BBO have recently updated their web version to 6.10.1.
I cannot now login using latest Safari (16.6) on latest macOS (13.5.1):
the 'Log in' button doesn't work.
I can login using Firefox, but changing the user-agent to Firefox
within Safari doesn't work.

I shall send BBO support a HAR file...

Rob

On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 3:08:58 AM UTC-4, Mister Johnson wrote:
> BBO have recently updated their web version to 6.10.1.
> I cannot now login using latest Safari (16.6) on latest macOS (13.5.1):
> the 'Log in' button doesn't work.
> I can login using Firefox, but changing the user-agent to Firefox
> within Safari doesn't work.
>
> I shall send BBO support a HAR file...
>
> Rob
I use Chrome.

When I used Safari long ago, there were problems, but I can't remember the details.

In article <f7227882-ddb8-4179-9fc8-35f4f5bd91bcn@googlegroups.com>,
judyorcarl@verizon.net <judyorcarl@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 3:08:58AM UTC-4, Mister Johnson wrote:
>> BBO have recently updated their web version to 6.10.1. I cannot now
>> login using latest Safari (16.6) on latest macOS (13.5.1): the 'Log
>> in' button doesn't work. I can login using Firefox, but changing the
>> user-agent to Firefox within Safari doesn't work.
>>
>> I shall send BBO support a HAR file...
>>
>> Rob
>
>I use Chrome.
>
>When I used Safari long ago, there were problems, but I can't remember
>the details.

That's the problem with making all this stuff browser based. It always
ends up being browser-dependent, and usually ends up working only with MS's
browser.

It was so much better when BBO ran as a normal Windows EXE file.
I totally lost interest in BBO when they broke it (several years ago now).

--
"He is exactly as they taught in KGB school: an egoist, a liar, but talented - he
knows the mind of the wrestling-loving, under-educated, authoritarian-admiring
white male populous."
- Malcolm Nance, p59. -

Kenny McCormack wrote:

> That's the problem with making all this stuff browser based. It always
> ends up being browser-dependent, and usually ends up working only with MS's
> browser.
>
> It was so much better when BBO ran as a normal Windows EXE file.

Linux, Mac and OS/2 users wouldn't be so happy with that solution.

And if you dream about a Windows program - then why are you unhappy with
things only working in a Windows browser?

--
Bertel, Denmark

In article <uckkgr$27r60$1@dont-email.me>,
Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
> Kenny McCormack wrote:
>
>> That's the problem with making all this stuff browser based. It always
>> ends up being browser-dependent, and usually ends up working only with MS's
>> browser.
>>
>> It was so much better when BBO ran as a normal Windows EXE file.

OK, I'll play.

>Linux, Mac and OS/2 users wouldn't be so happy with that solution.

It is actually pretty easy to run (simple) Windows apps (including BBO)
on other OSes.

I have personally run BBO (via Windows emulation) on both Linux and Mac.

I've never been able to get the browser version to run under either of
those OSes - because, as I said, this stuff usually ends up only working
(fully/correctly) with MS's browsers anyway.

And as for OS/2 users, you mean both of them, right? And note that I am
speaking as a former big OS/2 user/supporter/advocate. OS/2 really doesn't
exist anymore (in the consumer sphere). I think they're calling whatever
remains of it "eCom station" (or something like that) nowadays.

>And if you dream about a Windows program - then why are you unhappy with
>things only working in a Windows browser?

See above. I knew someone would make this objection; failing to see that a
Windows application is best, even if you don't run (or like) Windows.

Windows is (or should be) kind of a "lingua franca" or Esperanto-like thing.

--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/ForFoxViewers

In article <ucklig$65tt$2@news.xmission.com>,
Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>In article <uckkgr$27r60$1@dont-email.me>,
>Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>> Kenny McCormack wrote:
>>
>>> That's the problem with making all this stuff browser based. It always
>>> ends up being browser-dependent, and usually ends up working only with MS's
>>> browser.
>>>
>>> It was so much better when BBO ran as a normal Windows EXE file.
>
>OK, I'll play.
>
>>Linux, Mac and OS/2 users wouldn't be so happy with that solution.

Now that I think more about it, I suppose that, to be fair, I should note
that the real target of making it browser=based is people who are not
really running any OS at all (in the sense that us Usenet geeks understand
that term).

I.e., people using things like smartphones, tablets, iPads, Chromebooks,
etc.

So, there is that...

--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/Seriously

Kenny McCormack wrote:

> Windows is (or should be) kind of a "lingua franca" or Esperanto-like thing.

At least they found a nice colour for their screen of death and screen
of wait 10 minutes and don't turn your computer off.

I'm glad I don't see them anymore.

--
Bertel, Denmark

On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 13:24:11 +0200, Bertel Lund Hansen
<gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:

> Kenny McCormack wrote:
>
>> That's the problem with making all this stuff browser based. It always
>> ends up being browser-dependent, and usually ends up working only with MS's
>> browser.
>>
>> It was so much better when BBO ran as a normal Windows EXE file.
>
>Linux, Mac and OS/2 users wouldn't be so happy with that solution.
>

FYI, the old Windows BBO program worked perfectly well using Linux and
WINE. I used it for many years.

Brian.

--
This message has been sent from an invalid address
Replace 'Usenetposting' with my name to reply by e-mail.

In article <tVBaN.1989$Zcz8.524@fx03.ams1>,
Brian <usenetposting@patandbrian.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 13:24:11 +0200, Bertel Lund Hansen
><gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>
>> Kenny McCormack wrote:
>>
>>> That's the problem with making all this stuff browser based. It always
>>> ends up being browser-dependent, and usually ends up working only with MS's
>>> browser.
>>>
>>> It was so much better when BBO ran as a normal Windows EXE file.
>>
>>Linux, Mac and OS/2 users wouldn't be so happy with that solution.
>>
>
>FYI, the old Windows BBO program worked perfectly well using Linux and
>WINE. I used it for many years.
>
>Brian.

Indeed. I think I made that point somewhere upthread (now long gone from
my newsserver). (like you) I ran BBO under Wine for quite some time.

I think I've also run it under (I think) Virtual Box, on (x86 based) Mac.

Haven't used OS/2 in decades; don't really care about that anymore...

Finally, note that I am pretty sure that the reason they switched to
browser-based is simply because it made it easier to serve ads (and make
money). The graveyard of all good things...

--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/Rorschach

Kenny McCormack wrote:

> Finally, note that I am pretty sure that the reason they switched to
> browser-based is simply because it made it easier to serve ads (and make
> money). The graveyard of all good things...

A browserbased application is system-independent.

--
Bertel, Denmark

In article <ukfhj0$2dd04$1@dont-email.me>,
Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>Kenny McCormack wrote:
>
>> Finally, note that I am pretty sure that the reason they switched to
>> browser-based is simply because it made it easier to serve ads (and make
>> money). The graveyard of all good things...
>
>A browserbased application is system-independent.

In theory.

See my previous posts on this thread.

--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/Rorschach

Kenny McCormack wrote:

>>A browserbased application is system-independent.
>
> In theory.

And practice.

> See my previous posts on this thread.

Having to make sure that Wine (and other intermidiery software) doesn't
suddenly crash due to new versions poses certain limits on the
development. It's easier only to have to consider standard browsers.

--
Bertel, Denmark