP?
the best browser you can get is seamonkey:
http://seamonkey-project.org/ (i hope that is the correct url) its made by mozilla it looks like netscape still updated to this day uses firefox ESR code i have been using it for years works really nicely Steve Hayes wrote in message ... On Wed, 4 Jul 2018 22:23:45 +0200, "R.Wieser" wrote: Steve, I reverted to FF 41, as the later versions were too bloated and kept crashing. Do you know anything about the difference of encryption suites between FF 41 and 52 ? Some time ago I have sought for something, anything which would desccribe it in relation to the different FF versions, but could not find it. And I don't like that 52 too much either - for one it has got a nice number of URLs it wants to call "home" to, with nothing decent I could find to easily disallow it. Second is that IIRC "pocket" stuff that I have not been able to disable/remove. I think it was the "pocket" stuff that made FF so bloated and unusable, so I went back to a version that didn't have it, and would run without crashing, or freezing while it swapped to disk. By the way: the webs dropping of older encryption suites is why I need to replace FF 16, and why I would like to know what 41 supports (no fun to keep replacing versions) I'm not sure about that -- perhaps someone else knows. -- Steve Hayes http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm http://khanya.wordpress.com |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Best Browser for WinXP?
Gogo268 wrote:
the best browser you can get is seamonkey: http://seamonkey-project.org/ (i hope that is the correct url) its made by mozilla it looks like netscape still updated to this day uses firefox ESR code i have been using it for years works really nicely For v2.49.x, yes. See https://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/legacy web page since future versions will drop XP, Server 2003, Vista, and Server 2008. -- Quote of the Week: "Ants never sleep." --Ralph Waldo Emerson, poet Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly. /\___/\Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org / http://antfarm.ma.cx / /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit- | |o o| | ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and URL/link. \ _ / ( ) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|