0 users browsing Discussion. | 1 guest | 21 bots
| creaothceann |
Posted on 19-02-26, 06:58 (revision 1)
|
 Post: #78 of 456 Since: 10-29-18 Last post: 47 days Last view: 4 days |
Posted by jimbo1qaz Thanks, that fixed it. Even works as soon as I switch tabs, no reloading needed. My current setup: Super Famicom ("2/1/3" SNS-CPU-1CHIP-02) → SCART → OSSC → StarTech USB3HDCAP → AmaRecTV 3.10 |
| Nicholas Steel |
Posted on 19-02-26, 09:16 (revision 6)
|
|
Post: #127 of 426
Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 501 days Last view: 16 days |
Posted by funkyassIf it's the Anti-Aliasing add-on I'm thinking of, no, it's not still available (not compatible with the Web Extension format). All setting values for gfx.font_rendering.cleartype_params.rendering_mode I usually used a value of 3 (I think) via the Anti-Aliasing Tuner add-on for Firefox, I guess I have to manually make that change now that the add-on no longer works. Edit: Maybe I didn't use a value of 2 or 3, GDI font looks nasty >.> AMD Ryzen 3700X | MSI Gamer Geforce 1070Ti 8GB | 16GB 3600MHz DDR4 RAM | ASUS Crosshair VIII Hero (WiFi) Motherboard | Windows 10 x64 |
| nyanpasu64 |
Posted on 19-02-26, 11:02 (revision 2)
|
|
Post: #24 of 77
Since: 10-31-18 Last post: 1192 days Last view: 1119 days |
-1 and 0 are *very* different. -1 makes Firefox specifically enables GDI-style "sharp and colorful" antialiasing for several older Microsoft fonts. (search cleartype to see which fonts) 0 lets DirectWrite decide how to render text (I think it chooses between 4 and 5 based on font size). Also changing the order of gfx.content.azure.backends (requires browser restart) will change how the cleartype settings are interpreted, in confusing ways. (Replace content with canvas to change how canvas is rendered.) (I think cairo is slow, especially for pdf.js.) |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-02-26, 11:13
|
|
Custom title here
 Post: #273 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 66 days Last view: 3 days |
Posted by jimbo1qaz I never understood why applications override the system antialiasing settings on a regular basis. Much less why browsers allow individual websites to override them. GOD DAMMIT, I DISABLED SUBPIXEL ANTIALIASING FOR A REASON*, STOP TURNING IT BACK ON! *Specifically, because it doesn't work through my glasses and just gives everything weird color fringes instead. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| Screwtape |
Posted on 19-02-27, 13:22
|
|
Full mod
 Post: #135 of 443 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 1104 days Last view: 175 days |
Today I wandered into about:config to look for a setting, and discovered it's been redesigned and rebranded, including a cute cartoon dinosaur like the one that appears on the "DNS error" page. At first I wondered why they'd put that much effort into a page that end-users generally won't see anyway, but apparently it was part of the "de-XUL all the things" push that's going on. The ending of the words is ALMSIVI. |
| Nicholas Steel |
Posted on 19-02-27, 13:29
|
|
Post: #129 of 426
Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 501 days Last view: 16 days |
It hasn't been redesigned in a stable build yet thankfully, but that does look worrying. Can you still double click an entry to edit it or must you click the small Edit button on the right of each entry? AMD Ryzen 3700X | MSI Gamer Geforce 1070Ti 8GB | 16GB 3600MHz DDR4 RAM | ASUS Crosshair VIII Hero (WiFi) Motherboard | Windows 10 x64 |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-02-27, 13:56
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #276 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 66 days Last view: 3 days |
And I thought the cutesy "this will void your warranty" scare-tactic cartoon when you enter it was bad. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| Screwtape |
Posted on 19-02-27, 13:57
|
|
Full mod
Post: #136 of 443 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 1104 days Last view: 175 days |
Double-clicking an entry does nothing, you have to click the button on the right. One kind-of-useful feature that's now gone: previously, all the modified settings were sorted at the top of the list so you could find them easily. Now they're always in alphabetical order, like in very old versions of Firefox and Seamonkey. The ending of the words is ALMSIVI. |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-02-27, 14:02
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #278 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 66 days Last view: 3 days |
If I ever gain access to a time machine, I'm sabotaging Moz/b to prevent Team Firefox from ever gaining enough power to ruin everything. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-02-27, 16:32 (revision 1)
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #45 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1764 days |
And you can't run userscripts on it either, because Mozilla is vehemently opposed to users having any kind of freedom at all. What's the point of this extension nonsense? It should be trivial to patch Firefox to take extensions in dll/so format that interact with the internal API. That would solve the whole issue of 'sandboxing' and other crap, enabling you to run precisely whatever native code you wish at full performance (e.g. no more praying webextensions gives you the proper API) You'd have to put some hooks in but that's pretty much all. Can't be that hard. Why hasn't anyone done it before? EDIT: Apparently they had the feature in before, but they took it out due to "stability" or "security" or whatever. Christ, what unimaginable stupidity. But it's okay, because they replaced it with something else that they then deprecated. Give them an inch... There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| Screwtape |
Posted on 19-02-28, 03:30
|
|
Full mod
Post: #137 of 443 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 1104 days Last view: 175 days |
> It should be trivial to patch Firefox to take extensions in dll/so format that interact with the internal API. Anti-virus tools do this kind of thing all the time, and it's something like the #1 cause of Firefox crashes and security holes. The ending of the words is ALMSIVI. |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-02-28, 04:30
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #280 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 66 days Last view: 3 days |
Posted by ScrewtapeMan, the more I see of antivirus code quality, the more I'm convinced they're worse than the viruses. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| NTI |
Posted on 19-02-28, 12:55 (revision 1)
|
 Post: #18 of 40 Since: 10-29-18 Last post: 714 days Last view: 714 days |
Yeah, nowadays antiviruses are worse than the disease itself. |
| wareya |
Posted on 19-02-28, 14:38
|
 Post: #47 of 100 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 1784 days Last view: 1349 days |
Depends on the AV. You still need SOMETHING. |
| tomman |
Posted on 19-02-28, 18:08
|
|
Dinosaur
 Post: #175 of 1317 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 2 days Last view: 18 min. |
I've been using Windows XP without any AV solution installed since 2012, when Avast creamed its pants and MSE became a bloaty pig for your lowly P4s. Or [insert snarky "just use Linux"/"Macs don't get viruses" remark here]. Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free, enemy of All Things JavaScript™ |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-02-28, 23:03
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #49 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1764 days |
Posted by Screwtape They should make them a better API then. Why can't they put them in a separate process like everything else? There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| wareya |
Posted on 19-02-28, 23:37
|
|
Post: #48 of 100 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 1784 days Last view: 1349 days |
AV products shouldn't be hooking into browsers at such a low level in the first place. If you can't do it through a normal extension the user installs manually then you shouldn't do it at all. |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-02-28, 23:54
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #51 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1764 days |
Posted by wareya AV products shouldn't be, at all. Maybe they could exist in the form of something like VirusTotal, but nothing else. I can't remember last time I used one and I've never had any trouble with viruses. In addition, they're completely useless for thwarting any kind of qualified attacks, only protecting against the exact same type of malware that ordinary common sense would protect you from. But for other extensions, it might be useful. For instance, ad blockers could do things with lower resource use if it could hook in at whatever level it wanted and run native code. Likewise, you could fix parts of the browser (like about:config) you couldn't previously touch. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| Screwtape |
Posted on 19-02-28, 23:55
|
|
Full mod
Post: #139 of 443 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 1104 days Last view: 175 days |
> It should be trivial to patch Firefox to take extensions in dll/so format that interact with the internal API. That would solve the whole issue of 'sandboxing' and other crap, enabling you to run precisely whatever native code you wish at full performance > Why can't they put them in a separate process like everything else? "let's get rid of all the sandboxing for performance and flexibility, and then sandbox everything in separate processes for predictability and security". > If you can't do it through a normal extension the user installs manually then you shouldn't do it at all. But how can we justify charging people a $50 annual subscription fee if we don't visibly indulge our hubris? The ending of the words is ALMSIVI. |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-03-01, 01:55
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #52 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1764 days |
No, not sandboxed in a separate process. It should still have full access to the memory of the Firefox process, but if it crashes it shouldn't bring FF down with it, but rather just stop interacting with the browser. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
