4 ms·

Simply an excuse for "We can't successfully implement it, our browser is becoming incompatible with a large part of current web, so please do not use it to make

Simply an excuse for "We can't successfully implement it, our browser is becoming incompatible with a large part of current web, so please do not use it to make us happy"! Result - they are going to die and losing hope and faith, like the link here describes. Read especially the IRC link where they discuss things like that with their "ecmascript guy" Gaming4JC - who has the task... WITHOUT ADDITIONAL HELP" to make Pale Moon "COMPATIBLE WITH TODAYS WEB" - honestly... what a joke.... More here: https://www.reddit.com/r/palemoon/comments/fk4fnl/attention_palemoon_is_going_to_die_most_likely/ https://www.reddit.com/r/palemoon/comments/fk4fnl/attention_... Why is this the truth? They failed in the past with implementing stuff on their own, and they had to use new Firefox variants to re-base their UI towards them. As there is not a way of going forward anymore without losing all their customization abilities, they are screwed as webcomponents is such a breaking point in time again where they can't succeed on their own because of their team missing guys who successfully would be able to implement stuff like this - uses Rust/Stylo/Servo - and that is way too complicated to them and they miss all the necessary knowledge how to convert it to their current codebase of Firefox 52!

Wowfunhappy 7y ago
Even if that reddit post is 100% correct, the author's behavior strikes me as the epitome of trolling. So I'm not inclined to take their words particularly seriously. The author basically walked into a community of Pale Moon enthusiasts and shouted: "Hey Palemoon fans! Y'know that thing you love? It's going to die! Sorry!". The legitimately-concerned version of this post would go something like: "If Palemoon can't implement web components, does the browser have a future?"
- newsletterguy 7y ago
  Well, it COULD mean the end of this browser, which i would not call a big loss, as it was always outdated and the makers ripped out vital security features like sandboxing or they have been unable to implement Mozilla implemented tor based privacy fixes! It is better that the fans are learning WHAT COULD HAPPEN - because if they would not learn the truth, they are suddenly sitting around with a dead and even more outdated browser. This is too important than to ignore it or not to post about it.
  - smnthermes 7y ago
    > ripped out vital security features like sandboxing Fake news. Firefox had sandboxing (that was the excuse for deprecating XUL/XPCOM) before Chrom* and Electrolysis: 1. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Add-ons/Security_best_practices_in_extensions https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Add-ons/Sec... 2. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Add-ons/Displaying_web_content_in_an_extension_without_security_issues https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Add-ons/Dis... 3. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Add-ons/Interaction_between_privileged_and_non-privileged_pages https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Add-ons/Int...

Wowfunhappy 7y ago

Even if that reddit post is 100% correct, the author's behavior strikes me as the epitome of trolling. So I'm not inclined to take their words particularly seriously. The author basically walked into a community of Pale Moon enthusiasts and shouted: "Hey Palemoon fans! Y'know that thing you love? It's going to die! Sorry!". The legitimately-concerned version of this post would go something like: "If Palemoon can't implement web components, does the browser have a future?"

newsletterguy 7y ago
Well, it COULD mean the end of this browser, which i would not call a big loss, as it was always outdated and the makers ripped out vital security features like sandboxing or they have been unable to implement Mozilla implemented tor based privacy fixes! It is better that the fans are learning WHAT COULD HAPPEN - because if they would not learn the truth, they are suddenly sitting around with a dead and even more outdated browser. This is too important than to ignore it or not to post about it.
- smnthermes 7y ago
  > ripped out vital security features like sandboxing Fake news. Firefox had sandboxing (that was the excuse for deprecating XUL/XPCOM) before Chrom* and Electrolysis: 1. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Add-ons/Security_best_practices_in_extensions https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Add-ons/Sec... 2. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Add-ons/Displaying_web_content_in_an_extension_without_security_issues https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Add-ons/Dis... 3. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Add-ons/Interaction_between_privileged_and_non-privileged_pages https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Add-ons/Int...