I keep getting this by now very familiar "We're sorry FF had a problem
and crashed..." but the real problem is that FF wasn't and isn't
running. Never seen this level of care before :-)

Just noticed this today while operation Suse Leap-15.4 102.11.0esr_64

bad sector <forgetski@INVALID.net> wrote:

> I keep getting this by now very familiar "We're sorry FF had a problem
> and crashed..." but the real problem is that FF wasn't and isn't
> running. Never seen this level of care before :-)
>
> Just noticed this today while operation Suse Leap-15.4 102.11.0esr_64

Did you check if there were any firefox processes still running despite
not seeing a window for it?

Did you disable all add-ons in Firefox and restart Firefox to retest if
exiting it still has it running in the background? That the window for
Firefox disappeared doesn't mean it didn't hang before unloading often
due to an add-on. If an add-on hangs on load or exit then so does the
web browser. You can also use Firefox's safe mode (hold down the Shift
key when starting Firefox on Windows, don't know if that works on Linux)
to eliminate add-ons on its startup.

You could try to refresh Firefox which has it create a new profile: no
add-ons, and no user tweaks in the new profile, so Firefox starts like
it is a fresh install. While safe mode for Firefox eliminates add-ons,
it does not eliminate any tweaks you've configured after the Firefox
install.

The --headless (or -headless) command-line argument to Firefox has it
run headless (aka windowless). Runs Firefox without a GUI. Requires FF
55 minimum on Linux, and FF 56 minimum on Windows and Mac. I suspect
some folks might try this to get Firefox to seemingly load faster when
they later go to run Firefox. Do you have Firefox as a startup program?
If so, what are its command-line arguments?

Edge-Chromium has an option to load it (headless) to preload its
components on Windows startup. I can't find a similar option in
Firefox, but I didn't go hunting in about:config, plus I'm guessing the
--headless command-line argument would achieve the same result with
Firefox specified as a startup program.

It is possible another process is keeping Firefox from unloading. For
example, on Windows, you can run:

wmic process where name="firefox.exe" get processid,parentprocessid,name

Sorry, I'm not a Linux guru, so ask how to find the owning process in a
Linux newsgroup. Killing the owning process should allow unloading the
held process (Firefox). In fact, I have a batch that kills all desktop
manager (explorer.exe) processes, and reloads one should it be that is
the owner hanging the unload of another process.

Did you install the Mozilla Maintenance service (background service),
and configure Firefox to allow it to update in the background?

Chrome has/had an option to continue running web apps or add-ons in the
background after exiting Chrome. The purpose was to allow them to
continue processing, say, a transaction even if you [thought you] closed
Chrome. I disabled that in Chrome; however, I dumped Chrome when
Microsoft decided to make Edge a Chromium variant by using the same
Blink rendering engine and V8 script interpreter as in Chromium. In
Edge-Chrome, the setting is under edge://settings/system -> System ->
Continue running background extensions and apps when Microsoft Edge is
closed. I cannot find a similar continue-in-background feature in
Firefox, but I didn't dig into about:config to be sure.

BS,

> but the real problem is that FF wasn't and isn't running.

FF is often / keeps running in the background so it can receive
"notifications".

AFAIK you can disable that behaviour though.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:

> FF is often / keeps running in the background so it can receive
> "notifications".
>
> AFAIK you can disable that behaviour though.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/push-notifications-firefox

"While Firefox is open, websites which have been granted permission can
send notifications to your browser, ..."

"Websites can install a Service Worker, a background web page with a
limited set of functionality, that can subscribe to the push service."

The backgrounded non-displayed web pages (aka service workers) exist
only while Firefox is running.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Service_Worker_API

"Service workers essentially act as proxy servers that sit between web
applications, the browser, and the network (when available)."

If the web browser unloads, and even if the service workers were to
survive (they don't), there would be no endpoint to which the service
workers could connect to make visible the pushed notifications.

They can continue to run while offline for offline experience, but not
after Firefox unloads. That's on desktop platforms. On mobile
platforms, the OS can listen for events and handle them by waking the
web browser which then handles any corresponding events. However, the
web browser still has to be loaded. Yet on mobile platforms, the OS can
dispatch events that load the web browser (no user intervention) that
then causes a push event to generate a notification.

In desktop Firefox, you can disable notifications. From my readings,
that does not stop the use of service workers, just eliminates the
nuisance of generating and seeing notifications by them. mobile Firefox
has similar options to disable notifications. You aren't stopping
someone from rearranging the furniture in your house, just eliminating
you from hearing the rumbling noise inside, and somone popping out their
head out a door to tell you something happened.

If the browser is backgrounded (headless aka no window), well, it's
still running, so notifications can still be pushed by service workers.

There are also web workers, but it looks like they cannot get involved
with push notifications.

about:debugging#/runtime/this-firefox

For me, that shows "your browser configuration is not compatible with
Service Workers" with a hyperlink to:

https://firefox-source-docs.mozilla.org/devtools-user/about_colon_debugging/index.html#service-workers-not-compatible

When I go to:

about:serviceworkers

that says "Service Workers are not enabled".

That's probably because dom.serviceWorkers.enabled is false in my setup.
The setting is bolded which means false is not the default setting. I
can't tell if service workers got disabled by some GUI config setting
that I changed, or I long ago decided I didn't want this "feature" of
letting sites dump scripts on my end to run backgrounded for functions I
couldn't give a gnat's fart about. Could've been me that set this to
false in about:config.

Also, since the setting is "dom.<function>", and because I purge all
locally cached data on Firefox's exit, including DOM Storage ("offline
website data"), the worker scripts would disappear, anyway, until I
revisited the site (but then I have notifications set to Block new
requests). After reading a bit on service workers, I don't want them.
I don't want sites that I previously visited to be pushing notifications
in my face whenever they choose when I haven't even revisited there.
There have also been several vulnerabilities or hacks to the service
workers API. Since *I* don't need any of that functionality, and I am
not interested in assisting sites to run scripts that are hidden from
me, I probably decided a while ago to kill the service workers feature,
and perhaps by editing the dom.serviceworkers.enabled setting. It
wasn't a concern about this shit running in the background without
Firefox running. It was not wanting this shit when Firefox was running.

Last I remember back when I used Chrome, there was no user-configurable
means to disable the service workers features, but I could in Firefox.
Firefox is more configurable than Chrome.

On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 02:22:56 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Service_Worker_API
>
> "Service workers essentially act as proxy servers that sit between web
> applications, the browser, and the network (when available)."
>

<https://popzazzle.blogspot.com/2021/11/dark-tracking-
service-workers-and-privacy.html>

"In Firefox and its derivatives you can type
about:config into the address bar, search for the
parameters below and make sure they're set to False...

"dom.serviceWorkers.enabled
dom.webnotifications.serviceworker.enabled
extensions.backgroundServiceWorker.enabled"

And, since many of us also use Chrome,

"If you want to declare war on service workers in
Chromium/Chrome, start by going into the Settings, head
down to the System category and switch off Continue
running background apps when Chromium/Chrome is closed.
This does not stop service workers from registering or
installing, or even operating as such. It does,
however, stop them running "off-page", which is where
the worst of the privacy invasion takes place."

There's a lot more good stuff in the article.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA
https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> <https://popzazzle.blogspot.com/2021/11/dark-tracking-
> service-workers-and-privacy.html>
>
> "In Firefox and its derivatives you can type
> about:config into the address bar, search for the
> parameters below and make sure they're set to False...
>
> "dom.serviceWorkers.enabled
> dom.webnotifications.serviceworker.enabled
> extensions.backgroundServiceWorker.enabled"

I have dom.serviceworkers.enabled = false which kills use of service
workers. I also flush DOM when Firefox exits, so no covert tracking
using that method.

Web workers are more restricted, like they cannot connect to the
network, so they'll less intrusive, and less a privacy problem. A
summary of each is:

https://css-tricks.com/the-difference-between-web-sockets-web-workers-and-service-workers/

Web Worker
Allows scripts to run in the background in separate threads to prevent
scripts from blocking one another on the main thread.

Service Worker
A type of Web Worker that creates a background service that acts
middleware for handling network requests between the browser and server,
even in offline situations.

To me, a web worker is a means of parallelizing the scripts to prevent
lockouts on resources between them. They don't interfere with the main
thread. They aren't as hazardous to security or privacy as are service
workers. Of course, web workers can use the web browser to return data
to the server, but it doesn't need to be a web worker doing that.
Scripts in the web doc can do that. I also flush DOM on exit from
Firefox, so there's no carry over into the next web session for tracking
or storing of "user" (actually server generated data) on my host. I
leave DOM enabled during a web session, because a lot of sites use it,
like a crossword site I visit that dumps the entire table of answers
into DOM to eliminate the extra traffic between client and server as I
solve the puzzle. I suspect lots of sites would misbehave if web
workers were banned, and web workers isn't with what I'm concerned.
Without delving further, web workers have little or no access to DOM.
Those have no access to localStorage and sessionStorage. They can,
however, use the IndexedDB API:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/IndexedDB_API
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/IndexedDB_API/Using_IndexedDB

I'm not sure the purge-on-exit options in Firefox are going to eradicate
any databases that got created which means that data can be used across
web sessions. I'd have to check if the database is merely an in-memory
structure that gets dropped when the web session is terminated. From
the 2nd article above, in the "Warning about browser shutdown" section,
seems those databases expire when the web browser is exited, so not an
issue regarding tracking across web sessions. If I find IndexedDB
databases are presistent across web sessions, I'll have to figure out
how to eradicate them on exit from Firefox.

To me, web workers are like when I ran parallel scripts (in REXX at the
time) to speed up the enterprise backup setup and used semaphores to
sync their operations, just like you can use multiple threads for a
process.

The article you mentioned deals with service workers. There is mention
that web workers may incur privacy risks, but ANY script execution
incurs the same risk. A script doesn't need to be parallelized or
backgrounded to be any more risky than a script within the web page you
load from a site. It is service workers that I want to throttle.

Some users take the extreme action of disabling Javascript. This kills
all this worker scheme. However, instead of cutting the head off the
body (disabling Javascript renders many sites unusable), I'd prefer to
chop off the offending fingers to prevent stealing a purse of data.

On 6/24/23 10:31, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 02:22:56 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
>> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Service_Worker_API
>>
>> "Service workers essentially act as proxy servers that sit between web
>> applications, the browser, and the network (when available)."
>>
>
> <https://popzazzle.blogspot.com/2021/11/dark-tracking-
> service-workers-and-privacy.html>
>
> "In Firefox and its derivatives you can type
> about:config into the address bar, search for the
> parameters below and make sure they're set to False...
>
> "dom.serviceWorkers.enabled
> dom.webnotifications.serviceworker.enabled
> extensions.backgroundServiceWorker.enabled"
>
> And, since many of us also use Chrome,
>
> "If you want to declare war on service workers in
> Chromium/Chrome, start by going into the Settings, head
> down to the System category and switch off Continue
> running background apps when Chromium/Chrome is closed.
> This does not stop service workers from registering or
> installing, or even operating as such. It does,
> however, stop them running "off-page", which is where
> the worst of the privacy invasion takes place."
>
>
> There's a lot more good stuff in the article.

too much intrigue, chrome and firefox deleted

bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote:

> too much intrigue, chrome and firefox deleted

And your alternate choice was? I bet it's some Chromium or Firefox
variant, so you're still stuck with all this intrigue. Of course, you
could wipe your computer of all web-centric clients (and that's more
than just the web browser) on your computer, and use it as a stand-alone
platform with no network access. If you have use for a web browser for
local-only access, just pull the Ethernet cable, or disable the NIC in
your computer.

On 6/24/23 11:24 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
> bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote:
>
>> too much intrigue, chrome and firefox deleted
>
> And your alternate choice was? I bet it's some Chromium or Firefox
> variant, so you're still stuck with all this intrigue. Of course, you
> could wipe your computer of all web-centric clients (and that's more
> than just the web browser) on your computer, and use it as a stand-alone
> platform with no network access. If you have use for a web browser for
> local-only access, just pull the Ethernet cable, or disable the NIC in
> your computer.

Well, heavens to Murgatroyd, I could also uninstall the web navigator
after every use, fumigate wall-to-wall, and reinstall it for the next
deployment. Where do we stop the insanity? Maybe cLi web navigators that
save a castrated and recreated html page for local viewing? I'm open to
ideas of less than 10 pages, don't have time for the others.

Since 2023 seems to be a year for forest-fires, one method could be the
proverbial 'fighting-fire-with-fire'. If devs offer advertisers a way to
stop hemorrhaging money for *totally useless and even
counter-productive* ads to numerical giants then everyone might just
come out satisfied. I'm thinking of ad-filtering that lets a user set up
key-words for ads that s/he actually is interested in, on an hourly
basis if you want, with optional 'strictness' (perlese I think) levels.
Today for example I'm googling for diesel engine piston rings of a
particular make and model that are made anywhere that is at least fifty
parsecs from any BRIC shithole. Give me ads about those and you will
save me time and you will save the advertiser tons of the green stuff.

BS,

> I keep getting this by now very familiar "We're sorry FF had a problem and
> crashed..." but the real problem is that FF wasn't and isn't running.

Have you also considered that the *real* real problem is not that FF is
running when you do not expect it, but that it is crashing ? Why does it
do that ?

In my case I had FF terminate without ever giving any kind of message. I
thought t was because some add-on I wrote, but in the end it turned out that
my 'puters motherboard was developping a memory-access problem (the memory
itself was A-OK), and in the end I had to replace it.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 6/25/23 7:28 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
> BS,
>
>> I keep getting this by now very familiar "We're sorry FF had a problem and
>> crashed..." but the real problem is that FF wasn't and isn't running.
>
> Have you also considered that the *real* real problem is not that FF is
> running when you do not expect it, but that it is crashing ? Why does it
> do that ?

From my perspective ANY 'app' that is running when I didn't command it
to run would be the *far greater issue* but yes, why it's pranging is
also always a point of keen interest :-)

>
> In my case I had FF terminate without ever giving any kind of message. I
> thought t was because some add-on I wrote, but in the end it turned out that
> my 'puters motherboard was developping a memory-access problem (the memory
> itself was A-OK), and in the end I had to replace it.
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser

I said "I keep getting" which could be misleading. In fact this was the
first time that I ever saw the 'complaining-from-the-dead' behavior
while the 'FF had a problem and crashed' has been more frequent (I
forget which Linux distro). Hardware (RAM?) issues are a possibility,
I've also been getting more segfaults lately, usually temporary and
overcome on 2nd attempt.

bad sector <forgetski@invalid.net> wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote:
>>
>>> too much intrigue, chrome and firefox deleted
>>
>> And your alternate choice was? ...
>
> <snip - never answered the question>

I was genuinely interested in what you went to for a web browser after
you uninstalled Chrome and Firefox. So, what are you using now that is
not a Chromium or Firefox variant?

VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>bad sector <forgetski@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>>> bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> too much intrigue, chrome and firefox deleted
>>>
>>> And your alternate choice was? ...
>>
>> <snip - never answered the question>
>
>I was genuinely interested in what you went to for a web browser after
>you uninstalled Chrome and Firefox. So, what are you using now that is
>not a Chromium or Firefox variant?

Mosaic

On Sun, 25 Jun 2023 20:28:56 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>>bad sector <forgetski@invalid.net> wrote:
>>
>>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>>
>>>> bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> too much intrigue, chrome and firefox deleted
>>>>
>>>> And your alternate choice was? ...
>>>
>>> <snip - never answered the question>
>>
>>I was genuinely interested in what you went to for a web browser after
>>you uninstalled Chrome and Firefox. So, what are you using now that is
>>not a Chromium or Firefox variant?
>
>Mosaic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_

NCSA Mosaic is a discontinued web browser, and one of the first to
be widely available. It was instrumental in popularizing the World
Wide Web and the general Internet by integrating multimedia such as
text and graphics. It was named for its support of multiple Internet
protocols, such as Hypertext Transfer Protocol, File Transfer
Protocol, Network News Transfer Protocol, and Gopher. Its intuitive
interface, reliability, personal computer support, and simple
installation all contributed to its popularity within the web.
Mosaic is the first browser to display images inline with text
instead of in a separate window. It is often described as the first
graphical web browser, though it was preceded by WorldWideWeb, the
lesser-known Erwise, and ViolaWWW.

Mosaic was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing
Applications (NCSA) at the University of Illinois at
Urbana–Champaign beginning in late 1992. NCSA released it in 1993,
and officially discontinued development and support on January 7,
1997.

Starting in 1995, Mosaic lost market share to Netscape Navigator and
only had a tiny fraction of users left by 1997, when the project was
discontinued. Microsoft licensed Mosaic to create Internet Explorer
in 1995.

On 6/25/23 3:07 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
> bad sector <forgetski@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>>> bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> too much intrigue, chrome and firefox deleted
>>>
>>> And your alternate choice was? ...
>>
>> <snip - never answered the question>
>
> I was genuinely interested in what you went to for a web browser after
> you uninstalled Chrome and Firefox. So, what are you using now that is
> not a Chromium or Firefox variant?

I do have other things to do between insane episodes of wasting time on
the net :-)

Instead of "going to" any particular web navigator, I use one until it
acts up, then I try another. I have 7 or 8 of them installed on all of
my 7 Linux distros, unfortunately there seems to be no demand for a
Linux version of Internet Exporter so that one I have to do without.
When the entire roster is exhausted I boot another distro and start over
because I do consider OS'es to be just plug-ins for my apps. The web
navigators in order of (2023-06-25-16:59edt) preference are:

TOR
Librewolf
Konqueror
Falkon
Firefox
Otter
Seamonkey
Chromium

The list order varies daily in testimony of the extremely unstable
relationship I have with web navigators (sign-of-the-times with more
than one subliminal message therein) increasingly yielding ground to cLi
variants.

{Please no rants about them being FF forks, I really don't care}

HTH

BTW my ideal web navigator would be a black hole, transmitting a URL
request and absolutely nothing else, ever.

bad sector <forgetski@invalid.net> wrote:

> On 6/25/23 3:07 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
>> bad sector <forgetski@invalid.net> wrote:
>>
>>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>>
>>>> bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> too much intrigue, chrome and firefox deleted
>>>>
>>>> And your alternate choice was? ...
>>>
>>> <snip - never answered the question>
>>
>> I was genuinely interested in what you went to for a web browser after
>> you uninstalled Chrome and Firefox. So, what are you using now that is
>> not a Chromium or Firefox variant?
>
> I do have other things to do between insane episodes of wasting time on
> the net :-)
>
> Instead of "going to" any particular web navigator, I use one until it
> acts up, then I try another. I have 7 or 8 of them installed on all of
> my 7 Linux distros, unfortunately there seems to be no demand for a
> Linux version of Internet Exporter so that one I have to do without.
> When the entire roster is exhausted I boot another distro and start over
> because I do consider OS'es to be just plug-ins for my apps. The web
> navigators in order of (2023-06-25-16:59edt) preference are:
>
> TOR
> Librewolf
> Konqueror
> Falkon
> Firefox
> Otter
> Seamonkey
> Chromium
>
> The list order varies daily in testimony of the extremely unstable
> relationship I have with web navigators (sign-of-the-times with more
> than one subliminal message therein) increasingly yielding ground to cLi
> variants.
>
> {Please no rants about them being FF forks, I really don't care}
>
> HTH
>
> BTW my ideal web navigator would be a black hole, transmitting a URL
> request and absolutely nothing else, ever.

Understood. I thought "too much intrigue, chrome and firefox deleted"
meant you know of some web browser(s) that didn't use Chromium or
Firefox. I've not delved into all available web browsers to see which
use different rendering engines, script interpreters, and web
technologies that Chromium and Firefox support. So, you'll still into
the intrigue while jumping to different web browsers.

Did you look at any of my suggestions in my first post? Or is that
troubleshooting more than you're willing to invest the effort and time?

"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>>bad sector <forgetski@invalid.net> wrote:
>>
>>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>>
>>>> bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> too much intrigue, chrome and firefox deleted
>>>>
>>>> And your alternate choice was? ...
>>>
>>> <snip - never answered the question>
>>
>>I was genuinely interested in what you went to for a web browser after
>>you uninstalled Chrome and Firefox. So, what are you using now that is
>>not a Chromium or Firefox variant?
>
> Mosaic

Hey, not when I'm trying to swallow my coffee. Now I got coffee snot on
my keyboard.

VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:

> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>>
>>>bad sector <forgetski@invalid.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> too much intrigue, chrome and firefox deleted
>>>>>
>>>>> And your alternate choice was? ...
>>>>
>>>> <snip - never answered the question>
>>>
>>> I was genuinely interested in what you went to for a web browser
>>> after you uninstalled Chrome and Firefox. So, what are you using
>>> now that is not a Chromium or Firefox variant?
>>
>> Mosaic
>
> Hey, not when I'm trying to swallow my coffee. Now I got coffee snot
> on my keyboard.

Well, there's also Lynx. That'll eliminate all those nasty web
technologies along with most of the Web content.

VanguardLH wrote:
> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>
>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>>>
>>>>bad sector <forgetski@invalid.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> too much intrigue, chrome and firefox deleted
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And your alternate choice was? ...
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip - never answered the question>
>>>>
>>>> I was genuinely interested in what you went to for a web browser
>>>> after you uninstalled Chrome and Firefox. So, what are you using
>>>> now that is not a Chromium or Firefox variant?
>>>
>>> Mosaic
>>
>> Hey, not when I'm trying to swallow my coffee. Now I got coffee snot
>> on my keyboard.
>
> Well, there's also Lynx. That'll eliminate all those nasty web
> technologies along with most of the Web content.

Also Elinks

On 6/25/23 18:29, VanguardLH wrote:
> bad sector <forgetski@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/25/23 3:07 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
>>> bad sector <forgetski@invalid.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> too much intrigue, chrome and firefox deleted
>>>>>
>>>>> And your alternate choice was? ...
>>>>
>>>> <snip - never answered the question>
>>>
>>> I was genuinely interested in what you went to for a web browser after
>>> you uninstalled Chrome and Firefox. So, what are you using now that is
>>> not a Chromium or Firefox variant?
>>
>> I do have other things to do between insane episodes of wasting time on
>> the net :-)
>>
>> Instead of "going to" any particular web navigator, I use one until it
>> acts up, then I try another. I have 7 or 8 of them installed on all of
>> my 7 Linux distros, unfortunately there seems to be no demand for a
>> Linux version of Internet Exporter so that one I have to do without.
>> When the entire roster is exhausted I boot another distro and start over
>> because I do consider OS'es to be just plug-ins for my apps. The web
>> navigators in order of (2023-06-25-16:59edt) preference are:
>>
>> TOR
>> Librewolf
>> Konqueror
>> Falkon
>> Firefox
>> Otter
>> Seamonkey
>> Chromium
>>
>> The list order varies daily in testimony of the extremely unstable
>> relationship I have with web navigators (sign-of-the-times with more
>> than one subliminal message therein) increasingly yielding ground to cLi
>> variants.
>>
>> {Please no rants about them being FF forks, I really don't care}
>>
>> HTH
>>
>> BTW my ideal web navigator would be a black hole, transmitting a URL
>> request and absolutely nothing else, ever.
>
> Understood. I thought "too much intrigue, chrome and firefox deleted"
> meant you know of some web browser(s) that didn't use Chromium or
> Firefox.

Mostly it meant that handling the work of mercentile 5th column scum
makes it all much more complicated than I'm interested in web-navigators
at all. Kill the lot off and I'll still sleep like a baby every night.
Actually I didn't even read your whole post (no offense intended).

> Or is that troubleshooting more than you're willing to invest the effort and time?

Again, no offense intended, but most definitely :-)

bad sector wrote:
> On 6/25/23 18:29, VanguardLH wrote:
>> bad sector <forgetski@invalid.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/25/23 3:07 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
>>>> bad sector <forgetski@invalid.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> too much intrigue, chrome and firefox deleted
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And your alternate choice was? ...
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip - never answered the question>
>>>>
>>>> I was genuinely interested in what you went to for a web browser after
>>>> you uninstalled Chrome and Firefox. So, what are you using now that is
>>>> not a Chromium or Firefox variant?
>>>
>>> I do have other things to do between insane episodes of wasting time on
>>> the net :-)
[..snip..]
>> Understood. I thought "too much intrigue, chrome and firefox deleted"
>> meant you know of some web browser(s) that didn't use Chromium or
>> Firefox.
>
> Mostly it meant that handling the work of mercentile 5th column scum
> makes it all much more complicated than I'm interested in web-navigators
> at all. Kill the lot off and I'll still sleep like a baby every night.
> Actually I didn't even read your whole post (no offense intended).
>
>> Or is that troubleshooting more than you're willing to invest the effort and time?
>
> Again, no offense intended, but most definitely :-)

Okay, so you don't ask for help but just want to rant about browsers?

On 6/25/23 19:40, Frank Miller wrote:
> bad sector wrote:
>> On 6/25/23 18:29, VanguardLH wrote:
>>> bad sector <forgetski@invalid.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/25/23 3:07 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
>>>>> bad sector <forgetski@invalid.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> too much intrigue, chrome and firefox deleted
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And your alternate choice was? ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip - never answered the question>
>>>>>
>>>>> I was genuinely interested in what you went to for a web browser after
>>>>> you uninstalled Chrome and Firefox. So, what are you using now that is
>>>>> not a Chromium or Firefox variant?
>>>>
>>>> I do have other things to do between insane episodes of wasting time on
>>>> the net :-)
> [..snip..]
>>> Understood. I thought "too much intrigue, chrome and firefox deleted"
>>> meant you know of some web browser(s) that didn't use Chromium or
>>> Firefox.
>>
>> Mostly it meant that handling the work of mercentile 5th column scum
>> makes it all much more complicated than I'm interested in web-navigators
>> at all. Kill the lot off and I'll still sleep like a baby every night.
>> Actually I didn't even read your whole post (no offense intended).
>>
>>> Or is that troubleshooting more than you're willing to invest the effort and time?
>>
>> Again, no offense intended, but most definitely :-)
>
> Okay, so you don't ask for help but just want to rant about browsers?

No, I thought it might be a simple fix not to mention that maybe no one
else had seen it before, I certainly had not in 50 years of computing.

bad sector wrote:
> On 6/25/23 19:40, Frank Miller wrote:
[..snip..]
>> Okay, so you don't ask for help but just want to rant about browsers?
>
> No, I thought it might be a simple fix not to mention that maybe no one
> else had seen it before, I certainly had not in 50 years of computing.

A simple fix for a mystery once in 50 years, wich maybe no one has seen before? :-D

bad sector <forgetski@INVALID.net> wrote:

> On 6/25/23 19:40, Frank Miller wrote:
>> bad sector wrote:
>>> On 6/25/23 18:29, VanguardLH wrote:
>>>> bad sector <forgetski@invalid.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/25/23 3:07 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
>>>>>> bad sector <forgetski@invalid.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> too much intrigue, chrome and firefox deleted
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And your alternate choice was? ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip - never answered the question>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was genuinely interested in what you went to for a web browser after
>>>>>> you uninstalled Chrome and Firefox. So, what are you using now that is
>>>>>> not a Chromium or Firefox variant?
>>>>>
>>>>> I do have other things to do between insane episodes of wasting time on
>>>>> the net :-)
>> [..snip..]
>>>> Understood. I thought "too much intrigue, chrome and firefox deleted"
>>>> meant you know of some web browser(s) that didn't use Chromium or
>>>> Firefox.
>>>
>>> Mostly it meant that handling the work of mercentile 5th column scum
>>> makes it all much more complicated than I'm interested in web-navigators
>>> at all. Kill the lot off and I'll still sleep like a baby every night.
>>> Actually I didn't even read your whole post (no offense intended).
>>>
>>>> Or is that troubleshooting more than you're willing to invest the effort and time?
>>>
>>> Again, no offense intended, but most definitely :-)
>>
>> Okay, so you don't ask for help but just want to rant about browsers?
>
> No, I thought it might be a simple fix not to mention that maybe no one
> else had seen it before, I certainly had not in 50 years of computing.

I'll have to remember that you don't want to do the troubleshooting, and
want a one-press-button-for-boobs solution where you don't do any work.
Thanks for wasting my time, and that of others.

If you're not going to expend more than a minute on a recommended
solution, make that evident in your starting post. You'll likely not
get any responses, because no one can guarantee a panacea fix to cover
every possible cause of a problem.

On 6/25/23 22:36, Frank Miller wrote:
> bad sector wrote:
>> On 6/25/23 19:40, Frank Miller wrote:
> [..snip..]
>>> Okay, so you don't ask for help but just want to rant about browsers?
>>
>> No, I thought it might be a simple fix not to mention that maybe no one
>> else had seen it before, I certainly had not in 50 years of computing.
>
> A simple fix for a mystery once in 50 years, wich maybe no one has seen before? :-D

yeh, like just do

"# pkill firefox"

because maybe the only problem is a residual unwanted survivor

rocket science