So it's a complicated story...
I had to give up my good machines to the wife and the kid. The wife works the online shopping stuff ala fatty websites to spread the family budget, and the kid is a bluegrass fan learning the mandolin and needed some resource heavy music software, which my buddy Mike Walsh across the pond helped me get going staying up till all godless hours of the night Skyping with me, (huge thanks again, Mike)... so... now I'm using the senior citizen of machines here, a tired old WinBookJ1 with a 1gig p3 Coppermine. This would be fine for general dorking around, but then I ran into a problem.
After 30 years of construction, I injured the ol' back, and with 3 months of physical therapy so far, going back to construction is starting to look... unlikely. Time to undertake plan B, which is working online. I have some ideas and ventures I'm working on, but browsers are not performing well on this old machine.
The newer puppies have the newer browsers, but they are slower than watching paint dry in winter. The older puppies perform really nicely, expecially the 2.6.20x kernel pups, yet getting a newer browser working correctly in an older pup is proving really challenging. I need to be able to putt over to places like paypal, box, godaddy, etc. I'm finding that these types of sites do not like the browsers, the security levels, the older javascript, the certificates, and google, most ridiculous of all balks at almost everything ever refusing handshakes, demanding updates, sending me false alarm alerts to fill my email... UGH!
I actually... need help thinking this though to figure out a browser plan.
The best performer thus far is QtWeb, but it is an abandoned project and needs an update and cannot render many many elements on a page.
The worst peformer is Firefox, fatter than a sumo wrestler and slower than a snail with a limp.
Chrome and Chromium reside in the realm of LibChase City.
QupZilla and other QT gigs need huge dependencies and their hobby of choice is a competition between crashing and baulking at certificates no matter how many I install.
The only thing that comes close to good overall speed and stability is Opera 12.16... when it's not being quirky and weird... holding on to old settings after I've changed them, pretending extensions I've erased are still present, and... finding a few elements to NOT display on heavy websites while claiming the firewall is blocking them despite that the firewall is not even on.
I could really use a little help just thinking this deal through and developing what my browser plan should be. I'm kind of uncertain how to proceed.
Sorry for such a long question. Really appreciate some thoughts at this stage.
All thoughts welcome.
New Browser, Perform on Old Pup [SOLVED] Portable SeaMonkey
New Browser, Perform on Old Pup [SOLVED] Portable SeaMonkey
Last edited by Eathray on Sun 18 Dec 2016, 14:10, edited 2 times in total.
-
Mike Walsh
- Posts: 6351
- Joined: Sat 28 Jun 2014, 12:42
- Location: King's Lynn, UK.
Hi, Eathray.
Hm. You're gonna have problems with that old girl. The only thing that springs to mind at the moment is using Richard Erwin's Lucid 5.2.8.7; I do have a copy of Chrome 26 (!), courtesy of TwoPuppies. which'll run on there, and although it won't load extensions (the App store says it's unsupported), it is as nippy as hell.....just like I remember Chrome being in the early days. Which is why I fell for it, all those years ago!
I don't, however, know if Lucid'll run on a P3. It's a shame starhawk's not around any longer; he'd be the go-to-guy for a question like this. Loves messing around with ancient hardware, that lad.
I'm not gonna be around till tomorrow night (or Sunday morning), but it is a suggestion.....which is what you asked for. Have a think about it, and let me know what you wanna do. I'll get back to you as soon as I can.
Mike.
Hm. You're gonna have problems with that old girl. The only thing that springs to mind at the moment is using Richard Erwin's Lucid 5.2.8.7; I do have a copy of Chrome 26 (!), courtesy of TwoPuppies. which'll run on there, and although it won't load extensions (the App store says it's unsupported), it is as nippy as hell.....just like I remember Chrome being in the early days. Which is why I fell for it, all those years ago!
I don't, however, know if Lucid'll run on a P3. It's a shame starhawk's not around any longer; he'd be the go-to-guy for a question like this. Loves messing around with ancient hardware, that lad.
I'm not gonna be around till tomorrow night (or Sunday morning), but it is a suggestion.....which is what you asked for. Have a think about it, and let me know what you wanna do. I'll get back to you as soon as I can.
Mike.
Your puppy needs a new Browser that will haandle TLS1.2. The old-fashioned ssl is out.
FireFox27 at least or its equiivilent.
As for the kernel, a 3.x series is needed... most puppies here use 3.4, 3.10, or 3.14 (the newest use 4.x). within that kernel, openssl, bash, wget, and curl need significant security improvements.
A lot has happened in 10 years. Try this slacko-5.7... it will still need updates on a regular basis.
Regards
8Geee
FireFox27 at least or its equiivilent.
As for the kernel, a 3.x series is needed... most puppies here use 3.4, 3.10, or 3.14 (the newest use 4.x). within that kernel, openssl, bash, wget, and curl need significant security improvements.
A lot has happened in 10 years. Try this slacko-5.7... it will still need updates on a regular basis.
Regards
8Geee
Linux user #498913 "Some people need to reimagine their thinking."
"Zuckerberg: a large city inhabited by mentally challenged people."
"Zuckerberg: a large city inhabited by mentally challenged people."
You just need a new computer.
P-3 processor is not supported anymore by a lot of software.
The software wants features P-3 processors can not provide.
That slowness, with the newer browsers, is the P-3 processor.
As you have already seen, web sites want browsers that have specific features. The newest ones only have those features.
You could buy the cheapest new computer and it would blow a P-3 out of the water!!
Example:
Firefox required Hardware
Pentium 4 or newer processor that supports SSE2
512MB of RAM
P-3 processor is not supported anymore by a lot of software.
The software wants features P-3 processors can not provide.
That slowness, with the newer browsers, is the P-3 processor.
As you have already seen, web sites want browsers that have specific features. The newest ones only have those features.
You could buy the cheapest new computer and it would blow a P-3 out of the water!!
Example:
Firefox required Hardware
Pentium 4 or newer processor that supports SSE2
512MB of RAM
The things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
-
Sailor Enceladus
- Posts: 1543
- Joined: Mon 22 Feb 2016, 19:43
I think ttuuxxx was working on a more up-to-date Puppy 2.14, I haven't tried it thoughEathray wrote:The newer puppies have the newer browsers, but they are slower than watching paint dry in winter. The older puppies perform really nicely, expecially the 2.6.20x kernel pups, yet getting a newer browser working correctly in an older pup is proving really challenging.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=42553
flash,Flash wrote:I couldn't find where you said how much RAM is in your computer. RAM is crucial to good performance on the web. Less than 512 MB will be a problem for sure, though you might cheat a bit with a swap file in a flash drive.
I Have 512 of RAM, but a three gig swap. Obviously real RAM is better, virtual ram on the hard drive its still good to hold it together under load.
I said Qtweb works well with youtube. I was thinking of my WinXp desktop pc with 1.2 gb ram where I've noticed a boost since I learnt about this browser.
I've just tried Qtweb with latest Slacko 6.3 on my 1gb ram notebook and youtube does not work.
Seamonkey is smooth with youtube, though full screen is disabled by default. I've installed 'True Full Screen' addon in SeaMonkey with good results!
Mmmm you mention that it's possible to increase ram with usb flash memory.
How can I do that? I'm all ears..
I've just tried Qtweb with latest Slacko 6.3 on my 1gb ram notebook and youtube does not work.
Seamonkey is smooth with youtube, though full screen is disabled by default. I've installed 'True Full Screen' addon in SeaMonkey with good results!
Mmmm you mention that it's possible to increase ram with usb flash memory.
How can I do that? I'm all ears..
umm,not exactly. What You Do Its Ad a swap partition, which is used as virtual RAM. You Can Do It On a usb i suppose if your booting from it...kerl wrote:I said Qtweb works well with youtube. I was thinking of my WinXp desktop pc with 1.2 gb ram where I've noticed a boost since I learnt about this browser.
I've just tried Qtweb with latest Slacko 6.3 on my 1gb ram notebook and youtube does not work.
Seamonkey is smooth with youtube, though full screen is disabled by default. I've installed 'True Full Screen' addon in SeaMonkey with good results!
Mmmm you mention that it's possible to increase ram with usb flash memory.
How can I do that? I'm all ears..
Max Ram for the WinBookJ1 seems to be 512Mb
Hi Eathray,
As far as I can tell, the maximum RAM the WinBookj1 can handle is 512 Mb. https://www.cnet.com/products/winbook-j ... hdd/specs/
Of course, in a perfect world, acquiring a more recent computer would be an option. But, in a perfect worlds, you'd already have one.
Keep in mind, however, that the resources required to access websites continues to be an upward spiral. What succeeds today may fail tomorrow.
The WinBookj1 also seems to only have a 10 Gb Hard-drive. Despite that, this seems to be a case where running a Puppy as a Full Install would be preferable. One version of Puppy won't even need that much space. I'd partition the drive so that you have a 1.5 Gb Swap which will ease the limited RAM problems somewhat.
You're right. Opera 12.16 is the best browser, except when you can't use it.
Modern browsers require the OSes they run from to have modern graphics libraries lacking in older Puppies. You might see how Carolina Vanguard does on your computer. Battleshooter updated its glibs a couple of years ago primarily so that more recent Webbrowsers could be used. How recent, I'm not sure. But you can try some SFSes and see which, if any, work. Vanguard's ISO is large, but that's because it includes an Adrv containing most of the applications Battleshooter, Geoffrey, elroy, and rg66 figured most users would want. You can delete/move Adrv and it will still boot to desktop, permitting you to install such pets, load such SFSes, or build your own Adrv of just the applications you want.
Perhaps someone can point you to it --I couldn't find it-- but I thought someone had provided a glib update for web-browser ONLY for precise(?), If so, perhaps it also could be used with the latest version of Lupu which uses the same kernel that precise used. Note rerwin has recently published several new versions of Lupu. So, if I mis-recollected "precise" as the target of the glib-update pet, substitute "raring" or "dpup".
And while your searching for solutions, you might want to consider DebianDog-Jessie, XenialDog and MintPup. As the stock salesmen tell you in the fine print, "your experience may vary", but I've found these to boot to desktop using less than 200 Mbs of RAM, and all provide modern web-browsers. Fredx181 has made available a Slimjet.squashfs --an SFS using debian terminology. Slimjet is a reworked Chomium. It is now my go-to-webbrowser. The DebianDogs are not really Puppies. They're remastered DebianLiveCD's configured to be "Puppy-Like".
mikesLr
As far as I can tell, the maximum RAM the WinBookj1 can handle is 512 Mb. https://www.cnet.com/products/winbook-j ... hdd/specs/
Of course, in a perfect world, acquiring a more recent computer would be an option. But, in a perfect worlds, you'd already have one.
Keep in mind, however, that the resources required to access websites continues to be an upward spiral. What succeeds today may fail tomorrow.
The WinBookj1 also seems to only have a 10 Gb Hard-drive. Despite that, this seems to be a case where running a Puppy as a Full Install would be preferable. One version of Puppy won't even need that much space. I'd partition the drive so that you have a 1.5 Gb Swap which will ease the limited RAM problems somewhat.
You're right. Opera 12.16 is the best browser, except when you can't use it.
Modern browsers require the OSes they run from to have modern graphics libraries lacking in older Puppies. You might see how Carolina Vanguard does on your computer. Battleshooter updated its glibs a couple of years ago primarily so that more recent Webbrowsers could be used. How recent, I'm not sure. But you can try some SFSes and see which, if any, work. Vanguard's ISO is large, but that's because it includes an Adrv containing most of the applications Battleshooter, Geoffrey, elroy, and rg66 figured most users would want. You can delete/move Adrv and it will still boot to desktop, permitting you to install such pets, load such SFSes, or build your own Adrv of just the applications you want.
Perhaps someone can point you to it --I couldn't find it-- but I thought someone had provided a glib update for web-browser ONLY for precise(?), If so, perhaps it also could be used with the latest version of Lupu which uses the same kernel that precise used. Note rerwin has recently published several new versions of Lupu. So, if I mis-recollected "precise" as the target of the glib-update pet, substitute "raring" or "dpup".
And while your searching for solutions, you might want to consider DebianDog-Jessie, XenialDog and MintPup. As the stock salesmen tell you in the fine print, "your experience may vary", but I've found these to boot to desktop using less than 200 Mbs of RAM, and all provide modern web-browsers. Fredx181 has made available a Slimjet.squashfs --an SFS using debian terminology. Slimjet is a reworked Chomium. It is now my go-to-webbrowser. The DebianDogs are not really Puppies. They're remastered DebianLiveCD's configured to be "Puppy-Like".
mikesLr
-
Mike Walsh
- Posts: 6351
- Joined: Sat 28 Jun 2014, 12:42
- Location: King's Lynn, UK.
Hi, Eathray.
Bad advice, there. Sorry about that!
I'd forgotten about that business with the SSE2s being needed for modern web browsers. Y'see, even my 14 yr-old Dell lappie was one of the very first models Dell fitted with Socket 478. Which means a P4. (Which means SSE2s....)
It is, of course, the only reason I can run any decent browsers on there at all (and even older versions of Chrome/Chromium are, well....'stately' would be the best description!) I'm waiting for the day when they all decide to define SSE3s as the minimum requirements.....
The 'big' Compaq of course, with a dual-core Athlon 64 and SSE3s doesn't have these problems..!
(*whew!*)
Yah, I have to agree with the guys; that doesn't really fit the description of functional as far as the modern web goes. I can only only suggest having a scout around and see what's about in terms of cheap second-hand lappies, or even an old desktop (as long as it's got at least a P4).
Mike.
Bad advice, there. Sorry about that!
I'd forgotten about that business with the SSE2s being needed for modern web browsers. Y'see, even my 14 yr-old Dell lappie was one of the very first models Dell fitted with Socket 478. Which means a P4. (Which means SSE2s....)
It is, of course, the only reason I can run any decent browsers on there at all (and even older versions of Chrome/Chromium are, well....'stately' would be the best description!) I'm waiting for the day when they all decide to define SSE3s as the minimum requirements.....
The 'big' Compaq of course, with a dual-core Athlon 64 and SSE3s doesn't have these problems..!
(*whew!*)Yah, I have to agree with the guys; that doesn't really fit the description of functional as far as the modern web goes. I can only only suggest having a scout around and see what's about in terms of cheap second-hand lappies, or even an old desktop (as long as it's got at least a P4).
Mike.
Morning everyone,
Thanks for all the thoughts. A couple clarifications or answers:
The optimum performance for grandpa laptop here is a pup with a 2.6.20x kernel (and I assume it's not only the kernel but what ever goes with it). If I go forward even to a 2.6.30x kernel... performance begins to drop off like tossing a rock into a pool. So the optimum pups here are 4.1 to 4.2. Additionally, this rig needs the ath5k module... generally 4.2 to 4.3 and on. I've tried adding ath5k to pups previous to 4.2 and have found the wifi... unpredictable.
Yes... I agree. I need a new computer. I can't do it yet. Being down for three months with my back, you can imagine how fast money leaves and doesn't get replenished. The folks on my local Craigslist seem to think their used, antiquated junk is finery equal to grandma's silver. I've seen p4 xp machines going for as much as 80 bucks and I can only assume the herbal remedies have taken hold because... they must be high in more than prices.
Even though the specs say not supported, some of these browsers will in fact run on this p3 machine... just, slowly. And the more I do to them... the slower they go. Firefox 27 was mentioned and... it does in fact crawl along on this rig; I fiddled with it a bit but couldn't really do much to improve it's performance so lost patience. Maybe I should take another look there. I would gladly try a lib-enriched Chrome or Chromium with just one add-on working, a user-agent spoofer. Google is ridiculous in their demands of upgrades and will hardly let me in to my own accounts, and won't support Opera. They are without a doubt becoming the worst company ever for so many reasons not mentioned here.
Opera... still the best over all and I may have found something yesterday that speaks to at least one issue.
Near Epiphany Moment
Reading your comments yesterday, a dialogue came up stating that an element had been blocked. Previously I mentioned that Opera from the Box page had complained about an element blocked by my firewall... which isn't even running, ya dopey sod... okay, it occurred to me that while I do not have the firewall on, I may have tried out 'pup advert blocker' on this rig. Even though I removed it... that doesn't mean it is entirely removed now does it? Because it modifies a file that has to do with what connections are allowed. If a connection is mistakenly blocked... I suppose Opera could legitimately have assumed I was running a firewall. So... I need to go back and restore that file to it's original state and retest Opera at Box.com, but of course I can't remember it's name LOL
r.e. some mentions of glib and friends:
I have in fact updated dbus, dbus-glib, glib, and glibc... all of them as much as I dare. I did discover the hard way some time ago that updating glib too radically will break a puppy beyond the possibility of repair so... I'm a little cautious there... but all updated, to at least Wary equivalent. I don't really know what those critters do aside from that they relate to C and browsers need them.
Okay, here's a worthy question:
Does anybody have a functioning QT browser that is actually up to date with it's needed dependencies... i.e. maybe an sfs or such of QT, QTWebKit, and the browser itself (Arora, Qupzilla, whatever) but up to date and mostly self-contained? Everything I look at in this direction is either out of date or pup specific. Are there any stand-alone QT set-ups that simply work on a puppy?
Another question:
Can anyone help me clean up that name-forgotten file from when I tried pup advert blocker so that I can retest Opera on a couple sites?
Security:
I have in fact updated openssl to 1.0.2, and have the 2016 ca-certificates. Everything is good there in fact except... you guessed it... Google. The worst company ever. Even though I have elements here and there not being rendered or rendered incorrectly, the only actual security refusals I'm receiving are from Google stuff. Which is fine because... I'm slowly migrating my goods away from Google now that they are causing me such grief. Filling my email box with spam-like false alarms. Not supporting Opera or other browsers. Giving my personal information to Homeland Security. LOL.
So... can I ask for a little help cleaning up that one file to retest Opera, and perhaps discovering something more up to date in the QT arena?
As always, thank you all for your time and assistance. Much appreciated.
P.S.
I ate way too much turkey... and have no regrets
Thanks for all the thoughts. A couple clarifications or answers:
The optimum performance for grandpa laptop here is a pup with a 2.6.20x kernel (and I assume it's not only the kernel but what ever goes with it). If I go forward even to a 2.6.30x kernel... performance begins to drop off like tossing a rock into a pool. So the optimum pups here are 4.1 to 4.2. Additionally, this rig needs the ath5k module... generally 4.2 to 4.3 and on. I've tried adding ath5k to pups previous to 4.2 and have found the wifi... unpredictable.
Yes... I agree. I need a new computer. I can't do it yet. Being down for three months with my back, you can imagine how fast money leaves and doesn't get replenished. The folks on my local Craigslist seem to think their used, antiquated junk is finery equal to grandma's silver. I've seen p4 xp machines going for as much as 80 bucks and I can only assume the herbal remedies have taken hold because... they must be high in more than prices.
Even though the specs say not supported, some of these browsers will in fact run on this p3 machine... just, slowly. And the more I do to them... the slower they go. Firefox 27 was mentioned and... it does in fact crawl along on this rig; I fiddled with it a bit but couldn't really do much to improve it's performance so lost patience. Maybe I should take another look there. I would gladly try a lib-enriched Chrome or Chromium with just one add-on working, a user-agent spoofer. Google is ridiculous in their demands of upgrades and will hardly let me in to my own accounts, and won't support Opera. They are without a doubt becoming the worst company ever for so many reasons not mentioned here.
Opera... still the best over all and I may have found something yesterday that speaks to at least one issue.
Near Epiphany Moment
Reading your comments yesterday, a dialogue came up stating that an element had been blocked. Previously I mentioned that Opera from the Box page had complained about an element blocked by my firewall... which isn't even running, ya dopey sod... okay, it occurred to me that while I do not have the firewall on, I may have tried out 'pup advert blocker' on this rig. Even though I removed it... that doesn't mean it is entirely removed now does it? Because it modifies a file that has to do with what connections are allowed. If a connection is mistakenly blocked... I suppose Opera could legitimately have assumed I was running a firewall. So... I need to go back and restore that file to it's original state and retest Opera at Box.com, but of course I can't remember it's name LOL
r.e. some mentions of glib and friends:
I have in fact updated dbus, dbus-glib, glib, and glibc... all of them as much as I dare. I did discover the hard way some time ago that updating glib too radically will break a puppy beyond the possibility of repair so... I'm a little cautious there... but all updated, to at least Wary equivalent. I don't really know what those critters do aside from that they relate to C and browsers need them.
Okay, here's a worthy question:
Does anybody have a functioning QT browser that is actually up to date with it's needed dependencies... i.e. maybe an sfs or such of QT, QTWebKit, and the browser itself (Arora, Qupzilla, whatever) but up to date and mostly self-contained? Everything I look at in this direction is either out of date or pup specific. Are there any stand-alone QT set-ups that simply work on a puppy?
Another question:
Can anyone help me clean up that name-forgotten file from when I tried pup advert blocker so that I can retest Opera on a couple sites?
Security:
I have in fact updated openssl to 1.0.2, and have the 2016 ca-certificates. Everything is good there in fact except... you guessed it... Google. The worst company ever. Even though I have elements here and there not being rendered or rendered incorrectly, the only actual security refusals I'm receiving are from Google stuff. Which is fine because... I'm slowly migrating my goods away from Google now that they are causing me such grief. Filling my email box with spam-like false alarms. Not supporting Opera or other browsers. Giving my personal information to Homeland Security. LOL.
So... can I ask for a little help cleaning up that one file to retest Opera, and perhaps discovering something more up to date in the QT arena?
As always, thank you all for your time and assistance. Much appreciated.
P.S.
I ate way too much turkey... and have no regrets
-
mostly_lurking
- Posts: 328
- Joined: Wed 25 Jun 2014, 20:31
I think Wary can't run the latest browsers either, at least not without some extensive massaging (glibc upgrade, or maybe jumping through a few hoops to preload the browser with whatever libraries it needs - I've never tried that, though)...Eathray wrote:I have in fact updated dbus, dbus-glib, glib, and glibc... all of them as much as I dare. I did discover the hard way some time ago that updating glib too radically will break a puppy beyond the possibility of repair so... I'm a little cautious there... but all updated, to at least Wary equivalent
Did it actually say the element was blocked by the firewall? Or could it have been the browser's pop-up blocker or some add-on that blocks stuff?Eathray wrote:Reading your comments yesterday, a dialogue came up stating that an element had been blocked. Previously I mentioned that Opera from the Box page had complained about an element blocked by my firewall... which isn't even running, ya dopey sod... okay, it occurred to me that while I do not have the firewall on, I may have tried out 'pup advert blocker' on this rig. Even though I removed it... that doesn't mean it is entirely removed now does it? Because it modifies a file that has to do with what connections are allowed.
If it's indeed Pup-Advert-Blocker... I think what it does is filling the /etc/hosts file with a list of IP addresses and domains that should be blocked. You can check this - open the file in a text editor. Ignore all the "localhost" stuff on top (that should be left as-is) and look for a list that contains website names, like:
Code: Select all
0.0.0.0 example.com
127.0.0.1 anotherexample.comLurking, Thank you.
Now I know where to look.
Yes, at one time the dialogue actually said that an element on Box.com was being blocked by my firewall, which I believe to be a button that must track one's clicks. The site itself was not blocked, but we know that many sites are now hungry for capital and are selling our click-data... so I am assuming the button was trying to alert an ad site to my click behavior, but was blocked from making that contact by the file that was modified by pup-advert-blocker. I believe this setting was misinterpreted as an active firewall.
The other dialogue which I have seen twice now did not mention a firewall but simply reported that an element had been blocked (here on the Murga site). That dialogue may very well have been Opera's pop-up blocker as you mentioned, which is in fact on.
Thanks for the info on the file. I will have a look and see if I can determine what to clean up. I will report back soon.
Now I know where to look.
Yes, at one time the dialogue actually said that an element on Box.com was being blocked by my firewall, which I believe to be a button that must track one's clicks. The site itself was not blocked, but we know that many sites are now hungry for capital and are selling our click-data... so I am assuming the button was trying to alert an ad site to my click behavior, but was blocked from making that contact by the file that was modified by pup-advert-blocker. I believe this setting was misinterpreted as an active firewall.
The other dialogue which I have seen twice now did not mention a firewall but simply reported that an element had been blocked (here on the Murga site). That dialogue may very well have been Opera's pop-up blocker as you mentioned, which is in fact on.
Thanks for the info on the file. I will have a look and see if I can determine what to clean up. I will report back soon.
Well, checking the hosts file, I only see 4 addresses. the local host and three others. I'm assuming they are my printer, tablet and phone. Not what I expected.
There are however some other hosts files, such as hosts.deny which says, ALL:ALL. kind of ominous...
Okay, so I guess when I un-installed pop-advert-blocker... it did in fact clean up after itself...?
okay so... I'm thinking I should clear all cache and history in Opera because there might be something lingering there, and I've already noticed Opera's weird behavior of holding on to things long removed. I'll try that and report back.
There are however some other hosts files, such as hosts.deny which says, ALL:ALL. kind of ominous...
Okay, so I guess when I un-installed pop-advert-blocker... it did in fact clean up after itself...?
okay so... I'm thinking I should clear all cache and history in Opera because there might be something lingering there, and I've already noticed Opera's weird behavior of holding on to things long removed. I'll try that and report back.
Okay... I am pleased to report a little progress... but a continuing issue.
Even though (apparently), pup-advert-blocker cleaned up after itself as it was leaving, there must have been some residual stuff in the cache and/or history of Opera. I cleared everything I could think of, set Opera to clear on exit, rebooted, and then putted my way over to box.com. The page rendered correctly, I signed in, all my data was there, all the buttons were there and functional, and there was no dialogue claiming an element was being blocked... so, apparently Opera's persistent storage had kept track of what pup-advert-blocker had previously blocked and continued that behavior. That trouble is now gone. Hurray!
Yet a problem... There are sites I never save a record of, so I don't save the password, the username, or even bookmark the site because for some stuff that has my valuable info, I want to go there cleanly every time. This means I search the site using StartPage, then click it to go there. As you all know, when you click on a link from your search results, the color of the link changes, indicating to you later that you have already been to that page. After clearing everything and restarting, I went to the search page, searched box.com, and when the results came up... the box.com link was changed in color, indicating that I had already clicked and gone there. In other words... a record is still being held onto somehow, somewhere in Opera. I've cleared everything, I've set it to delete stuff on exit (cache, history, etc.), I exited, and I even rebooted to assure that nothing was left in ram. No good. Opera is still keeping track somewhere.
This is one of the maddening problems with Opera. It also holds on to settings at times that have long been changed.
Any thoughts or suggestions?
Even though (apparently), pup-advert-blocker cleaned up after itself as it was leaving, there must have been some residual stuff in the cache and/or history of Opera. I cleared everything I could think of, set Opera to clear on exit, rebooted, and then putted my way over to box.com. The page rendered correctly, I signed in, all my data was there, all the buttons were there and functional, and there was no dialogue claiming an element was being blocked... so, apparently Opera's persistent storage had kept track of what pup-advert-blocker had previously blocked and continued that behavior. That trouble is now gone. Hurray!
Yet a problem... There are sites I never save a record of, so I don't save the password, the username, or even bookmark the site because for some stuff that has my valuable info, I want to go there cleanly every time. This means I search the site using StartPage, then click it to go there. As you all know, when you click on a link from your search results, the color of the link changes, indicating to you later that you have already been to that page. After clearing everything and restarting, I went to the search page, searched box.com, and when the results came up... the box.com link was changed in color, indicating that I had already clicked and gone there. In other words... a record is still being held onto somehow, somewhere in Opera. I've cleared everything, I've set it to delete stuff on exit (cache, history, etc.), I exited, and I even rebooted to assure that nothing was left in ram. No good. Opera is still keeping track somewhere.
This is one of the maddening problems with Opera. It also holds on to settings at times that have long been changed.
Any thoughts or suggestions?