ldeveraux wrote on Yesterday, 16:51:

You're part of the problem..

Which problem? I decide what browser I want to use, not someone else, let alone on a site dedicated to retrocomuting.

2 problems really; you're one that I'd like to enact this on for various reasons, not least of all offering a bogus workaround rather than letting the board runners do what they should. Until then, I'll continue to mute and no longer respond to nonsense.

ldeveraux wrote on Yesterday, 17:17:

2 problems really; you're one that I'd like to enact this on for various reasons, not least of all offering a bogus workaround rather than letting the board runners do what they should. Until then, I'll continue to mute and no longer respond to nonsense.

Oh be sure that the world is plenty of silent haters for no reason, like you, one more won't change my life.

It's a tricky one. The latest release has fewer known security vulnerabilities than Chrome 108, but the risks are to users - not to the websites.

I don't think we should be mandating hardened browsers. I think, instead, we should be educating people. In my view of utopia, most sites would display a banner highlighting the most significant vulnerability. And, the user would harden their banking connections rather than their anonymous hobbies. And, websites would degrade gracefully with different amounts of JavaScript disabled.

Instead we have this constant drive to use JavaScript to burn energy tracking movements, encryption to burn energy transferring mundane data, and an overheating planet. Whatever will we think of next?

MattRocks wrote on Yesterday, 19:28:

It's a tricky one. The latest release has fewer known security vulnerabilities than Chrome 108

Come on! We aren't in the IE6 days anymore, security is, almost always, just an excuse to remove bits of freedom, in IT, just like in real life.

but the risks are to users

I understand actions of websites to protect their self, also because for them the security treats are real.

But about users? Let users take care of their self!
That Appleish idea that users needs a "mom" that tells them what's good and what's bad, is simply hideous, practically and by principle.

I don't think we should be mandating hardened browsers. I think, instead, we should be educating people.

It's my motto since the dawn of times, "upgrade the users instead of downgrade OSes and programs", which is more or less the antimatter of the trend started by Apple since when they regained traction and started to turn their users in zombies.

In my view of utopia, most sites would display a banner highlighting the most significant vulnerability. And, the user would harden their banking connections rather than their anonymous hobbies. And, websites would degrade gracefully with different amounts of JavaScript disabled.

Seriously, these days OSes and Browsers are, more or less, robust enough, most of the treats for the end users, are directed directly to them, not their PCs.

People, especially uninformed, and/or busy are way simpler to hack than any browser, even IE6. The only protection from ignorance (in general, but specificy to IT security) is knowledge, not Chrome 19768

Back to the specific argument. I don't believe that a generic page, with a generic http2 error, is something the web administrator did on purpose, looks more like a misconfiguration of something.

(Hideous)Sites that blocks older browsers on purpose are relatively common, but they are used to show a clear webpage telling "we are sorry, but your browser is not supported anymore, please update, bla...bla...bla...

So anyway, would love a mod to chime in as to why they don't implement this.

The Solutor wrote on Yesterday, 17:21:

Oh be sure that the world is plenty of silent haters for no reason, like you, one more won't change my life.

Oh there are reasons, and I can confirm that it's more than just one more hater.

badmojo wrote on Yesterday, 21:28:

The Solutor wrote on Yesterday, 17:21:

Oh be sure that the world is plenty of silent haters for no reason, like you, one more won't change my life.

one more hater.

Wow. That means a 100% increase. I'm impressed 😁

The current version of the default browser in windows (Edge 154.0.4258.37) now seems to be blocked. This is stupid.

jmarsh wrote on Today, 11:07:

The current version of the default browser in windows (Edge 154.0.4258.37) now seems to be blocked. This is stupid.

ohhh and i thought the site blocked the coffeeshop where i usually have my break!

Oh yeah couldn’t access today, same issue it seems

jmarsh wrote on Today, 11:07:

The current version of the default browser in windows (Edge 154.0.4258.37) now seems to be blocked. This is stupid.

Yes, very stupid. It's also blocked on my default system, but I have Version 83.0.478.50 on this system which is OK.

I suspect most who are blocked can't even report the issue

Brave works fine and has a built-in ad blocker.

cyclone3d wrote on Today, 17:07:

Brave works fine and has a built-in ad blocker.

Vivaldi has a built in AD block since the dawn of time as well (and ublock can be sill made working), but I don't think adblockers has anything to do with the discussed problem

red-ray wrote on Today, 11:58:

I suspect most who are blocked can't even report the issue

GPUzoo.com block the entire IP range of my UK-based ISP and I can remember wanting to inform them but don't remember if I managed to dispatch an email. Maybe I couldn't find their email address.

I can only guess at what they host as I've not browsed their site directly. At first I was annoyed, but then I figured if they can't configure their website properly then they probably don't know much about GPUs anyway.

Lesson might be, if you are going to direct a user to an error page then at least include contact details on that error page.