FDM 3.9.5 4k11b

[Guest]

3.9.5 build 1542 can't npp.6.7.8.2.Installer.exe from the link: https://notepad-plus-plus.org/repositor ... taller.exe

[Usher]

3.9.5 build 1542 can't npp.6.7.8.2.Installer.exe from the link: https://notepad-plus-plus.org/repositor ... taller.exe

It also doesn't work in FDM 3.9.6. There may be some problems with HTTPS or some strange server-side configuration.

[Clive Sorensson]

3.9.5 build 1542 can't npp.6.7.8.2.Installer.exe from the link: https://notepad-plus-plus.org/repositor ... taller.exe

It also doesn't work in FDM 3.9.6. There may be some problems with HTTPS or some strange server-side configuration.

Hello, Usher!
It seems to be working fine on our end (might have been a temporary issue on the server?), could you please provide additional info? Like, how are you adding the : are you using browser integration and if so, what's the browser?
And what is the exact operating system you are working under?

[Usher]

Do read carefully ALL my messages, please. My configuration is well known (see here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17242&p=40744#p40714 ) and I do always do all possible tests (click direct link, right click direct link, repeat the same on the original web page, test http instead of https, copy and paste, etc.). And what about you?
It seems to be a problem with https because I can see the webpage https://notepad-plus-plus.org//v6.7.8.2.html in Firefox, but I can't see it in IE8 - it displays embedded message for DNS error, though DNS works OK. To be more clear, it seems to be a problem with IE/system libraries (used also by FDM) - there were some security issues reported with SSL/TLS etc. and Microsoft probably blocked them in Windows XP (and maybe Vista) or IE8 (and maybe IE9-10), not fixed.
Edit: It also seems to be some stupid web that disabled TLS client-server negotiation on Apache server used by notepad-plus-plus website, but there may be many hostings configured like that.

[D. Yessa]

My configuration is well known

In another topic

I do always do all possible tests (click direct link, right click direct link, repeat the same on the original web page, test http instead of https, copy and paste, etc.)

And which of these does not work? Copy & paste the direct link works great. You finally provided the "original" URL - ok, just added a from there - also works great.

That's why we have FAQ here. The reporting rules are common for everyone.

[Usher]

My configuration is well known

In another topic

In MANY other topics ;-P

I do always do all possible tests (click direct link, right click direct link, repeat the same on the original web page, test http instead of https, copy and paste, etc.)

And which of these does not work?

This is rhetorical question, I presume.

Copy & paste the direct link works great. You finally provided the "original" URL - ok, just added a from there - also works great.
That's why we have FAQ here. The reporting rules are common for everyone.

Including you. So where is YOUR working config?
Note that it's not me that reported the problem - it's me that did research and found the original URL for you, developers. Many thanks for underestimating my volunteer work.

[D. Yessa]

OK, now I see, it's on XP.

TLS v1.0 seems to be disabled on this server. It's reasonable because of some exploits. So, if you don't have TLS 1.1 or 1.2 ticks in IE, Tools > Internet Options > Advanced > Settings > Security, you might not be able to from this server with IE, neither FDM. Since the whole web is moving towards "total SSL", we will consider a possibility to use libcurl which does not have such problems.

[Usher]

There is no reason to require secured connection for anything that is publicly available, f.e. open source or free software. I also don't see any reason to use secured connection for if the installer is digitally signed with certificate. It's just another trendy stupidity like old-fashioned "Best seen with Internet Explorer" website design. You can find many warnings about buggy TLS 1.2 implementations with negotiation disabled by default or with broken fallback to older protocol versions.

Windows XP and Windows Vista SSL up to the latest 3.0 and TLS 1.0 only. TLS 1.1 and newer are NOT available in Windows XP/Vista, see: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/kaushal/archive ... ndows.aspx so providing own libraries is a must - it's about 20% s that don't need newer Windows.

[D. Yessa]

There is no reason to require secured connection for anything that is publicly available, f.e. open source or free software. I also don't see any reason to use secured connection for if the installer is digitally signed with certificate.

One reason is to make sure that the content you get (web pages, binary code, whatever) is equal to the content that your trusted server/issuer wants to distribute.

it's about 20% s that don't need newer Windows.

Fortunately, less than 10% of FDM forum visitors are using such uned and vulnerable system as Windows XP, and this amount is continuously decreasing.

[Usher]

There is no reason to require secured connection for anything that is publicly available, f.e. open source or free software. I also don't see any reason to use secured connection for if the installer is digitally signed with certificate.

One reason is to make sure that the content you get (web pages, binary code, whatever) is equal to the content that your trusted server/issuer wants to distribute.

Such a publicly available info is not a matter of life and death. The only thing you should do is to warn people about the risk, not to protect them from doing what they want to do.
Binaries should be signed as I already mentioned. It's no matter what certificate I trust - provided by website or by software installer.

it's about 20% s that don't need newer Windows.

Fortunately, less than 10% of FDM forum visitors are using such uned and vulnerable system as Windows XP, and this amount is continuously decreasing.

FUD is a way of life for marketing people, not for programmers and other IT stuff - even when dealing with commercial issues.

Note that I'm talking about Windows XP and Vista share together. And I'm pretty sure XP still will be in common use when Vista gets retired with <1% share. Note also that Windows XP is still ed up to 2019 for POSready 2009 systems - security patches are publicly available and easy portable to XP.

You know the phrase "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", I presume, so focus on it, please.

[D. Yessa]

Vista is already dead having approx. 1% visitors on this forum.

Security patches for XP? The fact that they are portable does not port & distribute them automatically. But, well, everyone is responsible for one's PC security. We don't enforce anything, neither does Microsoft.

You know the phrase "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", I presume, so focus on it, please.

Sure, we'll do everything we can. Though, I must mention that we have limited resources, and, some plans for the cross-platform FDM 5.

[atplsx]

Hi
I've been using for a while fdm. Add import url text file in fdm files creation or modify time not servers date.
Please fix this problem. Same import internet manager import text file working fine. I check creation or modify time in server marked. Sorry bad english.
Best regards

[Guest]

Hi
I've been using for a while fdm. Add import url text file in fdm files creation or modify time not servers date.
Please fix this problem. Same import internet manager import text file working fine. I check creation or modify time in server marked. Sorry bad english.
Best regards

Same problem some files

[Usher]

I've been using for a while fdm. Add import url text file

There is no problem with importing URLs in FDM 3.x. You can use FDM menu File | Import and select "Import list of s" (from text file) or "Import list of URLs from clipboard".

in fdm files creation or modify time not servers date.

Windows by default display timestamps for modification dates only, but some programs use also creation dates. That's why FDM changes both dates when you choose to use timestamps from server. If you want to use timestamps created by your system rather than copied from server, you should change proper options in FDM.
Open FDM menu Options | Settings | s | New and click "Advanced" button, then:
- for FTP s go to "Protocol" tab and change option "Don't retrieve the file date from the server" in "FTP" section (mark it to use local system timestamps);
- for other s go to "Miscellaneous" tab and change option "Set the date of a file identical to the date specified by the server" in "Local file" section (unmark it to use local system timestamps).

[Guest]

yes there are problems. Because inetrnet manager take timestamp but fdm not take timestamp. Sometimes does take timestamp. Please You will see the test