On 10/9/2023 8:36 AM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On 10/8/23 16:09, AllanH wrote:
>> On 10/8/2023 3:38 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've often wanted a screenshot program that would save the whole web
>>>> page. most don't, they're limited to the currently visible part.
>>>
>>> Why doesn't Ctrl-S work for you? Then choose Web page, complete.
>>
>> I believe the OP wants to save the Web page as an Image file.
>
> That's what I wanted too. I was trying to get around the fact that some
> pages would look fine on the screen, then turn into a mess when printed.
> I used to have a program that would do that, but lost it.
>

Two others posted about FastStone Capture (Shareware).

If you're interested, the Last Freeware Version (v5.3) is available at
https://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=775

Paul,

> And some web pages have download protection, such that if
> you use the Firefox "Save As" "Webpage complete", a part of
> the page will be missing. If you check the Download dialog,
> there will be a notification that something stopped.

The problem with "webpage complete" is that it re-downloads* the webpage and
all its resources - but any scripting resources are (ofcourse) not executed
against that webpage. The missing parts are most likely downloaded by some
JS later.

* another problem with that is that the result has not been pulled thru any
kind of addon, so if you have an Anti-ad/tracker/malware addon running the
saved result isn't protected by it.

> It was only the original web, which downloaded nicely.
> In modern times, there are more failure modes possible.

Are you sure ? What about those blasted "flash" based websites ? :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 10/9/2023 3:54 PM, R.Wieser wrote:
> Paul,
>
>> And some web pages have download protection, such that if
>> you use the Firefox "Save As" "Webpage complete", a part of
>> the page will be missing. If you check the Download dialog,
>> there will be a notification that something stopped.
>
> The problem with "webpage complete" is that it re-downloads* the webpage and
> all its resources - but any scripting resources are (ofcourse) not executed
> against that webpage. The missing parts are most likely downloaded by some
> JS later.
>
> * another problem with that is that the result has not been pulled thru any
> kind of addon, so if you have an Anti-ad/tracker/malware addon running the
> saved result isn't protected by it.
>
>> It was only the original web, which downloaded nicely.
>> In modern times, there are more failure modes possible.
>
> Are you sure ? What about those blasted "flash" based websites ? :-)
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser

Well, try it and see.

http://info.cern.ch/

Looks like it is just text. In prehistoric times, they
didn't even use long sentences :-) Hypertext back then,
meant the web page had links, and the rest of it is
just text.

http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/X11/Overview.html

I did a "Save As" "Webpage complete" on the top level of
that web site, and the download was 736 bytes and consisted
of just one file. There was no "folder of supporting cast",
no jquery, no advertising bumpf. Shocking really. If only
they'd known that it would be chock-a-block with adverts.

Paul

Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote

>> I believe the OP wants to save the Web page as an Image file.
>
> That's what I wanted too. I was trying to get around the fact that some
> pages would look fine on the screen, then turn into a mess when printed.
> I used to have a program that would do that, but lost it.

Long ago I decided the best way to save an entire web page or site or set
of levels, is simply to save it to a cross-linked PDF as Paul explained.
<https://wkhtmltopdf.org/>
which saves anything on the web to a PDF with lots of settings for bounds.

Then it prints fine.
It cross references fine.
It looks fine.
It saves fine (as a single file).
Everyone can read it.
It emails fine.
etc.

Me?
I don't use that because I have the payware Adobe Acrobat Writer.
<Control><Shift><O>
--
The whole point of Usenet is to find people who know more than you do.

AllanH <nospam@unokix.invalid> wrote

> Two others posted about FastStone Capture (Shareware).
>
> If you're interested, the Last Freeware Version (v5.3) is available at
> https://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=775

Thanks for letting us know the last known good version of FastStone is 5.3
as I only had FastStone dating back to version 6.4 in my archives prior.

Personally I screenshot all day, every day - but the printscreen button
works for me, with an IrfanView crop & a bit of Paint.NET editing next.

But it's nice to populate the archives with the last known good version!
<https://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=775>
Name: fastone_v5p3_last_known_good_version_of_fscapture.zip
Size: 1360928 bytes (1329 KiB)
SHA256: E43BE2F9E191D295EADC2E20884B45E91A81AF00A4952CE77C7A729C25D3258C

Which contains
FSCapture.exe
FSCaptureHelp.chm
LicenseAgreement.txt
Portable.db
Tips.db

Name: FSCapture.exe
Size: 1111552 bytes (1085 KiB)
SHA256: 85994F9CCDE55BCB8C50E3481D6230B8D6F47ACCDFFBC6C90B707A596673C4D5

Regarding the topic of using Firefox to save a long web page which isn't
viewable in one screen, here's the related information in your helpful URL.
<https://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=775>

"FastStone Capture is a powerful, flexible and intuitive
screen-capture utility. It allows you to capture anything
on the screen including windows, objects, full screen,
rectangle regions, freehand-selected regions and
*scrolling windows/web pages*."

Thank you for adding value to our combined tribal knowledge base.
--
The whole point of Usenet is to find people who know more than you do.
And in this case, my FastOne was a later version, now corrected to 5.3.

On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 18:24:50 +0000, Ms Nisha Pilai
<invalid@invalid.net> wrote:

>Anyway to download this file without creating an account?
>
><https://www.slideshare.net/HindenburgResearch/diamond-scam-order-2013pdf>
>
>It's a long document that I can't read all at once. I want to read page
>at time before it disappears from the website.
>
>I don't have an account with Scribd.
>
>Thank you.
>

After all the discussion this posting has generated, mebbe the OP [my
goodness gracious me] could've set up a *free/short-term* account with
*Scribd*?

Instead, a browser *help* group has been tied up in knots of
non-Firefox hand-wringing.

The original post was obviously phishing... and I'll bet we never hear
from her.

On 2023-10-06, Ms Nisha Pilai <invalid@invalid.net> wrote:
> Anyway to download this file without creating an account?
>
><https://www.slideshare.net/HindenburgResearch/diamond-scam-order-2013pdf>
>
> It's a long document that I can't read all at once. I want to read page
> at time before it disappears from the website.
>
> I don't have an account with Scribd.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
FireShot maybe of some use.

Paul,

> http://info.cern.ch/
>
> Looks like it is just text.
....
> http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/X11/Overview.html

Both mostly are, at least when I look at the result of "view page source".

The second links webpage isn't even actually HTML, as it lacks both the
"html" and "body" elements ...

> There was no "folder of supporting cast", no jquery, no advertising bumpf.
> Shocking really. If only they'd known that it would be chock-a-block with
> adverts

So much wasted space. :-(

And whats worse, no "blink" or "marquee" tag anywhere ! No red-on-blue or
gray-on-grayish colorscheme either. Not even a bunch of animated GIFs !

Oh man, that website must be *old*. :-)

..... pretty much as I like to see them. Stating what I am looking for in
a (mostly) static fashion.

Though I don't mind to see a supporting(!) image here-and-there though. Or a
bit of information formatted by a "table" element (trying to force the same
thru heaps of "div"s and CSS ? What a waste of time).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Paul,

> http://info.cern.ch/
>
> Looks like it is just text.
....
> http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/X11/Overview.html

Both mostly are, at least when I look at the result of "view page source".

The second links webpage isn't even actually HTML, as it lacks both the
"html" and "body" elements ...

> There was no "folder of supporting cast", no jquery, no advertising bumpf.
> Shocking really. If only they'd known that it would be chock-a-block with
> adverts

So much wasted space. :-(

And whats worse, no "blink" or "marquee" tag anywhere ! No red-on-blue or
gray-on-grayish colorscheme either. Not even a bunch of animated GIFs !

Oh man, that website must be *old*. :-)

..... pretty much as I like to see them. Stating what I am looking for in
a (mostly) static fashion.

Though I don't mind to see a supporting(!) image here-and-there though. Or a
bit of information formatted by a "table" element (trying to force the same
thru heaps of "div"s and CSS ? What a waste of time).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 09/10/2023 15:27, Retirednoguilt wrote:
> On 10/9/2023 9:36 AM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
>> On 10/8/23 16:09, AllanH wrote:
>>> On 10/8/2023 3:38 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've often wanted a screenshot program that would save the whole web
>>>>> page. most don't, they're limited to the currently visible part.
>>>>
>>>> Why doesn't Ctrl-S work for you? Then choose Web page, complete.
>>>
>>> I believe the OP wants to save the Web page as an Image file.
>>
>> That's what I wanted too. I was trying to get around the fact that some
>> pages would look fine on the screen, then turn into a mess when printed.
>> I used to have a program that would do that, but lost it.
>>
>>> My Web browser, Vivaldi, can capture the entire page as a file (.JPG in
>>> my case) or a specified area of the page.
>>>
>>
>
> Has the OP tried singlefile? Saves entire page as a single html or
> self-extracting zip file.
>

SingleFile is a web extension for Firefox/Chrome/MS Edge and CLI tool
It's what I use & it works very well
- https://sourceforge.net/projects/singlefile.mirror/

Other screenshot add-ons - but users will have to find out whether they
have scroll capture & the type of file(s) they save as
- https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?q=screengrab

--
Regards
wasbit

On 2023-10-10 02:09, Nobody wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 18:24:50 +0000, Ms Nisha Pilai
> <invalid@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>> Anyway to download this file without creating an account?
>>
>> <https://www.slideshare.net/HindenburgResearch/diamond-scam-order-2013pdf>
>>
>> It's a long document that I can't read all at once. I want to read page
>> at time before it disappears from the website.
>>
>> I don't have an account with Scribd.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>
> After all the discussion this posting has generated, mebbe the OP [my
> goodness gracious me] could've set up a *free/short-term* account with
> *Scribd*?
>
> Instead, a browser *help* group has been tied up in knots of
> non-Firefox hand-wringing.
>
> The original post was obviously phishing... and I'll bet we never hear
> from her.

Phishing?

Phishing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Phishing is a form of social engineering and scam where attackers
deceive people into revealing sensitive information[1] or installing
malware such as ransomware. Phishing attacks have become increasingly
sophisticated and often transparently mirror the site being targeted,
allowing the attacker to observe everything while the victim is
navigating the site, and transverse any additional security boundaries
with the victim.[2] As of 2020, it is the most common type of
cybercrime, with the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center reporting
more incidents of phishing than any other type of computer crime.[3]

The term "phishing" was first recorded in 1995 in the cracking toolkit
AOHell, but may have been used earlier in the hacker magazine
2600.[4][5][6] It is a variation of fishing and refers to the use of
lures to "fish" for sensitive information.[5][7][8]

Measures to prevent or reduce the impact of phishing attacks include
legislation, user education, public awareness, and technical security
measures.[9] The importance of phishing awareness has increased in both
personal and professional settings, with phishing attacks among
businesses rising from 72% to 86% from 2017 to 2020.[10]

«Phishing is a form of social engineering and scam where attackers
deceive people into revealing sensitive information[1] or installing
malware such as ransomware.»

What sensitive information has been obtained?

What malware has been installed?

:-?

It will be something, but it doesn't fit the definition for "Phising".

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Op 10 Oct 2023 01:57:55 GMT, schreef Gordon:

> On 2023-10-06, Ms Nisha Pilai <invalid@invalid.net> wrote:
>> Anyway to download this file without creating an account?
>>
>><https://www.slideshare.net/HindenburgResearch/diamond-scam-
order-2013pdf>
>>
>> It's a long document that I can't read all at once. I want to read page
>> at time before it disappears from the website.
>>
>> I don't have an account with Scribd.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
> FireShot maybe of some use.

Try the Print Friendly & PDF extension

HTH,

Martin

--

Atari FTP-site: ftp://kurobox.serveftp.net:3021
Running openSUSE Tumbleweed / KDE 5.27.8

On 10/10/2023 10:13 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2023-10-10 02:09, Nobody wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 18:24:50 +0000, Ms Nisha Pilai
>> <invalid@invalid.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway to download this file without creating an account?
>>>
>>> <https://www.slideshare.net/HindenburgResearch/diamond-scam-order-2013pdf>
>>>
>>> It's a long document that I can't read all at once. I want to read page
>>> at time before it disappears from the website.
>>>
>>> I don't have an account with Scribd.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>
>> After all the discussion this posting has generated, mebbe the OP [my
>> goodness gracious me] could've set up a *free/short-term* account with
>> *Scribd*?
>>
>> Instead, a browser *help* group has been tied up in knots of
>> non-Firefox hand-wringing.
>>
>> The original post was obviously phishing... and I'll bet we never hear
>> from her.
>
> Phishing?
>
> It will be something, but it doesn't fit the definition for "Phising".

Sometimes, open-ended, dump-and-run posts of this type, are "trolling".
The intention ? "Regulars fall all over themselves."

For the Commander, the objective is "maximum thread count". At one
time, the usenet client had a "total posts" counter for a thread,
and from that, you could get your jollies from making it hit 500
or 1000, with suitable amounts of thread drift.

Paul

On 2023-10-10 23:25, Paul wrote:
> On 10/10/2023 10:13 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2023-10-10 02:09, Nobody wrote:
>>> On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 18:24:50 +0000, Ms Nisha Pilai
>>> <invalid@invalid.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anyway to download this file without creating an account?
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.slideshare.net/HindenburgResearch/diamond-scam-order-2013pdf>
>>>>
>>>> It's a long document that I can't read all at once. I want to read page
>>>> at time before it disappears from the website.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have an account with Scribd.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> After all the discussion this posting has generated, mebbe the OP [my
>>> goodness gracious me] could've set up a *free/short-term* account with
>>> *Scribd*?
>>>
>>> Instead, a browser *help* group has been tied up in knots of
>>> non-Firefox hand-wringing.
>>>
>>> The original post was obviously phishing... and I'll bet we never hear
>>> from her.
>>
>> Phishing?
>>
>> It will be something, but it doesn't fit the definition for "Phising".
>
> Sometimes, open-ended, dump-and-run posts of this type, are "trolling".
> The intention ? "Regulars fall all over themselves."

Yes, trolling it can be, certainly.

>
> For the Commander, the objective is "maximum thread count". At one
> time, the usenet client had a "total posts" counter for a thread,
> and from that, you could get your jollies from making it hit 500
> or 1000, with suitable amounts of thread drift.

What is the commander? :-?

Somebody cares today for number of posts in Usenet?

Curious name:

Injection-Info: paganini.bofh.team; logging-data="1247013";
posting-host="lvwnlrZOTyXOUFTBTyWy3g.user.paganini.bofh.team";
mail-complaints-to="usenet@bofh.team";
posting-account="9dIQLXBM7WM9KzA+yjdR4A";

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 10/10/2023 8:31 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

> Curious name:
>
> Injection-Info: paganini.bofh.team; logging-data="1247013"; posting-host="lvwnlrZOTyXOUFTBTyWy3g.user.paganini.bofh.team"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@bofh.team"; posting-account="9dIQLXBM7WM9KzA+yjdR4A";
>

That's what I'm using, when Eternal-September is timing out.

Paul

On 08/10/2023 22:21, Wally J wrote:
> Mortimer Houghton <mortimer@VivoBook.X512D> wrote
>
>>>> I've often wanted a screenshot program that would save the whole web
>>>> page. most don't, they're limited to the currently visible part.
>>
>>> Then you don't want a screenshot, you want a web page saver ...
>>
>> except firefox does fine at saving the whole web page

So does Vivaldi, which is why I use it. Of course, a whole web page
saved as a JPG image is extremely narrow and very, very tall. But it
works perfectly.

> Does Firefox natively save an entire web page (even the parts you can't see
> in one screen) in a way that you can then easily _use_ the linked pages?

AFAIK no. It saves an image. If you want the whole page with usable links,
just a regular Save will do it, but the usability of the result depends
on the quality of the HTML. The safest way is to run the HTML file
through HTML Tidy with the -asxml option. That way you're practically
guaranteed a well-formed file.

> Long ago, when I wanted to screenshot long web pages, there was a plugin
> that I used to do that in Firefox - but I don't remember the name of it.

I ditched FF a long time ago for bloat. But I stick with Vivaldi because
of the page-saver images.

P

On 29/10/2023 22:18, Peter Flynn wrote:
> On 08/10/2023 22:21, Wally J wrote:
>> Mortimer Houghton <mortimer@VivoBook.X512D> wrote
>>
>>>>> I've often wanted a screenshot program that would save the whole web
>>>>> page. most don't, they're limited to the currently visible part.
>>>
>>>> Then you don't want a screenshot, you want a web page saver ...
>>>
>>> except firefox does fine at saving the whole web page
>
> So does Vivaldi, which is why I use it. Of course, a whole web page
> saved as a JPG image is extremely narrow and very, very tall. But it
> works perfectly.
>
>> Does Firefox natively save an entire web page (even the parts you
>> can't see
>> in one screen) in a way that you can then easily _use_ the linked pages?
>
> AFAIK no. It saves an image. If you want the whole page with usable links,
> just a regular Save will do it, but the usability of the result depends
> on the quality of the HTML. The safest way is to run the HTML file
> through HTML Tidy with the -asxml option. That way you're practically
> guaranteed a well-formed file.
>
>> Long ago, when I wanted to screenshot long web pages, there was a plugin
>> that I used to do that in Firefox - but I don't remember the name of it.
>
> I ditched FF a long time ago for bloat. But I stick with Vivaldi because
> of the page-saver images.
>

Thanks.
HTML Tidy (online markup corrector) - https://htmltidy.net/

I keep Firefox with the Singlefile add-on specifically for this purpose.
- https://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/singlefile.html

--
Regards
wasbit