A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » General XP issues or comments
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

No Google



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old July 8th 16, 06:35 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
KenK
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 444
Default No Google

VanguardLH wrote in :

For ANY software that incorporates its own certificate, and to use
Firefox with that software, it must install its cert into Firefox's
private cert store. Mozilla has set a bad precedent: if other programs
did the same, it would be a huge mess for one program to get its cert
installed into the private cert store of many other programs.


Current Firefox problem seems to be corrected.

I was not aware of this. Perhaps I should be thinking of another browser
before this happens again. Any suggestions?

TIA


--
You know it's time to clean the refrigerator
when something closes the door from the inside.






Ads
  #18  
Old July 9th 16, 03:15 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,881
Default No Google

KenK wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

For ANY software that incorporates its own certificate, and to use
Firefox with that software, it must install its cert into Firefox's
private cert store. Mozilla has set a bad precedent: if other
programs did the same, it would be a huge mess for one program to
get its cert installed into the private cert store of many other
programs.


Current Firefox problem seems to be corrected.

I was not aware of this. Perhaps I should be thinking of another browser
before this happens again. Any suggestions?


Warning: A long reply follows. For those with short attention spans,
move on to another post.

The nuisance of Mozilla using a private certificate store in Firefox has
pushed me to near over the edge of moving to a different web browser (a
Chromium-based one but definitely not Google's version). So far, the
anti-virus and video stream capture software that I have can be made to
work with Firefox (sometimes with a reinstall of them with Firefox
present or with an option to get them to reinsert their cert into
Firefox's private certificate store).

When I first got hit by Mozilla's abnormal practice of use a private
certificate store, it took me awhile to figure out what was the problem.
Some software authors didn't know what it was. I had to learn by being
Mozilla's involuntary guinea pig. I had trialed Google Chrome several
times but each time the trial lasted only 1 to 6 hours before I
eradicated the beast. So I stuck with Firefox. Now when Firefox starts
puking about about not connecting to an HTTPS web site, I start thinking
about what might've wanted to install cert into Firefox's private cert
store. I've found that the AV programs that install their cert into
Firefox will often required a different cert (different hash value) with
a new version of their program. Their old cert is unusable with their
new software. Either their update had better install the new cert (and
delete the old one) or have an option to insert their new cert into
Firefox. I'm not going to figure out how to manuall install a cert into
Firefox. I could figure that out but I don't want to do it. Too much
effort caused by what I see as an egomaniacal choice by Mozilla.

Internet Explorer can use the global certificate store (the one managed
by the operating system). All Chromium-based web browsers can use the
global (OS-managed) cert store. So why did Mozilla decide to use a
private cert store? I really don't care about their reasons, only about
the nuisance they caused their users. Imagine if EVERY program
(involved in encrypting content or network traffic) had its own private
certificate store. Chaos and massive nuisance. It's the slipper slope
concept: they made a bad choice but luckily no one en masse has followed
their lead. For now I will continue using Firefox but a few more
insults regarding certs would make me rethink my choice of primary web
browser.

As for a Chromium-based web browser, I had trialed Opera (the new
version that changed away from the Presto to the Blink rendering
engine). Forget now why I decided not to go with that one. As I
recall, I discovered that they were still redirecting searches through
their proxy server. As an option, they have HTTP requests go through
their proxy server which will compress the target host's traffic sent
back to you. That reduces bandwidth to you, they incur the overhead of
compressing the traffic to you, so pages supposedly pop up faster in
Opera. However, it also means you allow their server to see to where
you surf. They can make all the claims about privacy and security but
we've all heard those promises before and yet data breaches still
happen. So I disabled their compression proxy feature so Opera would
supposedly connect direct to the target host. Then I poked into some of
its config files and found they were still redirecting some online
search requests through their proxy server. You thought you submitted a
search request to one site but it actually went to Opera's server to
query the target search site and then Opera's proxy server returned the
results to you. Naughty naughty. That's spying regarding of what they
say they do or won't do with that information.

So no Opera for me. No Google Chrome crap for me, either. No
experimental noobie variants, either. I settled on using Slimjet as my
secondary web browser but only as a backup. It is for use when I
encounter unfathomable problems with Firefox to see if those problems
are absent in another web browser or to circumvent some anomalies in
Firefox that I don't have to research. Slimjet is too simplistic and
not as user-configurable as I enjoy with Firefox.

I am NOT into adding add-on after add-on to Firefox to make up for its
deficiencies, anomalies, or Mozilla deciding to yank away features
previously available. Of course, to get equivalent features that are
native in Firefox into Google Chrome meant that I had to install over
half a dozen add-ons at the start (I think the total number of
equivalencing add-ons went up to 9 or 10 at one point). Just too many
piglets hanging on the teats for my taste. Webcentric apps that need to
use certs can be problematic with Firefox. If it gets worse, and just
as with Thunderbird whose trial failed for me after around 6 months, I
will search for something better. I might be able to mold Slimjet into
something that I like. Personally I dislike all this minimalism
engendered by web browser authors. If the price of a no-frills car was
the same price as the same car with lots of frills, would you still get
the no-frills car? Yeah, I know, the cliche of "more to go wrong" but
then there is "more to enjoy". Besides with all the problems that I've
encountered with Firefox, I've become way more of an expert than should
be expected to just be as a user. Ignorance is bliss. A little
knowledge can lead you into wasting lots of time.

The Chromium-based web browsers not only isolate each tab into its own
process to isolate crashes and for security but they also isolate each
add-on into that tab process. So an add-on that ****s up for one tab
process won't effect failure on other tab processes. Alas, that also
means you are loading N copies of your M add-ons for every X tabs you
open. The security model means eating up memory faster. That is
probably why Mozilla has stuck with one process (firefox.exe) running
both the chrome and all tabs. They are planning on an E10s
(Electrolysis) release that copies the Chromium solution of using a
separate process for each tab but its memory footprint is horrendous.
With the same number of tabs open in Google Chrome and Firefox E10s, the
memory footprint of Firefox E10s is more than twice that of Google
Chrome. It will be a memory pig when it gets released. Mozilla will
also limit the number of tab processes (to share them with more tabs) at
a smaller number of open tabs than does Google Chrome. That is, Firefox
will throttle itself faster as to the total number of tab processes
sooner than does Google Chrome (who uses much less memory than Firefox
E10s to start with). The future of Firefox is not promising.

So I haven't quite made up my choice other than when I leave Firefox
that I will be moving to a Chromium-based web browser but not Google's!
I'll probably take another look at Opera and hope my prior analysis was
incorrect about their redirection for some search sites. However, Opera
is a bit too "commercial" for my present taste. I don't how to put it
concretely but something about Opera (the company, not the web browser)
that twerks my comfort level. The years of Mozilla being in bed with
Google made me squirmy, too.

If I do re-trial Opera, twould be nice if they provided a natively
portable version, not one that relies on the PortableApps platform (see
http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/opera_portable). I'd want Opera
to make its own portable version instead of relying on code from a 3rd
party. I've read that you can elect a custom install (something like
"Standalone/USB") but already read that moving the target location for
that portable "installation" resulted in problems, like config files or
profiles could not be found. If true, my guess is the program is using
absolute pathing to its installation path rather than relative pathing.
Besides, a truly portable version does not require an installer but just
require copying files or unzipping to a specified location, and you can
move that anywhere (different drive, different media type, networked
media, etc).
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.