News, tips, advice, support for Windows, Office, PCs & more. Tech help. No bull. We're community supported by donations from our Plus Members, and proud of it
Home icon Home icon Home icon Email icon RSS icon
  • Ascaris

    Forum Replies Created

    Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 2,279 total)
    • Author
      Posts
    • in reply to: userchrome.css #2306876
      Ascaris
      AskWoody_MVP

      You already were able to take screenshots, log into this site, then write a post and put the screenshots into that. You were able to zip up and post your chrome folder too. Unzipping the chrome-2.zip into the Firefox directory is no harder than any of that, and arguably actually easier. I am sure you can do it!

      Group "L" (KDE Neon Linux 5.20.1 User Edition, Ubuntu 20.04 base).

      in reply to: Renaming Firefox profile #2306646
      Ascaris
      AskWoody_MVP

      You can copy the folder over, but the new Firefox is going to create its new profile anyway. You can fix that, though.  I just posted in another thread about how to do this.

      In short, if you edit installs.ini and profiles.ini to where all of the references to the new profile it created are removed and replaced with the name of the profile you want to use, and if you remove the compatibility.ini from inside the profile itself, it should work fine. I’ve done this a dozen times in the last few weeks, as I’ve been messing around with the OpenSUSE version of Firefox in non-OpenSUSE distros. It’s the same in Windows as in Linux as far as this stuff goes.

      As I mentioned in the other post, I am using a Firefox profile now in Linux that started as a Windows Firefox profile on a different PC, and I haven’t used Windows in a few years now beyond the occasional testing, and I’ve copied the initial Linux version to all my other Linux PCs too. Most of the work comes from trying to overcome Mozilla’s patronizing efforts to prevent profile corruption (more likely to prevent complaints about just that), not actual profile incompatibility. Actual profile incompatibility is rare compared to the difficulty imposed by the measures to fix the profile incompatibility.

      Have a backup of the original profile before proceeding, of course.

      Group "L" (KDE Neon Linux 5.20.1 User Edition, Ubuntu 20.04 base).

      in reply to: userchrome.css #2306636
      Ascaris
      AskWoody_MVP

      The chrome-1.zip file has most of what you want. It was as close as I could get it with only having the original chrome directory as a reference.

      I made a few more tweaks based on your screenshots, and if those are what you want it to look like, it should be good now. Please give the new version, chrome-2, a try and see if it works for you.

      Group "L" (KDE Neon Linux 5.20.1 User Edition, Ubuntu 20.04 base).

      Attachments:
      in reply to: Firefox 82.0 and 78.4.0 esr Updates #2306614
      Ascaris
      AskWoody_MVP

      I installed the ESR version about a week or so ago to test its performance, and I used my old (v81) profile without any problems, once I overcame Firefox’s aggressive disobedience as far as just loading the dang thing.

      Firefox has become very annoying with its creation of new profiles even if the new Firefox installation is the same version as the old one. Each Firefox installation gets its own installation ID, and it will create a new profile if the existing profile is associated with a different installation ID.

      As always, be sure to have backups before messing with profile folders.

      In order to reassure Firefox that all is ok and that it’s ok to load the profile, I just replace the name of the new profile folder that was created with that of the profile I want it to use, in both installs.ini and profiles.ini. I also remove compatibility.ini within the profile itself. The actual new profile folder that was created can be deleted.

      After that, Firefox should use the old profile without any issues.

      You could probably also replace the actual new profile folder with a symlink to the one you want it to use, then delete compatibility.ini.

      I’m still using the same Firefox profile I used years ago in Windows, FWIW. I copied it to Linux, then to the other Linux PCs, and so on, and it’s still the same one. I just edited out some of the Windows paths just a few weeks ago. They evidently were not important, but as long as I was in there (prefs.js), I went ahead and fixed it.

      Group "L" (KDE Neon Linux 5.20.1 User Edition, Ubuntu 20.04 base).

      in reply to: Yee Olde Icons on Desktop #2306610
      Ascaris
      AskWoody_MVP

      I wonder if there is some sort of setting or something where the desktop size is larger than the viewport (the part shown on the display) and you’re meant to scroll around to see the whole thing. Yes, to some people that’s an actual feature… I can’t imagine using such a terrible setup, but I’ve seen it described as a feature.

      It’s something like this, I think. The way things are missing, things that should work windowed don’t, missing window controls, all sounds like the bit of the desktop you are seeing is not the whole thing.

      I’ve never seen that in Windows, so I could not begin to tell you how to get rid of it. I inadvertently turned it on in KDE Plasma one time and I about lost my mind trying to figure out how to get rid of it. I eventually did, but it’s not a feature I would want to use on purpose.

      Group "L" (KDE Neon Linux 5.20.1 User Edition, Ubuntu 20.04 base).

      in reply to: The inevitable OS: Windows 10 at five years #2306412
      Ascaris
      AskWoody_MVP

      I liked Vista’s interface the best, with aero, the right use of colors and transparency and not the ineffective launcher of Windows 7. Why Microsoft didn’t keep it as an option in later release and made it difficult to bring back the quicklaunch bar (and keep hiding it from time to time on Win 8.1)?

      Branding. It’s the same reason they got rid of the Classic start menu in Windows 7. Windows was not allowed to look dated, not even if you, the PC owner, wanted it to, lest someone look over your shoulder and think that Windows isn’t the height of coolness.

      I realized immediately how bad was the fake Start Menu that I never use. I thought, are they really thinking people will be happy with that horrible joke?

      No. They are not obviously not concerned about whether people are happy with anything in Windows 10. That’s the beauty of having an “inevitable” OS, as the thread title says.

      I would really like Microsoft to have a different vision than the stupid WaaS that is promoting absurdities like the more than 5 years in the making slow transition from the old control panel to the new one.

      That started in Windows 8, in 2012! It’s been eight years. It’s also a bad idea to go from the outstanding control panel to the mess that is Settings. Since I’ve moved to Linux, I’ve noticed that all the desktop environments I have seen have various takes on the control panel for their settings, not Settings. The whole point of that was for the eventual “one UI to rule them all” Windows that works on phones and PCs, only they gave up on phones years ago.

      What do I gain from that as a user, having a bit more changed each version?

      It’s not about what you gain. It’s about what Microsoft gains, which is a delivery system for whatever change they want without triggering a backlash. If they just pushed some monetization scheme or other such consumer-unfriendly thing out via Windows update as a standalone, there would be too much attention focused on the update and how MS was callously using Windows Updates to send out those unwanted, consumer-unfriendly things.

      If, however, they keep a frequent release schedule and populate it with bunches of useless fluff to fill up each press release, it gives cover to the nasty bits they may want to sneak in there. The bad bits will only be a small part of the “what’s new” article, with the new baubles taking up the bulk of the text, and the general tone will generally be that users got a bunch of good things and just one bad thing, with no user backlash of which to speak. That’s not to say that no one will complain, only that the level of complaints will fall into the “satisfaction not necessary” zone rather than the “too hot, retreat!” zone.

      Group "L" (KDE Neon Linux 5.20.1 User Edition, Ubuntu 20.04 base).

      3 users thanked author for this post.
      in reply to: userchrome.css #2305789
      Ascaris
      AskWoody_MVP

      I meant that I tried to port everything over from the old userChrome.css to the new one that Aris released. The main userChrome.css file is just a list of a bunch of other files that do the actual work of restyling Firefox. Most files in the list from your older version still exist now in the newer one, but not all of them. All that means is that it might vary in appearance a bit from what you remember.

      If that appearance in the screenshot is good, all you need to do is extract chrome-1.zip to your Firefox profile’s ‘chrome’ folder and restart Firefox. You were able to zip up the chrome folder and upload it, so you already have some familiarity with zip files. It’s the same thing, but in reverse.

      Group "L" (KDE Neon Linux 5.20.1 User Edition, Ubuntu 20.04 base).

      in reply to: userchrome.css #2305768
      Ascaris
      AskWoody_MVP

      Here is how Firefox looks for me with the chrome-1.zip custom CSS. I had it open Find in Page, which you can see at the top of the content window.

      firefox

      Is this the appearance you want? This is your old version of Aris’ custom CSS for Firefox ported to a newer version, more or less. There were a few things that did not have direct equivalents.

       

      Group "L" (KDE Neon Linux 5.20.1 User Edition, Ubuntu 20.04 base).

      Attachments:
      in reply to: userchrome.css #2305659
      Ascaris
      AskWoody_MVP

      The chrome-1.zip file I uploaded was the attempt at the fixed version of the userChrome.css setup you uploaded. I don’t know what it is you are trying to accomplish with the custom stylesheets, but I was able to look at the ones you had and see that they were an old version of Aris’ custom stylesheets for Firefox, which I was familiar with as I use them in my own Firefox installation. I tried to port over the bits I found enabled in your custom stylesheet, but without knowing what the problem you have with the original Firefox is, it’s hard to know what you are actually requesting here.

      As far as the Find in Page thing… are you saying that the Find in Page bar does not appear when you invoke it via the menu? I just tried it in the chrome-1.zip file I uploaded, and it works fine.

      Firefox 57 changed a lot of things, as that was the first release in the Quantum series. One of the things it removed was the ability to use the classic addons, like Classic Theme Restorer, which used to provide the functionality that the custom CSS now does. It also introduced a new UI.

      What is the problem you had with Firefox 57 when that arrived back then? Or, in other words, what would be the problem you have with Firefox right now if you removed the custom .css and went back to the default appearance?

      Group "L" (KDE Neon Linux 5.20.1 User Edition, Ubuntu 20.04 base).

      in reply to: userchrome.css #2305639
      Ascaris
      AskWoody_MVP

      I would love to try to help with this, but I must admit that I have no idea at all what the problem is. Can you please explain a bit what you want to have happening and what is actually happening instead?

      Group "L" (KDE Neon Linux 5.20.1 User Edition, Ubuntu 20.04 base).

      in reply to: The inevitable OS: Windows 10 at five years #2305636
      Ascaris
      AskWoody_MVP

      Indeed! As a computer enthusiast, not just one who sees them as tools (they are that, but not only that), I can definitely say that nothing has put the fun back into computing like my move to Linux. I had that level of enthusiasm with MS-DOS back in the day… not so much with Windows 3.0 and 3.1, but it came back in with Windows 95, then XP, and then 7, though in decreasing amounts with each new release. I moved to 8.1 for practicality (mainly the additional three years of support, though it turns out that I didn’t need them), and even though I was able to make it into a pretty good facsimile of Windows 7 with aftermarket modifications, it wasn’t something I was particularly enthusiastic about. Win 10, of course… it’s the Windows version that’s got what it takes to make a Windows man leave his home.

      The original article did say that MacOS and Linux were alternatives, which is true, and that most people would just keep using Windows anyway (even if they didn’t particularly like it), which is sadly also true. That’s where he apparently comes to the conclusion that Windows 10 is the inevitable OS… but it’s actually eminently evitable for a lot more people than who will actually leave Windows behind. Many of them think it’s inevitable, though, and so they never seriously consider trying something else. Perception becomes reality for many.

      Some people absolutely must use Windows-only programs, and alternatives like VMs or WINE won’t work (yet?), so for them perhaps Windows 10 is truly inevitable. Still, a lot of people who choose to tolerate Windows 10 rather than to leave it would find Mac or Linux quite hospitable if they were willing to commit to leaving Windows behind. That’s their choice, though, and it is theirs to make. But if it is, truly, a choice, I would say that Windows 10 is not inevitable for them.

      Of course, those who like Windows 10 don’t find it inevitable either, as they choose to use it willingly. Those who have tried the alternatives and like them even less than Windows 10 also are making a choice, so it’s not really inevitable then either.

      Group "L" (KDE Neon Linux 5.20.1 User Edition, Ubuntu 20.04 base).

      4 users thanked author for this post.
      in reply to: Linux : Potential security vulnerabilities in BlueZ #2305570
      Ascaris
      AskWoody_MVP

      I’ve had the Bluetooth disabled always in Mint on any laptop that has internal Bluetooth radio capability but does Disabling Bluetooth also disable any Bluetooth discovery services as well?

      Assuming everything is working properly, then yes, it would disable the discovery of bluetooth device by the laptop in question.

      I’m always a little bit sketchy on saying that action A that is supposed to cause result B will cause result B, because sometimes things malfunction and don’t behave as they are meant to. There’s no special reason to think that’s the case here, only that I feel compelled to allow for that possibility.

      I just received the update to kernel 5.4.0-52.57 in Neon as well.

      Group "L" (KDE Neon Linux 5.20.1 User Edition, Ubuntu 20.04 base).

      1 user thanked author for this post.
      in reply to: Patch Lady – why are you running Windows 7? #2305324
      Ascaris
      AskWoody_MVP

      I’ve upgraded one Vista PC and one Win7 PC to Win10. They all run faster.

      The same was true of Vista and Win7 over XP – both were faster after the upgrades.

      I would bet that a lot of the speed increases people see when upgrading would probably be seen just as much if the same version of Windows had been reinstalled. Windows can accumulate a lot of cruft if you let it, and “Windows rot” is the result. I’ve gone to great lengths to prevent having that on my own PCs, and it seems to have been effective.

      I’ve upgraded a lot of Windows PCs, and usually the newer versions have been the same or slower than the older ones. The one exception that springs to mind is when I went from 7 to 8.1 on two of my PCs. I do think that 8.1 felt more responsive, but otherwise, 95 was slower than 3.1, 98SE was about the same as 95, XP was slower than 98SE and ME, Win 7 was about the same or a little slower than XP, and so on.

      I never really compared 10 to other Windows versions, as I have never used 10 as an actual OS (I’ve tested stuff on it, mainly, and the only PCs that have 10 on them are the ones that have hardware upon which MS has sabotaged the earlier versions of Windows, so I never tried them). I know that 10 on my Swift laptop (which is anything but) feels sluggish compared to Linux, but I have no idea how any other Windows would be on it.

      Yes, I don’t like flatland, either. I think it’s the first UI mistake Microsoft has made in a long time

      They’ve made a lot of UI mistakes in recent memory, by my way of thinking. The Luna theme in Windows XP (which a lot of people liken to a Fisher-Price UI) was a mistake, and the replacement of the Win2k icons (that were clear and easily identifiable) with the pastel blotches of color in XP was another.

      The removal of the File, Menu… menubar by default from Vista and beyond was a mistake. The classic menu bar remains (IMO) to this day the best mouse-based menu system, and back then, the change wasn’t about touch.

      When Vista was reworked into Windows 7, MS announced that the “Classic” cascading start menu (optional since XP) was going away. Some users begged them to leave it, but MS just said that the Classic start menu was over ten years old and it was time to move on. (They’d given up on listening to customers, and decided that customers needed to listen to them instead, a trend that continues to this day.)

      When the new composited Aero themes arrived with Vista, MS removed the ability to set each UI element color. You could set the accent color, but most colors would remain hardcoded to retina-searing white. If you didn’t like that, you could still use the Classic or basic themes, but they were no longer hardware accelerated as they had been in XP, so the visual tearing was horrendous. That continued with Windows 7, but when 8 rolled around, the basic and Classic GDI themes were gone. The user had to either use one of the truly awful high-contrast themes or accept the colors that MS had dictated for you, which meant “white” when it came to backgrounds. If that hurt your eyes, I guess you were supposed to turn the monitor brightness down (which made darker images into black blobs) or wear sunglasses when using the PC.

      I use the retina-searing background as my go-to example because it’s an issue I’ve had personally, and it’s as good as any example of how MS put their own branding ahead of basic usability. I’ve been using a light grey background since I got my first decent CRT monitor (the first one that had enough contrast to make the white really painful). Prior to that I just turned down the brightness on the knob that monitors used to have, which made flipping the brightness up and down easier. That was only necessary at the time when using MS Word for Windows, where the expanse of white became overwhelming.

      When I moved on to LCDs, the gray background became a must. The glare of a LCD is so much worse than even my Princeton monitor at full brightness… it’s just painful to use a LCD with white.

      It would ordinarily have been possible to change the theme to get new colors, but Microsoft had thought of that. They programmed the theme UI to ignore any themes that were not signed by Microsoft, and since they didn’t offer theme signing as a service, it ensured that only their own themes would be usable.

      Not even kernel drivers require an unattainable Microsoft signature… they merely have to have a signature from a recognized CA. Why would it be that the most dangerous kinds of executables in the system have less stringent signature requirements than harmless, non-executable themes?

      Of course, the aftermarket came to the rescue, figuring out ways to hack the OS to use non-MS themes, but the point is that MS tried to block people from having any control over how their own PCs look.

      All of these things, from the Luna theme to the locked colors and themes, were meant to make Windows look “cool” in Microsoft’s view. It was all about branding. Every Windows PC had to “look like Windows,” whatever that happened to be at the time (and it was a moving target). There was no other reason for them to be worried about any of this nonsense. If it’s my computer, and only I will be using it, what concern is it of Microsoft’s how my UI looks?

      Windows 8 also did away with the optional menu bar in the File/Windows Explorer and replaced it with the oft-hated Ribbon, which was yet another mistake, IMO. Of course, Win 8 also had the bizarre interface where you’d boot to the Metro screen, and it was the first half and half (MS calls it “zebra”) UI that didn’t know whether it wanted to be a phone or a PC.

      Windows 8 had the first flat interface in a Windows release, since that was, by 2012, “cool,” while concerns about usability were not.  The tiled Start screen (which Windows would boot to rather than the desktop) was really confusing to a lot of people who didn’t grasp that it was just the start menu taking up the whole screen instead of a piece of it. If they inadvertently invoked it during a desktop session, they wondered where their programs went, and if they were still open, or if they’d lost their data. MS knew, or should have known, that this would be the case, given their extensive research into UI design that produced the UI masterpiece of Windows 95.

      All of those UI blunders were before Windows 10. The one saving grace was that most of the mistakes were correctible, though the effort required to do so increased with each successive Windows release. It’s at the point with 10 that it’s no longer possible to bring it to a fully sensible state in terms of UI, and the lack of control over updates and other things in the OS only makes it worse.

      and I know it was related to small devices (phones) and touch. But, adapt or die.

      “Adapt or die” was probably one of the motivations, but now that they’ve given up on the phone market, what is it to which they wish to adapt? I don’t agree with their decision to phone-ize the PC starting with Windows 8, but I could see the point in it. MS wanted to break into the mobile market in a big way, but the lack of a well-stocked app repository meant that most users (who were using Android or iOS) would not want to switch. The idea was that if the entire OS on a desktop could be a stand-in mobile platform, app devs might be persuaded to start developing mobile apps for Windows now rather than waiting to see if the Windows Store for mobile actually caught on.

      It didn’t work in 8.x, of course, and MS seemed to conclude that a probable reason for this was that users (who were almost exclusively using regular PCs, not touch devices) chose not to migrate to 8.x, and that ready-made market for mobile apps never appeared. That certainly explains Microsoft’s unwillingness to let people choose to not migrate to 10.

      I had hoped the lesson Microsoft would learn from the failures of Vista and 8.x would be that if people are offered an upgrade to a version of Windows they don’t want, they won’t accept it, so don’t offer versions of Windows people don’t want.  The actual lesson they learned was that if people are offered an upgrade to a version of Windows they don’t want, they won’t accept it, so don’t give them a choice.

      So Windows mobile died, and I’d hoped that MS would recalculate and recognize that the one market they do have is the PC market, where the vast majority of users are on non-touch devices, but they just kept going as if the old plan of using the PC as a stepping stone to Windows Mobile was the main goal. It makes no sense to “adapt or die” if that adaptation is to accommodate a platform that they do not and will not have a presence on, at the expense of the platform that they have a monopoly-level market share.

      I’ve seen the comments to the effect that “touch is the future,” but that’s a slogan more than a reality. Touch doesn’t really work for non-handheld devices, and non-handhelds is Microsoft’s domain. If you plan on doing something more complicated than checking in at an airport kiosk or taking out some cash at an ATM, you need a pointing device you can use without gravity working against your outstretched arm. A mouse works for that, and so does a laptop’s touchpad, but a touchscreen that’s vertically oriented at about arm’s length away (or more) is an ergonomic nightmare, and to cater an entire desktop OS to that usage scheme because of baseless slogans  instead of the reality of how people use PCs is inane.

      The mouse-oriented Windows 7 interface remains better than anything Microsoft has produced to date for mouse-based PCs, which is essentially all of them. Nearly all of the people who own touch-enabled PCs that I have talked to say that they seldom or never use the touchscreen, and that they use the touchpad or mouse instead.

      About the only sensible use case for touchscreens on general-use PCs is in convertible devices, and even then the only time the touchscreen is used is typically when the keyboard is undocked and it is essentially a tablet. It makes little sense to force all of the UI compromises that are inherent within a touch UI on the mouse-using customers just because a handful of people sometimes use Windows in touch mode.

      If MS wants to have a parallel UI that has a discrete tablet UI for use when undocked and a mouse UI that is in use the rest of the time, and for the large majority of PCs that have no touchscreen, I would certainly be okay with that, but the idea that one UI can work for all devices has, I think, been soundly disproven by now. “Responsive design” web pages that were primarily desktop pages that scaled down to mobiles were still reportedly klunky and bad on the mobiles, and the newer trend of web pages that are primarily mobile pages that scale up for desktops are still vastly inferior to those designed-for-desktop pages that used to be the norm.

      Windows 8, 10, Ubuntu Unity, and GNOME 3 are more examples of “one UI to rule them all” that are less optimal on both the touch platform and the mouse platform than UIs dedicated to each. Apple at first was the adult in the room, saying essentially this, but they seem to be hearing the siren’s call too these days. I only hope we can keep KDE from going down the same rabbit hole.

      If MS had not tried to adapt quite as much as they had, many of the Windows 7 holdouts would have migrated already, and those disgruntled “I didn’t have a choice” upgraders might be, erm, a bit more gruntled. I might still be using Windows, for that matter, rather than leaving behind the platform that I used for more than 25 years. I am not one who likes change, and to me, moving to Linux was less of a change than staying with what Windows had become. As the tired old aphorism goes, “I didn’t leave Windows. Windows left me.”

      Group "L" (KDE Neon Linux 5.20.1 User Edition, Ubuntu 20.04 base).

      1 user thanked author for this post.
      in reply to: Flash snuffed out #2305298
      Ascaris
      AskWoody_MVP

      HTML 5. All of the current browsers have the ability to play videos without any plugin, as the HTML 5 capabilities are part of the browser itself. You’ve probably been using it and not realized it… lots of sites, like Youtube, discontinued the Flash format a long time ago. I haven’t had Flash installed for years, and the only site that has tried to use it recently was the US National Weather Service.

      Group "L" (KDE Neon Linux 5.20.1 User Edition, Ubuntu 20.04 base).

      Ascaris
      AskWoody_MVP

      Has the developer sent a notice to all Chrome Nano users about sale ? Many none-tech don’t visit GitHub, Ghacks, Askwoody..and wouldn’t know about the change and maybe the potential security implications. I wouldn’t trust him on any browser.

      No, the dev of the version that was sold didn’t do that, and it was the source of a lot of anger in the message threads listed above. He posted about it to the GitHub forum for the project, but that was all, and as you said, the large majority of users are never going to see that.

      One of the points brought up in the discussion is that since Nano Adblock was/is open source, it would have been possible for the buyers of Nano to simply fork the project, for free, and develop the code exactly as they have. Since they didn’t agree to hire the prior developer to oversee the continued development of the addon by the new owners, the only thing they gained by buying Nano instead of forking it was the trusted name and the number of people who already had it installed, who would get the new version automatically (for better or worse). That raises questions about what the motive of the buyers was, and the most reasonable conclusion would have been that the new owners wished to monetize the addon somehow, and nearly all ways of doing that are malware-ish.

      According to the detractors in the thread, the former owner of the addon should have known that all of this, along with the lack of any presence in the open-source community for the buyers prior to now, was a huge red flag, but he persisted in the sale anyway, and did little to ensure the users were informed.

      The fears about the motives and intent of the new owners of the addon were confirmed when the addon was analyzed, and there was the further red flag that the code in the ready-to-install addon (which consists of a lot of non-compiled code) was not the same as in the source. The only reason to do that is if you are trying to hide something.

      The Firefox version, though, is developed by someone else, as the “regular” Nano Adblocker by the author who made the sale is for Chrome.  The Firefox version is a port of the original and is developed separately from Chrome Nano version. The dev of the Firefox version has said that continued development of the Firefox version will continue, but will no longer be a port of each upstream Chrome release, but an independent, free-standing addon.

      According to the messages in the thread, Nano Adblock added some neat features to uBlock Origin back when uBlock didn’t have those yet, but now it does, and the two are about at feature parity. People want to stick with what they are familiar with and what has been working for them, certainly, but there does not seem to be much loss of features or function by moving upstream (from the Chrome version, to uBlock Origin for Chrome).

       

      Group "L" (KDE Neon Linux 5.20.1 User Edition, Ubuntu 20.04 base).

      • This reply was modified 1 week, 2 days ago by Ascaris. Reason: Remove redundant text
    Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 2,279 total)