4 ms·
I would strongly advise not using Pale Moon—for numerous reasons specific to that particular distribution (which aren't interesting enough to repeat here) but m
by sjwright 7y ago
I would strongly advise not using Pale Moon—for numerous reasons specific to that particular distribution (which aren't interesting enough to repeat here) but mostly for reasons that apply to all minor web browser projects; particularly ones based off old code:
— How quickly will serious vulnerabilities be patched?
Given the project is so small, I wouldn't trust their future response to be rapid even if they have been in the past. Right now most security fixes come in the form of merging upstream security fixes from Mozilla. As their code base becomes increasingly divergent to the Firefox head, merging in upstream security fixes will become increasingly difficult and increasingly cumbersome.
— How much do you really trust these developers?
I don't think many people realise just how important your browser is when it comes to trust. When you access online banking, your browser is in ultimate control of the entire trust chain. Your browser validates the security certificates. Your browser decides what to do with the passwords you enter. Your browser decides what to show you in the address bar.
— What's wrong with Firefox 67+ anyway?
The one thing everyone seems to cite when they say they use Pale Moon or Waterfox is that they still support the older extension system. The reality is all important extensions were unaffected. And while some genuinely useful extensions were lost in the transition (e.g. DownThemAll) most should be standalone applications anyway.
- Endy 7y agoI have found that, as much as Moonchild & Tobin can be difficult, I trust their judgment far more than I do Mozilla's. I want to be in control of my browser, I want to determine what gets downloaded and uploaded from my PC. They tend to be on that side. Also, my problems with the browser product itself are simple: the UI is awful and cannot be meaningfully fixed, and multi-process programs cause my computer to hang (so I set up a script to auto kill them). Pale Moon respects me as a User, not as an ad profile for Google.
- sjwright 7y agoEach to their own. I would never trust the judgement of the most important piece of software on my computer to a small group of tinkerers maintaining a fork of someone else's massively complicated and deeply outdated source code. I don't care who they are—if they don't have a big enough reputation on the line, there's no reason to trust them. I'm sure your cousin is super trustworthy, but that doesn't mean anyone should put him in charge of the armoured vehicles division of a bank. Besides, it's a lot easier for a microscopically small and individualistic outfit like Pale Moon to never disappoint you compared to a large, managed entity like Mozilla which has disclosure policies and hundreds of employees each with their own priorities and agenda.
- Endy 7y agoThe day I consider my WWW browser the most important software on my PC is the day I go back to dialup. Frankly, I agree with your base theory - that's why the important software on my PC is Windows and MSOffice, rather than *nix and Open or Libre Office. I moved off the OO/LO platform a little after the split, because compatibility was an issue. But for a limited use program like a browser, yeah, I want the people who won't disappoint me.
- LordLestat 7y agoUsing Firefox from that sell-out developer with zero respect for power- and geek users.. from the developer who rather wants to attract Chrome/simple users and not supporting their own target user-base.. Mozilla is morally wise a totally unacceptable developer. They have been on the good side in the past, but what is left is almost as disgusting as Google itself... the Google - which Mozilla tries so hard to become itself.
- detaro 7y agoWhy do you think normal users are not Mozilla's "target user-base"?