4 ms·

> My suspicion is that, when Pale Moon asks you not to use Web Components, they're doing so because their engine is old Your suspicion is entirely wrong. 1: h

> My suspicion is that, when Pale Moon asks you not to use Web Components, they're doing so because their engine is old Your suspicion is entirely wrong. 1: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?t=22270 https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?t=22270 2: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?t=22399 https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?t=22399

thih9 7y ago
> Your suspicion is entirely wrong. In what way? Could someone summarize these sources?
tialaramex 7y ago
These are both basically MoonChild saying "it's not true" which doesn't change whether it's true. MoonChild also told everybody that Let's Encrypt is a terrible idea, untrustworthy and nobody should use it. How did that end up? I will give them props for actually doing it (plenty of people went "I'll just fork it" when Mozilla decided to change things but very few of them actually did all the resulting heavy lifting) not just talking about it. That's not nothing, but it doesn't make them right.
chc 7y ago
Neither of those really even contradict what smacktoward said, much less disprove it. In those posts, Moonchild disagrees with the idea that Pale Moon is "a rebranded rebuild of an old Firefox version" and more broadly that it corresponds to any particular Firefox version since there has been years of parallel development. He also affirms that Pale Moon has kept up with other browsers in security. It is entirely possible for all of that to be true and for smacktoward's suspicion — that Moonchild's primary problem with Web Components is that they work poorly in Pale Moon and it would be a lot of trouble to fix that — to be true.
- theNewMicrosoft 7y ago
  > It is entirely possible for all of that to be true and for smacktoward's suspicion — that Moonchild's primary problem with Web Components is that they work poorly in Pale Moon and it would be a lot of trouble to fix that — to be true. It is not true for the simple fact that the next milestone release (v29) of pale moon will support WebComponents > Neither of those really even contradict what smacktoward said, much less disprove it. smacktoward repeats the same tired oversimplifications that PM is just "rebased itself on mainline Firefox circa Firefox 52" both my links prove that the above statement is fundamentally wrong.

thih9 7y ago

> Your suspicion is entirely wrong. In what way? Could someone summarize these sources?

tialaramex 7y ago

These are both basically MoonChild saying "it's not true" which doesn't change whether it's true. MoonChild also told everybody that Let's Encrypt is a terrible idea, untrustworthy and nobody should use it. How did that end up? I will give them props for actually doing it (plenty of people went "I'll just fork it" when Mozilla decided to change things but very few of them actually did all the resulting heavy lifting) not just talking about it. That's not nothing, but it doesn't make them right.

chc 7y ago

Neither of those really even contradict what smacktoward said, much less disprove it. In those posts, Moonchild disagrees with the idea that Pale Moon is "a rebranded rebuild of an old Firefox version" and more broadly that it corresponds to any particular Firefox version since there has been years of parallel development. He also affirms that Pale Moon has kept up with other browsers in security. It is entirely possible for all of that to be true and for smacktoward's suspicion — that Moonchild's primary problem with Web Components is that they work poorly in Pale Moon and it would be a lot of trouble to fix that — to be true.

theNewMicrosoft 7y ago
> It is entirely possible for all of that to be true and for smacktoward's suspicion — that Moonchild's primary problem with Web Components is that they work poorly in Pale Moon and it would be a lot of trouble to fix that — to be true. It is not true for the simple fact that the next milestone release (v29) of pale moon will support WebComponents > Neither of those really even contradict what smacktoward said, much less disprove it. smacktoward repeats the same tired oversimplifications that PM is just "rebased itself on mainline Firefox circa Firefox 52" both my links prove that the above statement is fundamentally wrong.