Re: Widevine Content Decryption Module plugin
Andy K wrote:
> On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 6:43:32 PM UTC-5, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>> Andy K wrote:
>>> On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 12:21:22 PM UTC-5, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Andy K wrote:
>
> I cant get netflix to play movies on my computer.
>
> I get error code F7352.
>
> I think I need this, but can't find it.
>
> Widevine Content Decryption Module plugin
>
I just added user.js preference
user_pref("general.useragent.override.netflix.com", "Mozilla/5.0
(Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0");
Works just fine...lousy useragent sniffing.
>>
>>>
>>> It didn't help.
>>>
>>
>> Well I don't have any "Widevine Content Decryption Module plugin' in my
>> plugin list
>
> Interesting. I can play netflix movies on Firefox.
>
> Strange since Seamonkey is built on the same platform as Firefox.
It won't play if Seamonkey is in the useragent string.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
---
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Adblock Plus for SM?
On 9/3/18, Hawker wrote: > On 9/2/2018 11:51 AM, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote: > >Do what you must but I would switch probably to Chromium then. > > Part of why I am still on Mozilla products is I don't trust > Google/Chromium to not be harvesting my online activity to use to create > a profile of me and sell that information. While I realize it is a > mostly futile effort these days I do try to protect my privacy as best > as realistic. Google doesn't seem safe. > > I am told there is a built without all the google data mining and > privacy invasion stuff but after an hour of searching I couldn't find a > Windows executable version. Any ideas where to get working builds > without the google privacy invasion components? My question is if it's possible to get a chromium browser without any of the google data mining. I look at stuff like this https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium A number of features or background services communicate with Google servers despite the absence of an associated Google account or compiled-in Google API keys. Furthermore, the normal build process for Chromium involves running Google's own high-level commands that invoke many scripts and utilities, some of which download and use pre-built binaries provided by Google. and wonder about all the chromium based alternative browsers. Why in the world Mozilla doesn't just make a "all of our data collection will be opt-in" statement and yank the rug out from under chrome is beyond me. As it is, I'm wondering how much longer Firefox will be ... not be relevant since they're not hardly now but.. what? Above 5% in browser market share maybe? Lee > > > > >> uBlock is really the better product nowadays. >> >> > (which I only use for the increasing number of websites that won't >> work in SM) >> >> I don't see many breakages which are real. Most can be fixed with >> setting the user agent. With most web sites still supporting IE 8 only a >> few really break. Most are google ones and they do it in for Fx too. >> >> > I wonder how soon we will realistically see a Seamonky build with the >> Firefox 60 ESR or newer code. I really don't want to move away from SM, >> but the lack >> >> Maybe 6 months to a year. Firefox has problems of its own and becomes a >> permanent construction camp so anything after 2.57 is off for now. Do >> what you must but I would switch probably to Chromium then. The Fx ui >> degrades with every release now so you can just use the original which >> imho already looks cleaner than Fx. >> >> Locally compiled 2.53 and 2.49.5 both work a champ for me so I don't >> have any need to switch now. Newer web features will probably become a >> problem in a year or two but seriously I don't want things like service >> workers and wasm anyway. I really doubt this will do security any good. >> >> FRG >> >> Hawker wrote: >>> Thank you both for the clear explanation. >>> >>> Sounds like I'm stuck where I am. A few of my ABP filters are now >>> saying "this filter subscriptions requires a newer ABP version" >>> This is going to be a security risk soon I assume as I fund ABP does a >>> better job keeping add based virus out than my AV products. >>> >>> Alas your comment "Most are a joke compared to their former xul based >>> ones." Is sadly true. Some of the extensions I see in my Firefox >>> install (which I only use for the increasing number of websites that >>> won't work in SM) have way more limited UIs than the XUL version. I'm >>> hoping with time they can reach the functionality of the old versions. >>> Is there something about how they work that means they never will? >>> And a few of my favorite extensions have not been ported. >>> >>> I wonder how soon we will realistically see a Seamonky build with the >>> Firefox 60 ESR or newer code. I really don't want to move away from >>> SM, but the lack of developers to keep the code current is putting the >>> handwriting clearly on the wall for SM's demise. >>> >>> >>> On 8/30/2018 12:43 PM, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote: Thunderbird 60 and SeaMonkey 2.57 are/will not be based on 52 code but on Firefox 60 ESR code. Web extensions were never developed with a program like Thunderbird in mind. TB now adds web extensions apis and support but I doubt they will be able to make any of the current ad or script blockers work in the near time. If not for developer shortage this would be actually easier for SeaMonkey which already has a browser in place. But the whole Firefox implementation is a mess with parts in the browser frontend and parts in the Gecko backend. And for quantum architectural changes. Most was already in 56 and starting with 57 it was just lets rip this and this and that and this out. It needs to be supported but besides from a few key extensions like uBlock and NoScript you won't miss much with web extensions. Most are a joke compared to their former xul
Re: Widevine Content Decryption Module plugin
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 6:43:32 PM UTC-5, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> Andy K wrote:
> > On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 12:21:22 PM UTC-5, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> >> Andy K wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I cant get netflix to play movies on my computer.
> >>>
> >>> I get error code F7352.
> >>>
> >>> I think I need this, but can't find it.
> >>>
> >>> Widevine Content Decryption Module plugin
> >>>
> >>
> >> I just added user.js preference
> >>
> >> user_pref("general.useragent.override.netflix.com", "Mozilla/5.0
> >> (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0");
> >>
> >> Works just fine...lousy useragent sniffing.
> >>
>
> >
> > It didn't help.
> >
>
> Well I don't have any "Widevine Content Decryption Module plugin' in my
> plugin list
>
> --
> Take care,
>
> Jonathan
> ---
> LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
> http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Interesting. I can play netflix movies on Firefox.
Strange since Seamonkey is built on the same platform as Firefox.
Andy
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Widevine Content Decryption Module plugin
Andy K wrote:
> On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 12:21:22 PM UTC-5, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>> Andy K wrote:
>>>
>>> I cant get netflix to play movies on my computer.
>>>
>>> I get error code F7352.
>>>
>>> I think I need this, but can't find it.
>>>
>>> Widevine Content Decryption Module plugin
>>>
>>
>> I just added user.js preference
>>
>> user_pref("general.useragent.override.netflix.com", "Mozilla/5.0
>> (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0");
>>
>> Works just fine...lousy useragent sniffing.
>>
>
> It didn't help.
>
Well I don't have any "Widevine Content Decryption Module plugin' in my
plugin list
--
Take care,
Jonathan
---
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: How to disable the cache for just one site ?
David E. Ross wrote on 03-09-18 04:51: On 9/2/2018 4:14 PM, Ray_Net wrote: David E. Ross wrote on 03-09-18 01:03: On 9/2/2018 1:52 PM, Ray_Net wrote: I had a problem because SM show me the old version of a page on a site. To avoid this, I put the cache length = 0 But now, some sites are too slow. How can I disable the cache for just one site ? I have disabled caching entirely. Too many Web sites are generated or modified "on the fly", through PHP, server-side includes, or scripts. That means many cached Web pages are not current. With a good broadband connection, I do not notice much delay except when I encounter a Web server with problems. You have disabled completely the cache by going into about:config then put: browser.cache.disk.enable to FALSE ? Yes, through an entry in file user.js. Anyway, with no caching I encounter a website who is too slow now. So It's better to not disable the cache What about: "Compare the page in the cache to the page on the network" set to: "Every time I view the page" When an HTML file is generated or modified "on the fly", its time-stamp is set to when that happens. With "Compare the page in the cache to the page on the network" set to "Every time I view the page", the time-stamp of the file on the Web server has to be fetched for comparison with the time-stamp on the cached file. Thus, if a Web server is slow, the comparison will be slow. If the comparison fails, rendering the Web page will be slower than if caching were disabled because you must add the fetching of the server's time-stamp to the downloading of the HTML file. At one time, security implemented in Mozilla-based browsers meant that Web pages downloaded as HTTPS were never cached. I do not know if this is still true. However, more and more Web sites now use HTTPS instead of HTTP. If not caching HTTPS sites is indeed still true, it further reduces any benefits from caching beyond the reduction from "on the fly" generation or modification of Web pages. My broadband connection gives me more than 75 Mbps downloads. I chose to disable caching because fewer and fewer Web sites benefit. OK, so the best way, for me, could be: - cache enabled. - cache size = 0 MB So my offending site will not be cached - and I must accept that other sites could be more slow because of cache size = 0. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Widevine Content Decryption Module plugin
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 12:21:22 PM UTC-5, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> Andy K wrote:
> >
> > I cant get netflix to play movies on my computer.
> >
> > I get error code F7352.
> >
> > I think I need this, but can't find it.
> >
> > Widevine Content Decryption Module plugin
> >
>
> I just added user.js preference
>
> user_pref("general.useragent.override.netflix.com", "Mozilla/5.0
> (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0");
>
> Works just fine...lousy useragent sniffing.
>
> --
> Take care,
>
> Jonathan
> ---
> LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
> http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
It didn't help.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Widevine Content Decryption Module plugin
Andy K wrote:
>
> I cant get netflix to play movies on my computer.
>
> I get error code F7352.
>
> I think I need this, but can't find it.
>
> Widevine Content Decryption Module plugin
>
I just added user.js preference
user_pref("general.useragent.override.netflix.com", "Mozilla/5.0
(Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0");
Works just fine...lousy useragent sniffing.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
---
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: How to disable the cache for just one site ?
Ray_Net wrote: I had a problem because SM show me the old version of a page on a site. To avoid this, I put the cache length = 0 But now, some sites are too slow. How can I disable the cache for just one site ? Dear Ray, I do not think that that is possible. -- https://facebook.com/gerardjan.vinkesteijn Karl's version of Parkinson's Law: Work expands to exceed the time alloted it. User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.4 Build identifier: 20180711183816 ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Widevine Content Decryption Module plugin
I cant get netflix to play movies on my computer. I get error code F7352. I think I need this, but can't find it. Widevine Content Decryption Module plugin ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Google.com malfunction with SM 2.49.4
And here I thought I was the only one. I thought it was my machine or something I did. no...@nonospam.org wrote: Yesterday morning, when I went to google.com, the cursor was displaced to the top of the search box instead of being centered, and as I typed in a search some of the words would spill over to a second line in the search box. This happened only with SM, and it happened on every computer I tried it on. Later in the day, the problem disappeared, but today it is back again. I haven't seen this on any other website. Why is this only showing up on SM and not on Firefox, IE11, or Edge? Any ideas on how to eliminate it? Thanks! John ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Adblock Plus for SM?
On 9/2/2018 11:51 AM, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote: >Do what you must but I would switch probably to Chromium then. Part of why I am still on Mozilla products is I don't trust Google/Chromium to not be harvesting my online activity to use to create a profile of me and sell that information. While I realize it is a mostly futile effort these days I do try to protect my privacy as best as realistic. Google doesn't seem safe. I am told there is a built without all the google data mining and privacy invasion stuff but after an hour of searching I couldn't find a Windows executable version. Any ideas where to get working builds without the google privacy invasion components? uBlock is really the better product nowadays. > (which I only use for the increasing number of websites that won't work in SM) I don't see many breakages which are real. Most can be fixed with setting the user agent. With most web sites still supporting IE 8 only a few really break. Most are google ones and they do it in for Fx too. > I wonder how soon we will realistically see a Seamonky build with the Firefox 60 ESR or newer code. I really don't want to move away from SM, but the lack Maybe 6 months to a year. Firefox has problems of its own and becomes a permanent construction camp so anything after 2.57 is off for now. Do what you must but I would switch probably to Chromium then. The Fx ui degrades with every release now so you can just use the original which imho already looks cleaner than Fx. Locally compiled 2.53 and 2.49.5 both work a champ for me so I don't have any need to switch now. Newer web features will probably become a problem in a year or two but seriously I don't want things like service workers and wasm anyway. I really doubt this will do security any good. FRG Hawker wrote: Thank you both for the clear explanation. Sounds like I'm stuck where I am. A few of my ABP filters are now saying "this filter subscriptions requires a newer ABP version" This is going to be a security risk soon I assume as I fund ABP does a better job keeping add based virus out than my AV products. Alas your comment "Most are a joke compared to their former xul based ones." Is sadly true. Some of the extensions I see in my Firefox install (which I only use for the increasing number of websites that won't work in SM) have way more limited UIs than the XUL version. I'm hoping with time they can reach the functionality of the old versions. Is there something about how they work that means they never will? And a few of my favorite extensions have not been ported. I wonder how soon we will realistically see a Seamonky build with the Firefox 60 ESR or newer code. I really don't want to move away from SM, but the lack of developers to keep the code current is putting the handwriting clearly on the wall for SM's demise. On 8/30/2018 12:43 PM, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote: Thunderbird 60 and SeaMonkey 2.57 are/will not be based on 52 code but on Firefox 60 ESR code. Web extensions were never developed with a program like Thunderbird in mind. TB now adds web extensions apis and support but I doubt they will be able to make any of the current ad or script blockers work in the near time. If not for developer shortage this would be actually easier for SeaMonkey which already has a browser in place. But the whole Firefox implementation is a mess with parts in the browser frontend and parts in the Gecko backend. And for quantum architectural changes. Most was already in 56 and starting with 57 it was just lets rip this and this and that and this out. It needs to be supported but besides from a few key extensions like uBlock and NoScript you won't miss much with web extensions. Most are a joke compared to their former xul based ones. FRG NFN Smith wrote: Hawker wrote: I have Adblock Plus 2.9.1 installed on Seamonkey. My subscriptions are starting to say I need a newer version to work. I can't seem find a SM compatible version of Adblock to download. Is 2.9.1 (over 1 year old) the last version to work? Where can I find newer versions? I believe that 2.9.1 is the most recent version that will run in Seamonkey, and I get the impression that that one isn't going to get any more updates. I know that I've also been running 2.9.1 in Thunderbird, and it works fine in TB 52.x, but on the installation I have that I upgraded to Thunderbird 60, Thunderbird disables it. In Thunderbird, I believe that v60 is still 52.x code, but where essential updates are being backported from Firefox ESR 60. Thus, Thunderbird still supports XUL extensions, but for V60, extensions must be tweaked to allow for explicit support of V60. Realistically, until both Seamonkey and Thunderbird can finish the move to WebExtensions, users of both are mostly going to limited to extensions whose status is essentially frozen in time. There may be a some developers who do stuff for Seamonkey or
Re: Google.com malfunction with SM 2.49.4
rjkrjk wrote: plz explain how this is done, tks you don't need to know everything no...@nonospam.org wrote on 9/2/18 6:00 PM: Replying to a couple of suggestions from different responders: Clearing my cache did not fix this. Using the Prefbar add-on, changing my User Agent from SM to Firefox DID fix it. Switching ** back and forth between the two, it is repeatable. Thanks for the suggestions! John Paul in Houston, TX wrote: Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=3=3041415=14808162#p14808162 no...@nonospam.org wrote: Yesterday morning, when I went to google.com, the cursor was displaced to the top of the search box instead of being centered, and as I typed in a search some of the words would spill over to a second line in the search box. This happened only with SM, and it happened on every computer I tried it on. Later in the day, the problem disappeared, but today it is back again. I haven't seen this on any other website. Why is this only showing up on SM and not on Firefox, IE11, or Edge? Any ideas on how to eliminate it? Thanks! John Google has changed a few things in the last few days. IMO, they did initial testing a few weeks ago. My user string does not have your problem in SM on this machine, but the same string in FF on a different machine does what you said. On both machines Google has eliminated the URL that bypasses their "search help" so that now every letter I type gets sent to Google which then suggests search words. I hate that and their reporting home. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com -- https://facebook.com/gerardjan.vinkesteijn Karl's version of Parkinson's Law: Work expands to exceed the time alloted it. User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.4 Build identifier: 20180711183816 ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: How to disable the cache for just one site ?
On 9/2/18, David E. Ross wrote: <.. snip lots ..> > At one time, security implemented in Mozilla-based browsers meant that > Web pages downloaded as HTTPS were never cached. I do not know if this > is still true. I think it's controlled in about:config browser.cache.disk_cache_ssl set to true or false > However, more and more Web sites now use HTTPS instead > of HTTP. If not caching HTTPS sites is indeed still true, caching of https sites is enabled for me > it further > reduces any benefits from caching beyond the reduction from "on the fly" > generation or modification of Web pages. Wasn't there something that showed cache hits & misses since SM was started? I thought I saw something like that a long time ago but I can't find it now. > My broadband connection gives me more than 75 Mbps downloads. I chose > to disable caching because fewer and fewer Web sites benefit. We've had this discussion before. Not everyone has an internet connection fast enough to allow us to disable the cache and not notice any difference :( For the curious, you can click on Tools / Web Development / Toggle Tools & then click on the Network tab load a web page and it'll tell you - which page elements were loaded from cache - how long it took to load the other elements of the page Regards, Lee ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
