4 ms·

Why not use mingw64 which is actively maintained instead of some ancient visual studio version? It certainly looks possible [1]. Taking a look and Pale Moon's d

by bno1 8y ago

Why not use mingw64 which is actively maintained instead of some ancient visual studio version? It certainly looks possible [1]. Taking a look and Pale Moon's dev page [2] I see that they are using VS2012. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Developer_guide/Build_Instructions/Compiling_Mozilla_With_Mingw https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Developer_g... [2] https://developer.palemoon.org/Developer_Guide:Build_Instructions/Pale_Moon/Windows https://developer.palemoon.org/Developer_Guide:Build_Instruc...

AnarchistNode7 8y ago
My personal guess is that the Pale Moon/Basilisk team has no clue how to use other compilers. I mean, what for another reason... logical... reason would be around for staying with an ancient version? And that is rather sad that they are seemingly unable to broaden their knowledge. If you maintain a browser project you should have at least a more broad know-how or you should have someone on board who provides you with that if you on your own are missing that. I value more choice in the browser market away from the Chrome or Chrome clones or almost Chrome clones - but at the same time i think also that the Pale Moon team is way too arrogant and sharp tongued against Mozilla and others seen from their own lack of abilities to find a work-around or being able to get a more complex job done.
- LordLestat 8y ago
  In that you are right. Moonchild, Tobin and the other ones may be able to solve browser internal issues, but everything which is reaching a certain size is "patches welcome". And to make it worse, they are rather rude against Seamonkey developers or Mozilla, or Brave or Vivaldi or against guys who dare to fulfill not 1000% the branding rules of Moonchild when creating an own version of Pale Moon/Basilisk. While i would defend Pale Moon against Firefox trolls as i am in support of minorities, i am less than appalled to see how they are acting towards certain Linux guys or even own users who are insulted for creating forks for XP. The whole Pale Moon project is a double edged sword. https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86 https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86 That says more than anything.

by bno1 8y ago

AnarchistNode7 8y ago

My personal guess is that the Pale Moon/Basilisk team has no clue how to use other compilers. I mean, what for another reason... logical... reason would be around for staying with an ancient version? And that is rather sad that they are seemingly unable to broaden their knowledge. If you maintain a browser project you should have at least a more broad know-how or you should have someone on board who provides you with that if you on your own are missing that. I value more choice in the browser market away from the Chrome or Chrome clones or almost Chrome clones - but at the same time i think also that the Pale Moon team is way too arrogant and sharp tongued against Mozilla and others seen from their own lack of abilities to find a work-around or being able to get a more complex job done.

LordLestat 8y ago
In that you are right. Moonchild, Tobin and the other ones may be able to solve browser internal issues, but everything which is reaching a certain size is "patches welcome". And to make it worse, they are rather rude against Seamonkey developers or Mozilla, or Brave or Vivaldi or against guys who dare to fulfill not 1000% the branding rules of Moonchild when creating an own version of Pale Moon/Basilisk. While i would defend Pale Moon against Firefox trolls as i am in support of minorities, i am less than appalled to see how they are acting towards certain Linux guys or even own users who are insulted for creating forks for XP. The whole Pale Moon project is a double edged sword. https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86 https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86 That says more than anything.