5 ms·

Well, perhaps the Tridactyl devs should move back to XUL and explicitly support Pale Moon & Basilisk. It would be a strong move since Firefox won't support them

by Endy 7y ago

Well, perhaps the Tridactyl devs should move back to XUL and explicitly support Pale Moon & Basilisk. It would be a strong move since Firefox won't support them or their users.

Arubis 7y ago
If you're running an XUL browser and want this functionality, you should just use Vimperator: http://vimperator.org/vimperator http://vimperator.org/vimperator Tridactyl only exists to bring that functionality over into Quantum-branch Firefox.
bovine3dom 7y ago
FWIW, there's at least one (minor) change that was made to Firefox to help out Tridactyl - https://github.com/tridactyl/tridactyl/issues/792 https://github.com/tridactyl/tridactyl/issues/792. Mozilla also were happy in principle to allow us to intercept key presses on all parts of the browser last time we spoke to them a couple of years ago; we just need someone to write that extension to the WebExtension API - https://github.com/tridactyl/keyboard-api https://github.com/tridactyl/keyboard-api. Rewriting Tridactyl in XUL is not something I would wish on anyone.
- Endy 7y ago
  Have you considered working with either Pentadactyl or Vimperator?
  - ShinTakuya 7y ago
    I miss pentadactyl. I actually support everything about the WebExtensions move but it hurt to let go of my favourite extension.
michaelmrose 7y ago
It would be a poorly thought out idea with zero merit and lots of downside. Edit: To be clear - Tridactyl for xul already exists its called pentadactyl - Rewriting Tridactyl in xul is basically creating pentadactyl from scratch. This is a lot of work for no reason. - There are many legitimate improvements that have come into being between firefox 38 which is what Palemoon basically is and 70 which you would lose. - It's highly unlikely that a fork of firefox 38 by a few acceptably skilled developers has the chops to keep up with what mozilla can do with millions of dollars. - Your browser is the most dangerous app in your system running an old version means that anyone with access to the list of patched vulnerabilities for current firefox may well be able to trivially turn these into exploit vectors for old versions.
- Endy 7y ago
  Responding with boilerplate at first because your comments are predictably wrong. > - There are many legitimate improvements that have come into being between firefox 38 which is what Palemoon basically is and 70 which you would lose. > - It's highly unlikely that a fork of firefox 38 by a few acceptably skilled developers has the chops to keep up with what mozilla can do with millions of dollars. > - Your browser is the most dangerous app in your system running an old version means that anyone with access to the list of patched vulnerabilities for current firefox may well be able to trivially turn these into exploit vectors for old versions. * https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=21626 https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=21626 "Rumor: "Pale Moon is just a rebranded rebuild of an old Firefox version" Rumor: "Pale Moon is an obsolete and insecure version of Firefox" FALSE Pale Moon has been on a divergent path with its own code for a long time already. It was a rebuild in 2009, yes. It was a rebuild with minor changes in the Firefox 4.0 era, yes. But we've come a very, very long way since then with an increasing amount of different code being carried over each time it was re-based on later Firefox code. It's a true fork now, building on a completely independent fork of Mozilla code called the Unified XUL Platform (UXP) and has employed rapid development (as opposed to rapid release) to solidify this independent direction with its own focus and attempt at keeping the browser sane, lean, and offering users choice and stability - not corporate strong-arming or gadgeteering. At the same time, Pale Moon's strong focus on security/privacy and evolving networking standards has added features and kept pace with those developments in other browsers, by e.g. adding TLS 1.3 support the moment it was standardized, by keeping a close eye on encryption and the browser's security by continuing to port or re-implement security fixes that apply to Pale Moon as a browser and the underlying platform. It is neither old nor outdated, it is not a "rebuild" and it does not use obsolete technologies and does not have known security holes or vulnerabilities." * "Rumor: "Pale Moon is a one-man show and does not have the manpower to keep up with Firefox/the modern web" FALSE Pale Moon is not "just me" and hasn't been for the majority of its life. There are some talented and dedicated people at work in our community to make Pale Moon what it is, and actually has seen support in many ways by many people over the years. Despite e.g. the WikiPedia article for Pale Moon just talking about "Straver this" and "Straver that", the fact that I am the one leading this project and holding the keys and making the overall major decisions about direction doesn't mean that no others are involved. That would be the same as saying that Bill Gates single-handedly wrote the Windows O.S. or that the Mozilla CEO is the only one working on Firefox. To name a few other people currently actively helping with the project's core development: Matt A. Tobin, Travis W. ("trava90"), "JustOff", "Ascrod", "kn-yami". Don't forget our beta testing team, or the people reporting issues while using the unstable channel builds, either. Or the people helping with extensions and extension compatibility or theme porting (thanks FranklinDM and Ryan C.!). Or even the community as a whole providing support to users. Also hats off to all the people doing translations for our language packs. I can go on. One man? I think not. Of course since it's crowdsourced, it's easy to forget the numerous people in the background who play their part, but please don't forget them." On the other hand, the Pentadactyl discussion is valid.

by Endy 7y ago

Well, perhaps the Tridactyl devs should move back to XUL and explicitly support Pale Moon & Basilisk. It would be a strong move since Firefox won't support them or their users.

Arubis 7y ago

If you're running an XUL browser and want this functionality, you should just use Vimperator: http://vimperator.org/vimperator http://vimperator.org/vimperator Tridactyl only exists to bring that functionality over into Quantum-branch Firefox.

bovine3dom 7y ago

FWIW, there's at least one (minor) change that was made to Firefox to help out Tridactyl - https://github.com/tridactyl/tridactyl/issues/792 https://github.com/tridactyl/tridactyl/issues/792. Mozilla also were happy in principle to allow us to intercept key presses on all parts of the browser last time we spoke to them a couple of years ago; we just need someone to write that extension to the WebExtension API - https://github.com/tridactyl/keyboard-api https://github.com/tridactyl/keyboard-api. Rewriting Tridactyl in XUL is not something I would wish on anyone.

Endy 7y ago
Have you considered working with either Pentadactyl or Vimperator?
- ShinTakuya 7y ago
  I miss pentadactyl. I actually support everything about the WebExtensions move but it hurt to let go of my favourite extension.

michaelmrose 7y ago

It would be a poorly thought out idea with zero merit and lots of downside. Edit: To be clear - Tridactyl for xul already exists its called pentadactyl - Rewriting Tridactyl in xul is basically creating pentadactyl from scratch. This is a lot of work for no reason. - There are many legitimate improvements that have come into being between firefox 38 which is what Palemoon basically is and 70 which you would lose. - It's highly unlikely that a fork of firefox 38 by a few acceptably skilled developers has the chops to keep up with what mozilla can do with millions of dollars. - Your browser is the most dangerous app in your system running an old version means that anyone with access to the list of patched vulnerabilities for current firefox may well be able to trivially turn these into exploit vectors for old versions.

Endy 7y ago
Responding with boilerplate at first because your comments are predictably wrong. > - There are many legitimate improvements that have come into being between firefox 38 which is what Palemoon basically is and 70 which you would lose. > - It's highly unlikely that a fork of firefox 38 by a few acceptably skilled developers has the chops to keep up with what mozilla can do with millions of dollars. > - Your browser is the most dangerous app in your system running an old version means that anyone with access to the list of patched vulnerabilities for current firefox may well be able to trivially turn these into exploit vectors for old versions. * https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=21626 https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=21626 "Rumor: "Pale Moon is just a rebranded rebuild of an old Firefox version" Rumor: "Pale Moon is an obsolete and insecure version of Firefox" FALSE Pale Moon has been on a divergent path with its own code for a long time already. It was a rebuild in 2009, yes. It was a rebuild with minor changes in the Firefox 4.0 era, yes. But we've come a very, very long way since then with an increasing amount of different code being carried over each time it was re-based on later Firefox code. It's a true fork now, building on a completely independent fork of Mozilla code called the Unified XUL Platform (UXP) and has employed rapid development (as opposed to rapid release) to solidify this independent direction with its own focus and attempt at keeping the browser sane, lean, and offering users choice and stability - not corporate strong-arming or gadgeteering. At the same time, Pale Moon's strong focus on security/privacy and evolving networking standards has added features and kept pace with those developments in other browsers, by e.g. adding TLS 1.3 support the moment it was standardized, by keeping a close eye on encryption and the browser's security by continuing to port or re-implement security fixes that apply to Pale Moon as a browser and the underlying platform. It is neither old nor outdated, it is not a "rebuild" and it does not use obsolete technologies and does not have known security holes or vulnerabilities." * "Rumor: "Pale Moon is a one-man show and does not have the manpower to keep up with Firefox/the modern web" FALSE Pale Moon is not "just me" and hasn't been for the majority of its life. There are some talented and dedicated people at work in our community to make Pale Moon what it is, and actually has seen support in many ways by many people over the years. Despite e.g. the WikiPedia article for Pale Moon just talking about "Straver this" and "Straver that", the fact that I am the one leading this project and holding the keys and making the overall major decisions about direction doesn't mean that no others are involved. That would be the same as saying that Bill Gates single-handedly wrote the Windows O.S. or that the Mozilla CEO is the only one working on Firefox. To name a few other people currently actively helping with the project's core development: Matt A. Tobin, Travis W. ("trava90"), "JustOff", "Ascrod", "kn-yami". Don't forget our beta testing team, or the people reporting issues while using the unstable channel builds, either. Or the people helping with extensions and extension compatibility or theme porting (thanks FranklinDM and Ryan C.!). Or even the community as a whole providing support to users. Also hats off to all the people doing translations for our language packs. I can go on. One man? I think not. Of course since it's crowdsourced, it's easy to forget the numerous people in the background who play their part, but please don't forget them." On the other hand, the Pentadactyl discussion is valid.