4 ms·

Any opinions on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Moon_%28web_browser%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Moon_%28web_browser%29 ?

by eth0up 10y ago

JoshTriplett 10y ago
No good reason to run that instead of Firefox. It looks like their main motivation to fork was to preserve XUL and XPCOM, but since Firefox doesn't plan to keep those, almost no addons will continue using them; every maintained addon will update to work with current Firefox. And using an unmaintained addon is dangerous.
- criley2 10y ago
  >every maintained addon will update to work with current Firefox Those that can be will be, but I imagine entire categories, scores and scores of addons will be abandoned. So much of what people expect from Firefox addons is going away with no replacement in favor of basically light javascript web apps. Which is the point of the switch: dramatically reduce addon functionality in the interest of safety / security.
- superkuh 10y ago
  Except for Mozilla's policy of trying to making Firefox race Chrome to be the best browser for the lowest common denominator. You can't even edit your addons in Firefox anymore. They have to be signed by Mozilla. > And using an unmaintained addon is dangerous. And this is the kind of thinking I'm talking about. Firefore/Chrome/etc are all about protecting tech ignorants from themselves rather than allowing adept users to do what they want.
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    > And this is the kind of thinking I'm talking about. The kind of thinking that says "security-sensitive software with no active maintenance and regular updates is a security hole waiting to happen"? Letting users install and run unmaintained software is dangerous. They'll get exploited. (And they'll blame the browser for that, and rightfully so.) You can still do what you want; it's entirely possible to install local untrusted addons. You just have to poke some settings that are intentionally hidden from most end users, to make it somewhat more likely that users doing so understand the implications. And similarly, you can make your addon available to others willing to go through the same steps. They'll balk at doing so, and rightfully so.
    - chocolateboy 10y ago
      > it's entirely possible to install local untrusted addons. You just have to poke some settings that are intentionally hidden from most end users It's possible to install unsigned addons in ESR, developer and unbranded builds of Firefox. It's no longer possible to install them in the regular release or beta versions. The hidden setting was disabled in Firefox 48.
      - smsm42 10y ago
        I don't get this. I mean, it's ok to have an option to install untrusted code off by default. It's even OK to bury it somewhere in "advanced settings". But after that, I think you're done your due diligence in protecting me from myself, and anything beyond that is impeding, not protecting.
    - hlandau 10y ago
      >Letting users install and run unmaintained software is dangerous. Which is... exactly what Windows and Linux still do, rightly. >And they'll blame the browser for that, and rightfully so. Not at all rightfully so. Moreover the supposed security gain from this is absurd. So a user can't accidentally install a malicious extension... but they can install malicious software. Which, being that it has full access to the system, could patch Firefox if it liked to disable the signing check. I won't use a browser which implements restrictive code signing practices.
- alphapapa 10y ago
  > And using an unmaintained addon is dangerous. Who says the addons have to be unmaintained? https://github.com/Pale-Moon-Addons-Team https://github.com/Pale-Moon-Addons-Team And look man, a lot of addons don't need to be "maintained," they just keep working. An addon that adds a button to the UI or something like that--it doesn't need to be constantly churned. Something like NoScript and ad-blocking addons need more attention, but a lot of very useful addons that let users customize their browser will continue working as long as the underlying APIs do. So please lay off the scary language. Better be careful, when the Pale Moon comes out, addons become "dangerous"! :P
vocatus_gate 10y ago
I've been using Pale Moon for a few years now and really like it. Faster than Firefox, many of the obnoxious elements of the new UI pared down or stripped out, and binary-compatible with almost all Firefox extensions. Give it a shot and see if you like it.

Any opinions on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Moon_%28web_browser%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Moon_%28web_browser%29 ?

by eth0up 10y ago

Any opinions on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Moon_%28web_browser%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Moon_%28web_browser%29 ?

JoshTriplett 10y ago

No good reason to run that instead of Firefox. It looks like their main motivation to fork was to preserve XUL and XPCOM, but since Firefox doesn't plan to keep those, almost no addons will continue using them; every maintained addon will update to work with current Firefox. And using an unmaintained addon is dangerous.

criley2 10y ago
>every maintained addon will update to work with current Firefox Those that can be will be, but I imagine entire categories, scores and scores of addons will be abandoned. So much of what people expect from Firefox addons is going away with no replacement in favor of basically light javascript web apps. Which is the point of the switch: dramatically reduce addon functionality in the interest of safety / security.
superkuh 10y ago
Except for Mozilla's policy of trying to making Firefox race Chrome to be the best browser for the lowest common denominator. You can't even edit your addons in Firefox anymore. They have to be signed by Mozilla. > And using an unmaintained addon is dangerous. And this is the kind of thinking I'm talking about. Firefore/Chrome/etc are all about protecting tech ignorants from themselves rather than allowing adept users to do what they want.
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  > And this is the kind of thinking I'm talking about. The kind of thinking that says "security-sensitive software with no active maintenance and regular updates is a security hole waiting to happen"? Letting users install and run unmaintained software is dangerous. They'll get exploited. (And they'll blame the browser for that, and rightfully so.) You can still do what you want; it's entirely possible to install local untrusted addons. You just have to poke some settings that are intentionally hidden from most end users, to make it somewhat more likely that users doing so understand the implications. And similarly, you can make your addon available to others willing to go through the same steps. They'll balk at doing so, and rightfully so.
  - chocolateboy 10y ago
    > it's entirely possible to install local untrusted addons. You just have to poke some settings that are intentionally hidden from most end users It's possible to install unsigned addons in ESR, developer and unbranded builds of Firefox. It's no longer possible to install them in the regular release or beta versions. The hidden setting was disabled in Firefox 48.
    - smsm42 10y ago
      I don't get this. I mean, it's ok to have an option to install untrusted code off by default. It's even OK to bury it somewhere in "advanced settings". But after that, I think you're done your due diligence in protecting me from myself, and anything beyond that is impeding, not protecting.
  - hlandau 10y ago
    >Letting users install and run unmaintained software is dangerous. Which is... exactly what Windows and Linux still do, rightly. >And they'll blame the browser for that, and rightfully so. Not at all rightfully so. Moreover the supposed security gain from this is absurd. So a user can't accidentally install a malicious extension... but they can install malicious software. Which, being that it has full access to the system, could patch Firefox if it liked to disable the signing check. I won't use a browser which implements restrictive code signing practices.
alphapapa 10y ago
> And using an unmaintained addon is dangerous. Who says the addons have to be unmaintained? https://github.com/Pale-Moon-Addons-Team https://github.com/Pale-Moon-Addons-Team And look man, a lot of addons don't need to be "maintained," they just keep working. An addon that adds a button to the UI or something like that--it doesn't need to be constantly churned. Something like NoScript and ad-blocking addons need more attention, but a lot of very useful addons that let users customize their browser will continue working as long as the underlying APIs do. So please lay off the scary language. Better be careful, when the Pale Moon comes out, addons become "dangerous"! :P

vocatus_gate 10y ago

I've been using Pale Moon for a few years now and really like it. Faster than Firefox, many of the obnoxious elements of the new UI pared down or stripped out, and binary-compatible with almost all Firefox extensions. Give it a shot and see if you like it.