Hi All,

Over on Windows10Debloater
https://github.com/Sycnex/Windows10Debloater

It says to
"Download the .zip file on the main page of the
GitHub and extract the .zip file to your desired
location"

For the life of me, I can not find where to download
the zip file. Maybe I am going blind?

-T

T,

> For the life of me, I can not find where to download
> the zip file. Maybe I am going blind?

Nowerdays github thinks its called for to store information like that in a
script block of type application/json. For eazy machine consumption I
suppose. Humans ? Meh, who cares.

After taking a "view sourcecode" peek the zip-file link seems to be this :

https://github.com/Sycnex/Windows10Debloater/archive/refs/heads/master.zip

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 1/9/24 22:55, R.Wieser wrote:
> T,
>
>> For the life of me, I can not find where to download
>> the zip file. Maybe I am going blind?
>
> Nowerdays github thinks its called for to store information like that in a
> script block of type application/json. For eazy machine consumption I
> suppose. Humans ? Meh, who cares.
>
> After taking a "view sourcecode" peek the zip-file link seems to be this :
>
> https://github.com/Sycnex/Windows10Debloater/archive/refs/heads/master.zip
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser
>

Thank you!

I finally found the zip under the "Code" button

On 1/10/2024 2:15 AM, T wrote:
> On 1/9/24 22:55, R.Wieser wrote:
>> T,
>>
>>> For the life of me, I can not find where to download
>>> the zip file.  Maybe I am going blind?
>>
>> Nowerdays github thinks its called for to store information like that in a
>> script block of type application/json.  For eazy machine consumption I
>> suppose.  Humans ?  Meh, who cares.
>>
>> After taking a "view sourcecode" peek the zip-file link seems to be this :
>>
>> https://github.com/Sycnex/Windows10Debloater/archive/refs/heads/master.zip
>>
>> Regards,
>> Rudy Wieser
>>
>
> Thank you!
>
> I finally found the zip under the "Code" button

Just for the record, Github has an "artifically high" browser requirement.

This means the interface won't work at all, in something like FF52
or some old version. It's all bomb-squadded, to only work if they
can store their little cookies or whatever. They think this is going
to make me use MSEdge. It's not. Surprise!

Only then do you get the code button with the ZIP hiding in it.

That's why a lot of people will look at your request and say
"I don't see no stinkin code button!". It's because they don't
see it.

So the page has several appearances, and if you've never
been there, you don't know where the hidden treasure is,
and what the page should actually look like.

Even archive.org is doing this to me! To fix this one, use the
upper right corner, to replace the function missing from the main page.

https://archive.org/advancedsearch.php

Github is a daily annoyance for me, because a number of Google
hits will throw me under the bus there. It's like going to a
Reddit link and finding nothing but annoyance.

Paul

On 1/10/24 01:52, Paul wrote:
> On 1/10/2024 2:15 AM, T wrote:
>> On 1/9/24 22:55, R.Wieser wrote:
>>> T,
>>>
>>>> For the life of me, I can not find where to download
>>>> the zip file.  Maybe I am going blind?
>>>
>>> Nowerdays github thinks its called for to store information like that in a
>>> script block of type application/json.  For eazy machine consumption I
>>> suppose.  Humans ?  Meh, who cares.
>>>
>>> After taking a "view sourcecode" peek the zip-file link seems to be this :
>>>
>>> https://github.com/Sycnex/Windows10Debloater/archive/refs/heads/master.zip
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Rudy Wieser
>>>
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>> I finally found the zip under the "Code" button
>
> Just for the record, Github has an "artifically high" browser requirement.
>
> This means the interface won't work at all, in something like FF52
> or some old version. It's all bomb-squadded, to only work if they
> can store their little cookies or whatever. They think this is going
> to make me use MSEdge. It's not. Surprise!
>
> Only then do you get the code button with the ZIP hiding in it.
>
> That's why a lot of people will look at your request and say
> "I don't see no stinkin code button!". It's because they don't
> see it.
>
> So the page has several appearances, and if you've never
> been there, you don't know where the hidden treasure is,
> and what the page should actually look like.
>
> Even archive.org is doing this to me! To fix this one, use the
> upper right corner, to replace the function missing from the main page.
>
> https://archive.org/advancedsearch.php
>
> Github is a daily annoyance for me, because a number of Google
> hits will throw me under the bus there. It's like going to a
> Reddit link and finding nothing but annoyance.
>
> Paul

My use of cURL on it must drive it bonkers!

Paul wrote on 1/10/24 2:52 AM:
>
> That's why a lot of people will look at your request and say
> "I don't see no stinkin code button!". It's because they don't
> see it.

Works fine in Chrome and Firefox
=> the 'Code' button

In SeaMonkey(latest version) accessing the link in the original post in
this thread yields a option to:
"Sign in to GitHub"

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

"Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote
| | Just for the record, Github has an "artifically high" browser requirement.
| | This means the interface won't work at all, in something like FF52
| or some old version. It's all bomb-squadded, to only work if they
| can store their little cookies or whatever. They think this is going
| to make me use MSEdge. It's not. Surprise!
|

Yes. It just keeps getting worse and worse. Completely broken
without script. Broken on XP. Yesterday I was wanting to get
NetGuard for Android. I went around in circles on Android trying to
get an APK link. I never did figure out how I found it. On XP I
wanted to get the FAQ -- simple text -- but as you noted, it's
embedded in script. Even the FAQ! I ended up copying and parsing
the blurb from source code. Crazy stuff. Github looks likes it was
designed by an insufferable geek who hasn't had his coffee yet,
then touched up by Bill Gates when he has insomnia, furious that
people are downloading code for free. I think Billy wants to at least
make sure that we can't get anything compiled without a fight. :)

Embedding content in script is becoming more common. The only
possible reason I can see is to force people to use script. The trick
of putting an opaque DIV on top of content is also becoming more
common. In some ways it's nostalgic. Remember the old days when
teenagers would do their Flash masterpieces, and the page would
announce "Best viewed with IE 4.12345.678"?

The new commercial websites are similar. You're not supposed
to be able to read them. You're supposed to see ads. (The content
may be just auto-generated anyway.)

As most probably know, MS bought GitHub. MS pages are also
widely broken. Very few are accessible anymore without enabling
script. It's not HTML. It's a javascript software program that will
generate a webpage when you run it. I think it's about time that
we have a movement to return to HTML and non-obfuscation.

I've also noticed that archive.org is messed up. It used to work
well. Now, if I find a page through search I can get file links. But
I haven't got the search to work for a long time now.

MS have always been nasty that way. I remember once,
years ago, they had a site for something for programmers. I don't
remember now what it was, but it came up in discussions in the
VB newsgroup. It turned out that the source code was specifically
written to block anything but IE. And of course, there was at least
one lapdog MVP to say that was impossible and was just anti-MS
propaganda. (We had some very good VB MVPs, but also a couple
of MS attack dogs.)

Now Google seems to be doing similar tricks with Chrome and has a
monopoly similar to IE in the 90s. I never use anything but Mozilla-
related browsers, but I have seen complaints about things not working
except in Chrome.

If it doesn't work for me in FF then I just don't go there. Recently
I told my dentist that their page won't work for me. It's a JS/JSON
monstrosity. To my delight they now send me a simple, no-nonsense
email! To confirm my appt 4 times in 3 weeks I need only reply to
the email.

Newyana2 wrote on 1/10/24 6:34 AM:
>
> If it doesn't work for me in FF then I just don't go there. Recently
> I told my dentist that their page won't work for me. It's a JS/JSON
> monstrosity. To my delight they now send me a simple, no-nonsense
> email! To confirm my appt 4 times in 3 weeks I need only reply to
> the email.
>
>
>
I've never needed to visit my dentist web site to confirm an appt.
Mine provides two different methods for confirmation, neither of which
are email.
- An automated phone call with the ability(when answered) to press a
number on the phone(a '1' for confirm or a '2' to cancel
- A SMS text message to confirm with the option to reply with a Y or N.

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

"...w�񧱤� " <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote

| I've never needed to visit my dentist web site to confirm an appt.
| Mine provides two different methods for confirmation, neither of which
| are email.
| - An automated phone call with the ability(when answered) to press a
| number on the phone(a '1' for confirm or a '2' to cancel
| - A SMS text message to confirm with the option to reply with a Y or N.
|

That would be worse to my mind because it requires
answering a call at that moment, while email is not
time-specific... Remember the old days when an appointment
meant that you had an appointment? No one had to
confirm anything. The appointment WAS the confirmation.

I recently read that the current social protocol is a kind
of ghosting: If you arrange to meet a friend for coffee then
that must be confirmed via cellphone the day of. If you call
them on the appointed day and they don't answer then that's
a cancellation!

It occurred to me that that protocol signals a change in
the use of cellphones. It's no longer just about people being
addicted to them. Cellphones are now the interface through
which people relate to "other". Any other. The outside world
is what you contact, or accept contact from, on your
cellphone.

Newyana2 wrote on 1/11/24 6:35 AM:
> "...w¡ñ§±¤ñ " <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote
>
> | I've never needed to visit my dentist web site to confirm an appt.
> | Mine provides two different methods for confirmation, neither of which
> | are email.
> | - An automated phone call with the ability(when answered) to press a
> | number on the phone(a '1' for confirm or a '2' to cancel
> | - A SMS text message to confirm with the option to reply with a Y or N.
> |
>
> That would be worse to my mind because it requires
> answering a call at that moment, while email is not
> time-specific... Remember the old days when an appointment
> meant that you had an appointment? No one had to
> confirm anything. The appointment WAS the confirmation.
>

Well, since two methods, in my case are always provided, answering the
phone call is not necessary. When not answered, content in the message is
captured in voice mail, also not time specific(read or listen to it at
one's own leisure...just like email.

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ