Serendipity Forums

Just upgraded this machine to php 8.2.8 before jumping to 8.4 in a few months.
on my linux desktop - opera, the share plugin buttons are normal size. on this machine, a 15" laptop, the buttons are monumentally large, this is using latest chrome in full screen mode, but on windows 10, firefox displays them correctly, and strangely, edge as we know built on chromium also is correct size, opera too.
Like it or not (and I dont) google has a lot of brainwashed fanbois and fangirls who use chrome, its like this plugin, can't understand chrome and thinks its a mobile device.

I have disabled, even removed and reinstalled, the plugin to no avail, I dont see anything stand out on the forum in admittedly a 60s peak, so I'm not so sure this is a global chrome issue and maybe version or user specific, not sure how else to delve into it.

Mobile using opera-mobile and samsungs browser show all good.
I'll also say that the chrome user is me, I've locked the board for the upgrade of php and to v2.5.0, until I get a response from another local guy to check using his chrome, then it comes down to why is mine doing this if he doeasnt have problem, but I want to make sure before I unlock the vhost back to normal
Thanks

ok, the issue remains for me, but not my friend, so I;ll unlock the blog, so anyone know what might cause this for chrome? I have to assume even though its not happening to all chrome users, surely I cant be only one, seeing this, I aint that special

weird, I just edited the first visible entry (lastest entry I guess you call it), saved it, and now it seems fine, WTF, I already flushed caches and cookies, wonder why that had such affect?

Browser cache got very hard to control. It's likely Chrome lied to you and cached the CSS anyway. If it were something in the blog (like the internal cache) your friend would have seen the same issue.

Though we do timestamp the CSS to help with the cache, and saving an entry does renew the internal cache. I'd have to check whether it also renews the timestamp for the CSS cache. That'd be an explanation though!

Thanks, I remember chrome was a b.... with caching css, yeah, makes sense.