Jump to content
Piriform Community Forums

Winapp2.ini

Beta Testers
  • Content count

    6,369
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

2 Followers

About Winapp2.ini

  • Rank
    Friendly neighborhood addon manager
  • Birthday 25/01/1993

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.mosca.to
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Long Island, New York
  • Interests
    Sleeping

Recent Profile Visitors

3,736 profile views
  1. Winapp2.ini additions

    A build of winapp2ool with the non-ccleaner ini being a commandline arg (-ncc) is now available. The menus in diff or trim might be broken under some circumstances, but I think I got most of the adjustments correct. https://github.com/MoscaDotTo/Winapp2/tree/Branch1/winapp2ool/bin/Debug
  2. Winapp2.ini additions

    Agreed, I think it should be moved to winapp3.ini specifically The backups folder becomes polluted with backup files that notepad++ has "forgotten" over time, mine has over 40 0kb backups of files that I never created. Normally I'd say we should just remove it because most users wouldn't want to delete these, but given this issue I think there's a case for the usefulness of the entry
  3. Winapp2.ini additions

    This change was made across all modules under the assumption that most people would usually want to download the latest. The default download setting now matches whether or not you have an internet connection. I actually just had the realization that this has likely had the affect of also inverting any commandline args for downloading (outside the download module) as I typed this response, so I've reverted the change on the development branch. You can find an executable with the behavior you want here: https://github.com/MoscaDotTo/Winapp2/blob/Branch1/winapp2ool/bin/Debug/winapp2ool.exe I'd also like some feedback on whether or not the non-ccleaner setting should be shown or if it should be behind a commandline arg (eg winapp2ool -ncc) which would set winapp2ool to non-ccleaner mode. The user facing change here would be that all the separate menu options for the non-ccleaner version would no longer be shown and the winapp2.ini options would select the appropriate file for your current mode. If for some reason someone wanted to still use the combined mode, I could leave support in for that through some other arg, but I would imagine there are not many people frequently interacting with both copies at the same time. In the near future I'm hoping to extend the commandline arg handling to better enable people to use winapp2ool however they want in a scripted fashion, which should hopefully eliminate the need for potentially confusing menu setups like this.
  4. Winapp2.ini additions

    winapp2ool update: v1.02 https://github.com/MoscaDotTo/Winapp2/releases/tag/v1.02
  5. ublock users

    Mozilla could end up down this route too: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2018/10/26/firefox-chrome-and-the-future-of-trustworthy-extensions/ Manifest v3 “In 2019 we will introduce the next extensions manifest version…We intend to make the transition to manifest v3 as smooth as possible and we’re thinking carefully about the rollout plan.” In 2015, Mozilla announced we were deprecating our extremely popular extension system in favor of WebExtensions, an API compatible with Chrome, as well as Edge and Opera. There were several reasons for this, but a large part of the motivation was standards — a fundamental belief that adopting the API of the market leader, in effect creating a de facto standard, was in the best interests of all users. It was a controversial decision, but it was right for the web and it represents who Mozilla is and our core mission. Three years later, while there still isn’t an official standard for browser extensions, the web is a place where developers can quickly and easily create cross-browser extensions that run nearly unchanged on every major platform. So I would like to publicly invite Google to collaborate with Mozilla and other browser vendors on manifest v3. It is an incredible opportunity to show that Chrome embodies Google’s philosophy to “focus on the user,” would reaffirm the Chrome team’s commitment to open standards and an interoperable web, and be a powerful statement that working together on the future of browser extensions is in the best interests of a healthy internet.
  6. ublock users

    https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=896897&desc=2#c23 Comment 23 by rh...@raymondhill.net, Yesterday (32 hours ago) In the design document, it is said that the webRequest API will no longer allow to be used in blocking mode: > In Manifest V3, we will strive to limit the blocking version > of webRequest, potentially removing blocking options from most > events (making them observational only). Content blockers should > instead use declarativeNetRequest (see below). It is unlikely > this will account for 100% of use cases (e.g., onAuthRequired), > so we will likely need to retain webRequest functionality in > some form. From the description of the declarativeNetRequest API[1], I understand that its purpose is to merely enforce Adblock Plus ("ABP")-compatible filtering capabilities[2]. It shares the same basic filtering syntax: double-pipe to anchor to hostname, single pipe to anchor to start or end of URL, caret as a special placeholder, and so on. The described matching algorithm is exactly that of a ABP-like filtering engine. If this (quite limited) declarativeNetRequest API ends up being the only way content blockers can accomplish their duty, this essentially means that two content blockers I have maintained for years, uBlock Origin ("uBO") and uMatrix, can no longer exist. Beside causing uBO and uMatrix to no longer be able to exist, it's really concerning that the proposed declarativeNetRequest API will make it impossible to come up with new and novel filtering engine designs, as the declarativeNetRequest API is no more than the implementation of one specific filtering engine, and a rather limited one (the 30,000 limit is not sufficient to enforce the famous EasyList alone). Key portions of uBlock Origin[3] and all of uMatrix[4] use a different matching algorithm than that of the declarativeNetRequest API. Block/allow rules are enforced according to their *specificity*, whereas block/allow rules can override each others with no limit. This cannot be translated into a declarativeNetRequest API (assuming a 30,000 entries limit would not be a crippling limitation in itself). There are other features (which I understand are appreciated by many users) which can't be implemented with the declarativeNetRequest API, for examples, the blocking of media element which are larger than a set size, the disabling of JavaScript execution through the injection of CSP directives, the removal of outgoing Cookie headers, etc. -- and all of these can be set to override a less specific setting, i.e. one could choose to globally block large media elements, but allow them on a few specific sites, and so on still be able to override these rules with ever more specific rules. Extensions act on behalf of users, they add capabilities to a *user agent*, and deprecating the blocking ability of the webRequest API will essentially decrease the level of user agency in Chromium, to the benefit of web sites which obviously would be happy to have the last word in what resources their pages can fetch/execute/render. With such a limited declarativeNetRequest API and the deprecation of blocking ability of the webRequest API, I am skeptical "user agent" will still be a proper category to classify Chromium. --- [1] https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/declarativeNetRequest [2] https://adblockplus.org/filter-cheatsheet [3] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock [4] https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix
  7. Winapp2.ini additions

    This would affect the "Microsoft.XboxOneSmartGlass_8wekyb3d8bbwe" package, is it part of the Xbox app too?
  8. Winapp2.ini additions

    Happy holidays!
  9. Winapp2.ini additions

    the tools folder and its now-deprecated contents are also removed from the repo, with the exception of the winappool executable and its version file for watershedding.
  10. Winapp2.ini additions

    winapp2ool is released! 1.0 https://github.com/MoscaDotTo/Winapp2/releases/tag/v1.0 Users of the beta should be able to update from their old builds to a watershed beta build (0.99) which should then prompt them to update to 1.0 (this is necessary because the files have moved around on the repo with this release). Alternatively, you can simply download the 1.0 build from the release page here. Thank you for all your feedback over the last year on winappdebug, ccinidebug, and winapp2ool as a whole
  11. Winapp2.ini additions

    I've made available a draft of a readme for winapp2ool.exe that should apply to the upcoming 1.0 release. It is not entirely accurate for 0.85 which is the current master version on the GitHub https://github.com/MoscaDotTo/Winapp2/blob/73f02f7009a1f2123194d080bed34eb4b7617cdd/winapp2ool/Readme.md
  12. Winapp2.ini additions

    Off to the removed entries.ini with them!
  13. The Firefox/Mozilla Thread

    I understood this to mean to the new doorhangers calling attention to features like content blocking, I use nightly and haven't seen any advertisements (yet..?)
  14. Winapp2.ini additions

    A new winapp2ool for your consideration: https://github.com/MoscaDotTo/Winapp2/pull/318/commits/976dd4c0885ba3d47e04330b062956dc2e8f5e75
  15. Winapp2.ini additions

    The LevelDB Logs generated by Google Chrome extensions are not logs in the conventional sense we usually approach with intention to delete. They hold buffer data for the LevelDB storage. https://github.com/google/leveldb/blob/master/doc/impl.md https://github.com/MoscaDotTo/Winapp2/issues/320
×