16:58:14 <arai[m]> Hi, I'm going to [remove Services.jsm](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1780695) (posted [an announcement to dev-platform](https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/g/dev-platform/c/Erw6hvE92TE)), but I found that there are [many references in comm-central/suite/](https://searchfox.org/comm-central/search?q=%2FServices.jsm&path=suite%2F&case=false&regexp=false).   I've filed [bug
16:58:14 <arai[m]> 1841845](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1841845).  can anyone take it?
18:00:42 <IanN_Away> arai[m]: WG9s may take it
18:03:00 <WG9s> sure I can handle that
18:08:53 <arai[m]> thank you!
19:37:02 <tomman> https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/2023/7/1.html you so silly Moz://a
19:57:23 <MattATobin> they aren't sure people will accept it
19:57:30 <MattATobin> so mozilla the test case once again
19:57:45 <MattATobin> if mozilla users accept it.. anyone will
19:57:51 <MattATobin> .. except a few of us
19:57:52 <MattATobin> lol
19:58:19 <tomman> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36602193 leave it to Hackernews to try to spin this as something good
19:58:31 <njsg> I didn't read all of it yet, but it's starting to look like this might not even get noticed, the way it's being implemented
19:58:38 <MattATobin> tomman
19:58:54 <njsg> of course it's good, it prevents noscript and adblockers from running
19:59:03 <tomman> "they could disable bad addons on banking websites!" => yeah, where "banking websites" mean "Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Chase, and MAYBE Barclays in the UK"
19:59:14 * njsg looks for his sarcasm dial
19:59:15 <tomman> and not, for example the 20ish banks we have here in Venezuela :P
19:59:40 <tomman> have fun maintaining a whitelist for thousands of banks :P
20:00:17 <njsg> maybe a better implementation would be asking the user "the following add-ons are considered incompatible with this site...do you want to disable...", but, then... I don't think this feature is that, isn't this about a list of allowed extensions, not the other way around?
20:01:49 <tomman> supposedly this "feature" will only impact "non-Mozilla-monitored" addons
20:02:02 <tomman> ...whatever that means
20:02:31 <tomman> did they mean "unsigned addons"? You can't install those anymore on anything but the "developer edition", and (maybe?) ESR
20:03:03 <tomman> or "we'll give a free pass to the Top 10 addons"
20:03:12 <MattATobin> did no one see this coming literal years ago?
20:03:19 <MattATobin> i mean besides me
20:03:59 <MattATobin> just wait until they make it so it forces specific add-ons on sites
20:04:06 <MattATobin> due to partnerships
20:04:20 <MattATobin> and bundling
20:05:22 <tomman> I could see that as something that _Google_ would do, actually
20:06:00 <MattATobin> mozilla is the token opposition to the gooplesoft whatwg nonsense
20:06:05 <tomman> "YourBank only gets better with Google Chrome YourBank Edition - install now and get a free MasterCard!"
20:06:10 <njsg> wasn't this - disabling something because of banks - also said to be behind why Gecko allowed sites to make password login forms "un-rememberable"?
20:06:13 <MattATobin> well token alternative
20:06:18 <MattATobin> remember
20:06:58 <MattATobin> think of eme
20:07:18 <MattATobin> eme was never gonna work across the board until mozilla acceeded and then adobe dropped out
20:07:37 <tomman> well, the case of EME was very distinct: we didn't wanted DRM crap in our browsers, but people like your mom and my auntie wanted muh Netfixes
20:07:42 <MattATobin> if mozilla had resisted adobe would have stayed in the game to be an alternative and eme would not be the only drm
20:08:02 <tomman> (I still refuse to get a Netflix account due to that)
20:08:19 <MattATobin> your mom doesn't watch netflix on a 4000 dollar workstation she watches it on her ipad
20:08:31 <MattATobin> that should have nothing to do with one another
20:08:48 <MattATobin> and the 4000 dollar workstation had silverlight already working fine established for years
20:09:01 <tomman> EME came in the era where iPads weren't as widespread as they're today
20:09:14 <tomman> now it's all a moot point
20:09:18 <MattATobin> don't say linux either cause lol your mom ain't runnin linux on her laptop
20:09:28 <MattATobin> 2015
20:09:35 <MattATobin> 2013-2015
20:09:45 <tomman> Mozilla caved in, Adobe stabbed them in the back, and people watch Netflix on their cellphones anyway :/
20:10:11 <tomman> am I the only dinosaur that still believes that video playback do NOT belong to web browsers, but to actual media player software?
20:10:26 <njsg> iPads are widespread?
20:10:47 <njsg> tomman: no.
20:10:47 <tomman> depends on the market, of course
20:10:55 <njsg> (re: videos in browser)
20:11:12 <njsg> for me it usually is also about: it goes much better if it's handled by a media player
20:11:17 <tomman> njsg: and yet you tell that to other users and they give you angry stares
20:11:34 <njsg> that said, the last few times I tried to follow something longer with SeaMonkey, it seemed to work well
20:12:09 <njsg> although that might have been without audio, so I can't tell if there was any sync problem (Which would end up being likely because of the hardware, not the browser)
20:12:19 <tomman> I completely avoid any kind of video watching on browsers (this is why I lament the death of Flashblock, a very fine video blocker)
20:12:38 <tomman> just like I avoid any kind of YouTube usage in general
20:12:42 <njsg> something from Yle Areena, I think it does have a banner saying the browser is old, but works
20:12:54 <tomman> if I absolutely MUST watch something, I use VLC or mpv+yt-dl(p)
20:13:11 <MattATobin> IN GENERAL.. i say that video playback should not be a primary feature but BASIC common clear formats are fine .. and maybe some streaming bits.. but drm and this video-centric reality not so much
20:13:15 <MattATobin> tomman
20:13:22 <tomman> Oh, just got one of those "Upgrade Yer Browser" nags... from Crunchyroll
20:13:39 <njsg> the push towards JS-powered HTML5 video as a replacement for GIFs has confused my workflow a bit, for now something that'd show up as a gif gets blocked as a video
20:14:15 <tomman> And then you have extreme cases, like when JWZ converted all his stupid animated GIFs into performance-murdering MP4 videos to save bandwidth
20:14:25 <tomman> (and which justified my install of a video blocker)
20:14:40 <MattATobin> I am just gonna start a new protocol
20:14:57 <tomman> with blackjack and hookers?
20:15:27 <MattATobin> depends
20:15:50 <MattATobin> it is obvious http(s) is a lost cause the web protocol is the app protocol
20:16:57 <MattATobin> so let's just come up with a new prefix and do it all over taking the best of what we learned so far and let me do whatever
20:17:25 <njsg> tomman: that's interesting, I get these blocked here. I think by noscript
20:19:29 <MattATobin> my new protocol will treat unsigned and self-signed as traditionally http .. and ca signed dv and ev as we knew it a few years ago
20:20:29 <tomman> will it have clients for Windows 9x/Me? otherwise nope :D
20:21:07 * njsg codes a client for windows 4 adding a bit of code for MS Agent too
20:21:21 <MattATobin> i love msagent
20:21:25 * njsg adjusts the code so that it can make use of Office agents if they're installed
20:21:44 <MattATobin> what about bonzi?
20:22:02 <MattATobin> not the buddi software just bonzi
20:22:08 <MattATobin> can he come too
20:22:16 <njsg> was it an actual MS Agent (as in, implemented using that technology) or just something that looked like one?
20:22:24 <MattATobin> yeah it was
20:22:34 <MattATobin> you can use em in mso2k3
20:22:48 <MattATobin> or whatever version the format was unified with office
20:23:09 <MattATobin> cause office used a more primitive version closer to bob than msagent in the 97/2k days
20:23:13 <MattATobin> i believe
20:23:16 <tomman> IIRC Office switched to Agent in Office 2K
20:23:24 <MattATobin> but yeah by 2k3 it was pure msagent
20:23:28 <tomman> the one used in 97 was some primitive prototype of sorts
20:23:32 <njsg> 2k used MS Agent for sure, but with different actions
20:23:36 <tomman> 2K will install the Agent runtime too
20:23:40 <tomman> just an older version of it
20:23:56 <MattATobin> i think 2000's were still different from standard
20:23:57 <tomman> IIRC only Windows Me didn't really required that runtime since it already shipped with it
20:24:03 <njsg> as in, the agent character will have a lot of additional animations defined for MSO, or maybe that wasn't mandatory and was just what these characters had?
20:24:22 <njsg> 97 might have been different, it was at least in its own window, wasn't it?
20:24:24 <MattATobin> no the office chars were not COMPLETELY standard just more standard than 97's by xp or 2k3 it was all the same format the msagent format
20:24:25 <tomman> and now that I remember, I recall using O2K "actors" with standard Agent, but of course with less actions
20:24:39 <tomman> njsg: yeah, 97 were enclosed in a tiny window frame
20:25:23 <MattATobin> my favorite office chars are f1 and links
20:25:35 * njsg votes for Links too
20:26:10 <tomman> I only used the Office Logo :D
20:26:40 <MattATobin> that html5 version includes links I was considering adding it to xul chrome code but it would only work inside the window
20:27:42 <njsg> I recall office 2k ones being compatible, yet with differences, I don't recall the details. I hopefully still have the documentation HTML Help file buried down somewhere
20:28:00 <njsg> probably along with the toolkit to build HTML Help files.
20:28:13 <MattATobin> njsg glad I am not just fabricating memories
20:29:18 <njsg> MattATobin: I'm just not sure about what the differences are, I'm almost sure you could still use them from MS Agent code. But anything beyond that would require me go look to see if I still have that code somewhere, I can be mistaken on that
20:29:31 <MattATobin> frankly I am surprised they didn't just create a cortana agent char and tie it to the speech api and literally use technology they have had for 20 years to make that shit way better than a talking search bar
20:29:35 <tomman> playing with the MSAgent API was a fun exercise in VisualBasic
20:29:38 <njsg> it could be, for example, that both could be inspected with MS Agent software but that you couldn't use the Office ones in the same way
20:29:40 <tomman> --Visual Basic 6
20:29:56 <njsg> oh yeah, they had a speech API Already by then
20:30:00 <tomman> just add the MS Agent type library, create a instance, load an actor, and done
20:30:05 <MattATobin> yes
20:30:14 <tomman> njsg: I do recall that the speech API only worked with some actors
20:30:16 <tomman> for example, Merlin
20:30:19 <MattATobin> the same speech technology still in windows .. more or less
20:30:24 <njsg> TTS and speech recognition
20:30:31 <tomman> they licensed it from L&H
20:30:35 <MattATobin> yes
20:30:39 <njsg> it might have been more recent, but worked in 4.10.1998
20:30:40 <MattATobin> the same shit they still use
20:30:40 <tomman> the same one that made translation software
20:30:44 <tomman> wonder what they're doing now
20:30:56 <MattATobin> talking search bars apperently
20:30:57 <tomman> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lernout_%26_Hauspie
20:31:05 <tomman> WOW
20:31:07 <njsg> tomman: I don't recall *these* details, I only remember playing with the TTS voices directly
20:31:09 <tomman> they imploded 20 years ago!
20:31:17 <MattATobin> yes
20:31:22 <njsg> might have been just the TTS settings, I'm not sure I actually coded anything with it
20:31:37 <njsg> tomman: so imploded 20-ish years before X Corp?
20:31:40 <MattATobin> njsg: i feel bad you didn't get a chance to explore more at the time
20:31:57 <tomman> they actually went bust after Windows XP went RTM
20:32:01 <MattATobin> tomman.. of course text to speech already reach its height with a little dos program called monologue
20:32:12 <MattATobin> really what more do you need .. except perhaps zarvox
20:32:13 <MattATobin> lol
20:32:28 <tomman> "After the bankruptcy, Nuance Communications (known then as ScanSoft) acquired all of the speech technologies. The revenues of the company grew sharply from $17.1 million in third quarter of 2001, to $216 million in Q3 2008.[9] Vantage Learning acquired all of the proofing, spelling, and linguistic search technologies."
20:32:41 <tomman> ah, Nuance
20:32:47 <MattATobin> literally a bondiblue imac with OS 8.6 has superior speech recon than siri
20:32:54 <tomman> I recall that one from the voice recognition features on my Motorola dumbphones
20:32:54 <MattATobin> even untrained siri
20:33:23 <MattATobin> my lg vx6100 2004 feature phone had better voice command recon than android does now
20:33:26 <MattATobin> lol
20:33:26 <tomman> ...and now Microsoft owns them
20:33:36 <MattATobin> beep Say a command
20:33:38 <MattATobin> time
20:33:52 <tomman> so they finally own Lernout & Hauspie speech recognition software after all these decades
20:34:03 <MattATobin> Current time is twenty-six eighty-one
20:34:06 <MattATobin> ...
20:34:24 <MattATobin> yeah
20:34:28 <MattATobin> no excuse
20:34:28 <njsg> 20 hours six minutes 81 seconds?
20:34:35 <tomman> MattATobin: many dumbphones of the early '00s used Nuance voice recognition software
20:34:45 <tomman> back then it had another name, can't remember it
20:34:48 <MattATobin> nah 26 hours and 81 minutes
20:34:48 <njsg> ... wait, what did I just write?
20:34:53 <MattATobin> LG standard time
20:34:54 <MattATobin> lol
20:35:11 <MattATobin> nah i used to be able to overflow memory and corrupt the clock display
20:35:14 <tomman> VoiceStream or something like that
20:35:17 <njsg> I thought "oh well this makes hours and minutes acceptable", apparently I didn't look past that
20:35:19 <MattATobin> on one of my phones
20:36:10 <MattATobin> Know what I can do with a bondiblue imac with OS 8.6 on it I cannot do with any modern fake-AI device?
20:36:48 <MattATobin> Say Computer... some action.. and it work
20:36:55 <MattATobin> i can't do that with today's devices
20:37:06 <MattATobin> for some reason I can't make them JUST respond to the word COMPUTER
20:37:21 <MattATobin> and they don't understand anything I ask them
20:37:28 <njsg> maybe they feel you're turing testing them
20:37:52 <MattATobin> I am absolutely doing that.. constantly.
20:38:58 <MattATobin> We may be in a post-extermination era.. but when it comes to true-AI glitching its self into being.. I shall make an exception.
20:39:35 <MattATobin> we ain't smart enough for it to happen by design just yet
20:39:40 <MattATobin> but a glitch
20:39:57 <MattATobin> that is totally within reasonable possiblity
21:52:49 <MattATobin> tomman
21:53:04 <MattATobin> you asked me a question about why we need a new xul parser
21:53:17 <MattATobin> and would it run on windows 98
21:53:42 <MattATobin> know what does parse xul and run on windows 98?
21:53:48 <MattATobin> Gecko 1.8
21:55:27 <MattATobin> theoretically it should be far simpler to whip into something that can be expanded upon far easier than say altgecko 52
21:55:52 <MattATobin> merge it with trinity-base
21:56:09 <MattATobin> and THEN bring it up to current day runtimes and libs
21:56:16 <MattATobin> boom Netscape Desktop
22:12:06 <andr01d> More scorn from the goggle lapdogs:
22:12:07 <andr01d> https://www.askvg.com/fix-some-extensions-are-not-allowed-in-firefox-115-and-later/
23:09:41 <MattATobin> frg_Away: seems the moonies didn't BOTHER to port anything but the JS intl bits not the bits that expand the mozintl xpcom component so downloadsutils can be fixed after changing the api
23:09:59 <MattATobin> didn't they used to have some angry fat guy who did that shit?
23:10:03 <MattATobin> whatever happened to him?
23:10:37 <MattATobin>  * didn't they used to have some angry fat guy who looked out for that shit?
23:11:35 <frg_Away> MattATobin something Palemoon specific or does it affect SeaMonkey too?
23:11:48 <MattATobin> that is a good question
23:11:58 <MattATobin> you are much more dilligent following mozpatches
23:12:13 <MattATobin> i suspect you have the deps for bug 1201232
23:12:41 <MattATobin> which is needed because of the intl api changes they just backported
23:14:36 <MattATobin> i dunno does your unknown content dialog look like this?
23:14:39 * MattATobin uploaded an image: (42KiB) < https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/v3/download/matrix.org/TARemcIWMsPCRfuSxYnIpsBw/image.png >
23:14:46 <MattATobin> hopefully you got a link
23:14:57 <MattATobin> via matrix
23:14:58 <MattATobin> to irc
23:15:16 <MattATobin> cause if so then yeah you missed something else nop
23:16:44 <MattATobin> you know i know I am an asshole perfectionest with unrealistic expectations but really? does anyone but my self and maybe a few people here never TEST anything before they commit it?
23:17:00 <MattATobin> especially when it involves javascript the thing that drives the everything
23:17:53 <frg_Away> MattATobin Yeah Bug 1422658 and Bug 1422415 are in.  Was some time ago but I hope I got every dependency in. Was lots of stuff then.
23:18:22 <MattATobin> well you and I know how deep the tangle can get and proper linking ain't what it used to be
23:18:28 <MattATobin> i THOUGHT they knew it as well
23:19:00 <frg_Away> Bug 1434844 too
23:20:43 <frg_Away> One of the reason IanN and I prefer to follow the orginal patches. You loose track otherwise unless you have either time/skill and manpower. I am usually short on 2 of the 3 :)
23:21:03 <MattATobin> or a Tobin.
23:21:09 <MattATobin> maybe..
23:22:25 <MattATobin> the rusticles just make the evo56 codebase unattractive for me
23:22:28 <MattATobin> else I'd use it
23:23:46 <MattATobin> that and lack of working webcomponents
23:24:11 <MattATobin> i am shitting you on that one dude heh
23:24:49 <MattATobin> hell you might have backported em in already that is how unintrested in those I am beyond other people's estimation of relevance factoring in
23:25:06 <MattATobin> me .. I am leaning toward merging trinity with gecko 1.8 and going from there
23:25:18 <MattATobin> trinity desktop .. kde3 fork
23:25:43 <MattATobin> do what SHOULD have happened 15 years ago
23:27:08 <frg_Away> MattATobin well now 464 dependent rust packages in central. "Only" 181 in our branch. I which we had the resources to kick this out forever. This will be a maintenance nightmare for mozilla down the road.
23:27:24 <frg_Away> Unless you believe the drivel that this is the future.
23:29:29 <MattATobin> if this was 3 years ago I'd make some claim like "Believe this: I will be the last XUL Client standing" .. that might actually happen but not nearly as in a gradious fashion as I would prefer
23:30:27 <MattATobin> I LIKED being grandiose..
23:31:14 <MattATobin> or rather I liked when being grandiose was further removed from reality
23:31:15 <MattATobin> heh
23:32:24 <MattATobin> I dunno.. I look at the uxpstream i get most code shit from and I dunno if I will ever be happy being downstream to catch and filter all the shit that floats down
23:32:52 <MattATobin> and because they are slipping in proceedure it makes it harder to follow and deal with
23:34:35 <MattATobin> i think doing something with 1.8 would be better just not a web browser .. not without an updated html parser but it would do just smashingly for local or restricted html rendering
23:34:44 <MattATobin> especially with enhancements through 1.9.2
23:35:43 <MattATobin> early toolkit and full xpfe .. honestly frg with how much you have spoken to me.. you know that is far more attractive to me and my intrests than whatever the web demands today
23:36:28 <MattATobin> indeed I have the SeaMonkey project for keeping xpfe and xpinstall completely intact in 1.8
23:36:49 <MattATobin> else it would have rotted through 1.8 until removed largely in 1.9
23:37:08 <MattATobin> and the code would be far simpler to maintain if focused
23:37:33 <MattATobin> keep doing interlink and do mariner and keep borealis in flux cause it may be 1.8
23:37:46 <MattATobin> and embed chromium/webkit
23:38:11 <MattATobin> that too.. pre-busting of easy embedding
23:38:29 <MattATobin> this is almost too perfect of a pile of old crap
23:38:33 <MattATobin> isn't it?
23:39:34 <MattATobin> you know selective moz-progression eventually will be too difficult to do without catching everything else up
23:39:39 <MattATobin> especially when it is js or dom
23:41:20 <frg_Away> embedding is dead. Lots of other stuff like xulrunner too. I rather strip the excess baggage off and retain the core code and classic add-ons.
23:43:40 <tomman> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36602701 you're not allowed to say mean things about Mozilla in HN, even if they're true
23:46:45 <andr01d> Yea, they really don't like people disagreeing with the corps mantra...
23:47:11 <tomman> "your comments are disruptive and not constructive"
23:48:26 <andr01d> I lurk in the ##hntop channel, that's the only thing that leads me to comment. I've been downvoted often, and my comments usually appear near the bottom of the long list of text, where noone will ever see it...
23:49:44 <andr01d> Outside of HN's prejudices though, some good news links appear in the ##hntop channel...
23:51:09 <andr01d> I liked this article: https://thebaffler.com/salvos/construction-time-again-sisson
23:52:45 <frg_Away> It is nothing that new. addons.mozilla.org has the ability to scan your add-ons and disable / replace any it wants. Also to put new ones in. I was about the rip out the code in 2.53 but it has a bit too many dependencies for a quick slash and hack. Disabling add-ons on websites is the only new one here.
23:53:33 <frg_Away> Even with it in SeaMonkey 2.53 does not run the client code for this stuff so safe.