STABLE version -- 4.2.10.171

[Admini]

Questions to the developer.
Why is the information written differently all the time if you execute the command - about:version in the browser?
1. Version - it is written 0, then written for example ca97ba107095b2a88cf04f9135463301e685cbb0-refs/branch-heads/3538@{#1094}
2. OS - it is written simply - Windows, then it is written for example - Windows 7 Service Pack 2 (Build 7601)
3. It is written - Linker: lld-link, then it is written for example - Options: d74ef32b-c7113149, then this position does not exist at all.
Why is it not written the same in different versions? Does each version build differently? Or is it just negligence?

Yes, each version may be built differently.
And the build tools for Chromium are changed sometimes.

[cb-user]

Yes, each version may be built differently.
And the build tools for Chromium are changed sometimes.

Even the Windows version cannot be determined? This was in the younger versions of the browser.
And please explain what this actually means:
1. Version - ca97ba107095b2a88cf04f9135463301e685cbb0-refs / branch-heads / 3538 @ {# 1094}?
2. Options - d74ef32b-c7113149?
What do these sets of numbers stand for?

[cb-user]

1. Question to the developer.
Why not just close the holes and vulnerabilities with security patches in time without switching to another kernel? How the 360 Extreme Explorer developers do it. At the same time, bring one of the best and most problem-free Chromium engine to perfection.
Why can't you follow this path?

---

2. Question to the developer.
Why is it always difficult to get a digital signature for a product? The latest digitally signed version was 4.0.9.112. It is very difficult? Or very expensive? Or is it just not enough time? Why is this question not being resolved?

[pureocean]

@CentBrowser:

When I started CentBrowser there was something awkward in the tab; as if script was being installed in the background. I suspected a malware. I found out the reason for this awkwardness through ProcMon & Fiddler. Cent was downloading self-PepperFlash to %Temp% folder and extracting it to the User Data folder.

Code:

"%Temp%\components_upgrade.exe" -s -d".......\User Data"

My personal Cleaner .BAT file removes junk files and folders from Cent's User Data. One of the folders that deleted is User Data\ PepperFlash.

I don't use Flash. Also, since I deleted this folder, I don't want to burden Cent's own server (by downloading 13 MB of RAR SFX file) every time it starts. I looked for ways to turn this off.

Sorry, the following switchs didn't work.

Code:

--cb-disable-components-auto-update
--disable-bundled-ppapi-flash
--disable-component-update

Whether the UserData\ PepperFlash folder is in place or not, Cent persistently downloads the  components_upgrade.exe file (PepperFlash) to %temp% and extracts it to the User Data folder.

I ask you to add a switch (--cb-disable-bundled-ppapi-flash, how?) or a setting that prevent the automatic download of components_upgrade.exe in the next build. I suggest you may set this feature as default to ease the load on your server.

[cb-user]

Questions to the developer.
Tell me, will a new version of the browser on the core of Chromium-85 be released? What next?
Are you planning to continue working on the browser?
Do you have the strength and time for this? Maybe you initially did not calculate your strength when you took on the project?
Or do you have some other solution?

[Banjoboy]

Questions to the developer.
Tell me, will a new version of the browser on the core of Chromium-85 be released? What next?
Are you planning to continue working on the browser?
Do you have the strength and time for this? Maybe you initially did not calculate your strength when you took on the project?
Or do you have some other solution?

It is a complete waste of time to ask Cent browser when they will release their next update. This is not the first time that it has been +6 months. "It will come when it comes". Even if they answer as to when it will be released it is always wrong ! That is the result of a small time operation, which Cent is.

[cb-user]

It is a complete waste of time to ask Cent browser when they will release their next update. This is not the first time that it has been +6 months. "It will come when it comes". Even if they answer as to when it will be released it is always wrong ! That is the result of a small time operation, which Cent is.

I was not asking about exactly when the new version of the browser will be released. I asked if she would show up at all. Or maybe the developer realized that he did not calculate the strength for this project and cannot continue it.

The fate of the browser in the broadest sense of the word is just interesting. Maybe the developer has new plans for the development of the browser.

[rch]

Questions to the developer.
Tell me, will a new version of the browser on the core of Chromium-85 be released? What next?
Are you planning to continue working on the browser?
Do you have the strength and time for this? Maybe you initially did not calculate your strength when you took on the project?
Or do you have some other solution?

The devs have said there are two major problems causing the delays; disabling Direct Write and some bookmark issues.

Whether they are going to carry on until they fix those issues (however long that will take), split the browser into two versions, or do something else, they haven't said...

[cb-user]

Very similar to the situation with the 7 Star browser. There, too, development subsided slowly but surely. And it stopped completely.

This is what users fear. Therefore, such questions are for the developer.

[gtanadam]

Incompetent developers.
I have not been yet reached out.
I will now go ahead and implement disable-direct-write on my own, and will have the fork name posted on MacType github as well as here if I will be allowed to.
Best of luck to CentBrowser Team!