Walter Dnes <waltd...@waltdnes.org> wrote: > Mind you, the Pale Moon team may not > have the staffing level required to write a new compiler, maintain a > politically correct "community", integrate real-time-chat into the > browser, integrate "Pocket" into the browser, rewrite the GUI every so > often, yada, yada, yada.
Why do you mention only some irrelevant points here, ignoring the crucial ones (on top of them: security) which I was talking about? The only relevant thing of those you mention is "new compiler": It is really security relevant to have bindings to current C++ libraries, especially if the other libraries use them. (Reasons: bugfixes and unpredictable side effects.) And if you mean rust: I expect that this will give (and probably already gave) an enormous security boost to firefox. >> The decision to stick with legacy extension api completely excludes >> that there is some convergence of the fork in the future. > > As an end-user, I think you're missing the whole point of Pale Moon. > If I really wanted a Chrome-like browser, I'd use Chrome in the first > place. I, and a lot of other people, switched to Pale Moon precisely > because we *DO NOT WANT* what Firefox has become. To quote an old > meme... I didn't leave Firefox... Firefox left me. Again, I was not talking about relatively irrelevant things like user experience here. As I said, I also liked palemoon in the beginning. It simply turned out an unrealistic project so that I found myself forced to decide to not use it anymore due to security considerations. >> Also the refusal to implement webextension apis (which is consequent, >> since it is hardly possible to maintain 2 more and more diverging >> apis) has the side effect that only obsolete versions of the actively >> maintained extensions like noscript and ublock-origin can be used. > > Wrong. No, correct: Current noscript and ublock-origin cannot be used and never will usable with palemoon again. > Pale Moon has its own XUL extension ecosystem at > https://addons.palemoon.org/extensions/ Sure, they have to. This doesn't mean that this is worth something: > Noscript equivalents... > * https://addons.palemoon.org/addon/noscript/ This is not "equivalent" but the legacy noscript itself which I had mentioned. As I said, _currently_ this is still maintained (in the sense that most severe bugs are fixed) because of the tor browser. Upstream's main activity is clearly the web extension. BTW, this is nothing new: For a long time one had to use 2-years old versions of noscript, because important new APIs current noscript needed had not been implemented yet. Eventually the new API was pulled from firefox upstream, so that currently at least the most recent (obsolete) version of noscript can be used. In future, you cannot expect such a thing to ever happen again. > * https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/yesscript/ ... and another legacy extension whose maintainance apparently stopped 2 years ago.
