Why did Palemoon do this?

Users and developers helping users with generic and technical Pale Moon issues on all operating systems.

Moderator: trava90

Forum rules
This board is for technical/general usage questions and troubleshooting for the Pale Moon browser only.
Technical issues and questions not related to the Pale Moon browser should be posted in other boards!
Please keep off-topic and general discussion out of this board, thank you!
lemon juice

Re: Why did Palemoon do this?

Unread post by lemon juice » 2014-10-14, 00:18

mikeysc wrote:lemon juice, it is not usually hard to get the extensions working with the new GUID, and with your knowledge and experience it would be trivial on most (some are tough for the same reason in SM).
Yes, you are right but I was rather pointing out the reluctance of some developers to apply even the easy changes needed to work with PM and there's no way around it - to some extent some of them can be requested to do so but some will simply never do it. But that's life ;)
mikeysc wrote:I already had all the ones I wanted working in PM before release (except for one that has same issue in PM and SM) even without the benefits of a PM equivalent of your handy converter for SM. I hope you choose to help out here as well.
Actually, I think an addon converter for PM like the one for SM would really fit in very well here - even better now that PM 25 is released. Adapting Fx extensions to PM is a much more straightforward task than to SM so I imagine an automated tool like that would have an almost 100% success rate (unless an addon deals with Australis). PM official addon repository could be coupled with such a converter under the hood and could provide automatically converted Fx extensions straight from the AMO site, those extensions could be searchable via PM addons manager and all the updates would become (almost) immediately available for PM users without any work on PM staff to convert them again. I suspect the converter would need to be programmed to target certain extensions individually sometimes but this should not be complicated considering small differences between PM and Fx. These are obviously my loose ideas about the whole thing and how I think it could work for PM. I won't be able to take the time to make another converter, unfortunately ;). I've just dropped in to find out what's happening at PM and how the addon compatibility is handled. I just believe addons are a very important part of the browser.

New Tobin Paradigm

Re: Why did Palemoon do this?

Unread post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2014-10-14, 00:30

We have explored many options with automated scripts, solutions, and such, and none of them will do the trick completely.. This is because of the two different types of technology.. those being xul/toolkit based add-ons and jetpack style add-ons and of course the hybrids.. Also because of the fact we do retain cross compatibility with firefox add-ons.. If the modified add-on isn't done properly the next update from amo will overwrite it and it will be broken again. This is why the pseudo-static project is happening instead of full on forks or automated conversions.. It really does come down to doing it by hand for sustainability not to mention we test every pseudo-static to make sure it is fine.

lemon juice

Re: Why did Palemoon do this?

Unread post by lemon juice » 2014-10-14, 09:13

Matt A Tobin wrote:We have explored many options with automated scripts, solutions, and such, and none of them will do the trick completely.. This is because of the two different types of technology.. those being xul/toolkit based add-ons and jetpack style add-ons and of course the hybrids.. Also because of the fact we do retain cross compatibility with firefox add-ons..
I don't know all the details of what needs to be done to make Fx addons compatible with PM but looking at this converter efforts it looks like it can be automated. Certainly, not for all extensions but I believe a certain number of them could go through an automated conversion.
If the modified add-on isn't done properly the next update from amo will overwrite it and it will be broken again.
PM could have a modified update and install mechanism then - if a new extension is not targeted for PM in install.rdf then PM would contact addons.palemoon.org and suggest appropriate action like install an auto-converted version or manually converted version, etc. Then again, I don't know how feasible this would be to do it in the code.

One more question - will you be updating PM rendering engine on Firefox and getting code updates from Firefox or will you cut all ties and do all the work on your own? I imagine keeping the engine up to date with web standards and security fixes is a pretty big endeavour on its own.

User387

Re: Why did Palemoon do this?

Unread post by User387 » 2014-10-14, 12:37

Losing Firefox compatibility pretty much kills PM. Lots of addons are dead, sites do not recognize the browser and stop providing functionality. Sure you can say "It's their fault!" for not developing(more like tweaking) addons and sites for your browser especially, and you probably would be right. But there are many of those with relatively small userbase, no dev would waste his time to change anything in his product just to cater to a few people(in a big picture) using obscure FF forks. Separating is understandable with how Mozilla rolls now. Probably there's no other way out, aside from pointlessly trying to lifesupport patient who will be dead sooner or later. But in the end PM will/has basically become Firefox without addons, and it's not something people jumped off FF for. PM addons page already looks like Sleipnir addons one(dead and empty), and there is not much hope for other extensions being ported. For sites, since there is a crutch/workaround(viewtopic.php?f=24&t=6004), how about having a checkbox in Settings, something along the lines of "Firefox (User Agent/Compatibility)" which would change user agent FOR EVERYTHING, not only a certain domain? This might result in people sticking around for a bit longer. Most likely I'll go back to FF(atm mostly using PM 24.7), if nothing changes about this and 24.7 will become obsolete. Wish everything could stay as it was, Palemoon is a really good browser otherwise.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35477
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: Why did Palemoon do this?

Unread post by Moonchild » 2014-10-14, 14:15

Changing the compatibility mode for all sites in one go is as simple as switching general.useragent.compatMode.firefox to "true". But BE WARNED about that option, since it will fix one side of the internet and break the other side.

I also think you are exaggerating when you say it has now become "Firefox without add-ons". That's not even remotely true and I do take offense to that statement.
Most extensions still work out of the box. The ones that don't we are working on. Another chunk of add-ons will return to functioning status in 25.0.1 that fixes an important Jetpack issue.

So yes, this situation will change and will improve. As some would say "no matter how you look at it, any divorce is painful".

A few points in detail:
User387 wrote:Sure you can say "It's their fault!" for not developing(more like tweaking) addons and sites for your browser especially,
We don't ask this.
As far as sites go, Pale Moon is fully capable of rendering them and if it worked in 24.7, then it will work the exact same way in 25.0, if it wasn't for the fact that the websites in question use a deprecated, naive method of trying to find out features by looking specifically at named browsers, called "user agent sniffing". This is a bad idea, really, it is (even Mozilla says so!) and the current Pale Moon issues with these sites are the clearest demonstration of exactly how bad an idea it is to do useragent sniffing as a website instead of doing proper feature and capability detection.
As far as add-ons go, add-ons that no longer work are, with the sole exception the SDK bug that will be fixed in 25.0.1, add-ons that very specifically limit themselves to target applications. Normally this kind of targeting isn't even needed unless you want to cater to multiple target applications with different requirements in one universal package. Add-ons that do target a specific application while it's not needed are being specifically restrictive towards any truly independent browser based on the same rendering engine.
User387 wrote:PM addons page already looks like Sleipnir addons one(dead and empty), and there is not much hope for other extensions being ported.
On the contrary, the add-ons site is brand new and more extensions are added each day it is up. Why is it brand new? because before now, there was no pressing need for it.
User387 wrote:Wish everything could stay as it was
Maintaining the status quo would be a slow death for Pale Moon and a fade into oblivion. It's not an option.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

superA

Re: Why did Palemoon do this?

Unread post by superA » 2014-10-14, 14:33

Can you please explain,why,switching general.useragent.compatMode.firefox to "true",will break the other side of the internet?

thanks.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35477
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: Why did Palemoon do this?

Unread post by Moonchild » 2014-10-14, 14:58

superA wrote:Can you please explain,why,switching general.useragent.compatMode.firefox to "true",will break the other side of the internet?
"You are using an old version of Firefox" issues. See other threads to that effect.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

chreid

Re: Why did Palemoon do this?

Unread post by chreid » 2014-10-14, 16:28

I am behind this project 100% and cannot praise you enough.
I have just sent the following message to my bank:

"While I am not specifically "Locked Out" your website is throwing up a browser warning message. I am using Pale Moon which is a highly respected and secure Firefox "fork" . Please inform your tech dept that users of browsers outside the "Big 3" do not appreciate such discrimination."

Unfortunately I have had to alter my GUA to enforce compatibility as I am not at all comfortable creating a site-specific string or value. I will keep an eye on it and report any progress.

ps When Firefox no longer support 24 what are the implications and when?

New Tobin Paradigm

Re: Why did Palemoon do this?

Unread post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2014-10-14, 17:31

We are beyond ESR24 support now.. We have been in practicality the moment ESR31 landed.. So the implications are irrelevant. We just move forward! More individual development and continued security fixes. The only thing we lost at the end of ESR24 was the ability to have them uplifted automatically. Now we are back to how we used to do it before ESR24 was a thing.

Tharn

Re: Why did Palemoon do this?

Unread post by Tharn » 2014-10-14, 19:24

The awesomeness of the old UI and the finely tuned tweaks are what made me a happy Palemoon user ever since Opera 'died'. Now I'm sad to say that I see history repeat itself.

Opera has struggled throughout its lifetime with a market share of a few percent. It, like Palemoon is now set up to do, stuck to its guns and demanded a standards-compliant internet to the detriment of its own browser compatibility and the way it displayed webpages. Palemoon now does the same. You demand good code from a group of people that is largely happy catering to the big few, while your own market share is not sufficient to put weight behind the threat of incompatibility. This is the big one right here. It never worked for Opera - they tried for years and years - and I don't see it working for Palemoon in the future. It's an error of judgement in a long line of good choices and good practices and I'm sad to see it happen.

Maybe I'm wrong, but in the case that I'm not, let me offer you some advice. Swallow the bitter pill and embrace the new Firefox as a base. Go with Australis and bundle the Classic Theme Restorer as a standard. I've been trying it for a few days, and it has the ability to look just as good. It's more customizable than vanilla and has some fancy features. I know this is an issue of conviction, but conviction alone isn't enough. Making Palemoon a 'special snowflake' that requires ANY kind of extra work from the plugin community or the web designer community will be trouble. We have a precedent.

Anyway, I'm still very grateful for all your hard work.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35477
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: Why did Palemoon do this?

Unread post by Moonchild » 2014-10-14, 20:54

Tharn wrote:Maybe I'm wrong, but in the case that I'm not, let me offer you some advice. Swallow the bitter pill and embrace the new Firefox as a base. Go with Australis and bundle the Classic Theme Restorer as a standard. I've been trying it for a few days, and it has the ability to look just as good. It's more customizable than vanilla and has some fancy features. I know this is an issue of conviction, but conviction alone isn't enough. Making Palemoon a 'special snowflake' that requires ANY kind of extra work from the plugin community or the web designer community will be trouble.
Not to burst your bubble, but I think you're wrong on this one. We're not asking websites to do anything special or non-compliant. Neither are we asking the same from add-on developers. What we are asking is simple of both parties that are causing these issues: to recognize Pale Moon as a browser in its own right. In the case of websites it's even more a case of asking them to abandon methods that have been outdated for 2 decades by now, and even when popular were more prone to issues than the yield would justify.

Australis + CTR is just not an option. It is simply a band-aid on a corporately-pushed bad redesign of an otherwise time-tested and very well-designed UI that dates back to the Netscape era. it is creating a layer of complexity on top of an undesired front-end that doesn't work. Trust me, I've tried to like it. I tried very hard to like it, I pushed it to its limits just to try and get to a UI and workflow that was acceptable, but it was just not working because it simply lacks what made this line of browsers what it is: a fully customizable browser. And in the grand scheme of things, my customization demands are low compared to others.
So we are staying with the power of configurability without band-aids and without layering hacks on top of bad redesign.
If that is considered by the world at large to be a mistake, then so be it.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

chreid

Re: Why did Palemoon do this?

Unread post by chreid » 2014-10-14, 21:02

"Go with Australis and bundle the Classic Theme Restorer as a standard"
Absolutely not!
I was using this appalling botch-up for much more than "a few days". Patches like this drove me to PM in the first place. You will have to reset and re-customize your GUI at regular intervals. [Please trust me on this].
I share your fears however.

Tharn

Re: Why did Palemoon do this?

Unread post by Tharn » 2014-10-14, 21:16

It's possible that Australis + CTR turns out to be a mess, of course. I haven't had to carry it through any browser updates yet. For what it's worth, I've been able to make it look almost identical to my PM setup. For one or two things I would still prefer to use PM. It doesn't nag you about activating flash over and over when you have CTP manager and CTP per-element installed. It also has better network defaults. But for the most part it's been a smooth ride.

Maybe it will all sort itself out with the plugins. I remain skeptical that developers will be happy to to any kind of special case work on plugins that are meant to work only on Firefox. Maybe I've understated Palemoon's popularity among Firefox users. Another thing to note though is that it's not the only contender in that 'family'.

User avatar
Sajadi
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1226
Joined: 2013-04-19, 00:46

Re: Why did Palemoon do this?

Unread post by Sajadi » 2014-10-14, 22:13

Australis is just a big abomination, made to resemble as much as possible Google Chrome, to bring Chrome users to Firefox. Take a look at the marketshare, People do NOT like that direction.

Perhaps add-ons will become fewer available on Pale Moon, but at least it stays what it was meant to be, what Firefox meant to be in the beginning: A browser for power users instead of a browser for the most common low denominator, also known as Chrome users!

Take a look at browser creators like the ones from Otter or Qupzilla or Midori - They have perhaps not that many users, but they still survive and stay true to the Power user's demand.. That of a geek's browser. Like Pale Moon is!

Australis is the completely opposite of all that! Mainstream for simple user needs!

Aragu

Re: Why did Palemoon do this?

Unread post by Aragu » 2014-10-14, 22:25

Well, so called user agent is not a big problem as you can quite easily override it, but GUID... that's really something troublesome.
Firefox 24 ESR just reached end of life status. I've grown accustomed during last few months to idea that I'll stick with Pale Moon, as it was like Firefox in it's greatest times. And then broken addons compatibility issue :(.
Firefox with CTR isn't something, which I'm very fond about.
Off-topic:
Is there any way for Dark Backgrounds Switcher (https://addons.mozilla.org/pl/firefox/a ... r/?src=api) to work in PM25?
I don't want to abandon Gecko-based browsers, as I use them daily since ~2001 (it all started with Netscape). I've never adopted Chrome, nor webkit (expecting for new Opera as a secondary browser and the times, when I was using iPod Touch/iPhone).

noob256

Re: Why did Palemoon do this?

Unread post by noob256 » 2014-10-15, 01:06

Tharn wrote: Opera has struggled throughout its lifetime with a market share of a few percent. It, like Palemoon is now set up to do, stuck to its guns and demanded a standards-compliant internet to the detriment of its own browser compatibility and the way it displayed webpages. Palemoon now does the same. You demand good code from a group of people that is largely happy catering to the big few, while your own market share is not sufficient to put weight behind the threat of incompatibility. This is the big one right here. It never worked for Opera - they tried for years and years - and I don't see it working for Palemoon in the future. It's an error of judgement in a long line of good choices and good practices and I'm sad to see it happen.

Maybe I'm wrong, but in the case that I'm not, let me offer you some advice. Swallow the bitter pill and embrace the new Firefox as a base. Go with Australis and bundle the Classic Theme Restorer as a standard. I've been trying it for a few days, and it has the ability to look just as good. It's more customizable than vanilla and has some fancy features. I know this is an issue of conviction, but conviction alone isn't enough. Making Palemoon a 'special snowflake' that requires ANY kind of extra work from the plugin community or the web designer community will be trouble. We have a precedent.

Anyway, I'm still very grateful for all your hard work.
EX-ACT-LY. Couldn´t agree more.
I´ve also seen and endured it with Opera for years, finally switched to PaleMoon at 20.1 cause Opera was a lost cause.

And i doubt very very much that this
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT: Contact the website owners and tell them about the issue you have with Pale Moon visiting their site, and ask them to support your free choice of browser to visit them. Especially in the case of sites simply refusing to serve you, this can be considered a form of software discrimination.
is going to work.

Btw i don´t bother too much those people i recommended PaleMoon to now all crying to me and me having to advise them to downgrade. It´s ok, next time they might just listen to someone else´s recommendation, saves me trouble. But you know what really bothers me, above any compatibility issues and my web looking like 5 years ago? That 25 x64 is definitely slower on my very own machine than 24.7. is. Cause this is what i came here for: not to waste my life waiting for content having to finish half a second of shock each time before it gets displayed.

You did an amazing job with PaleMoon, but as it stands now ... i´m just sad. :cry:
Last edited by noob256 on 2014-10-15, 01:11, edited 1 time in total.

New Tobin Paradigm

Re: Why did Palemoon do this?

Unread post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2014-10-15, 01:11

Pale Moon 25 both Main-line and PM4XP have improved performance due to the ability now to specifically optimize for each generation of Windows NT without having to compromise for both so I dunno why you are having a slowdown.

vitaliy_17

Re: Why did Palemoon do this?

Unread post by vitaliy_17 » 2014-10-15, 06:14

Well, yesterday i just rebuild PM 25 build (PM4XP) tree - rollback GUID changes (in fact, 31 files).
Work fine with FF plugins, as expected. :lol:

P.S.
Today verify - Win32 build not work on WinXP, but i forgot to declare lower os version (--with-windows-version=501). :roll:

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35477
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: Why did Palemoon do this?

Unread post by Moonchild » 2014-10-15, 07:53

I'm closing this topic.

I've answered the main question why this was done to the best of my ability; recent posters obviously didn't read through them and would rather just complain more without first trying to understand exactly what was said.

Yes, you are free to disagree with this change. Considering the known impact of this change and me still doing it, regardless of the consequences, should indicate how important this change is for future developments of Pale Moon.

You are also free to change browser if you feel that Pale Moon's direction is not one you want to follow anymore; you are free to come back any time later on if you change your mind. Please do everyone a favor, though, and don't make a scene out of it? :)

Yes, you also are free to have your own thoughts about what you think website owners or extension programmers will or will not do. But you are not them, so it's just guessing. Large companies and websites generally have an elaborate papermill for global changes to go through so it may take time, and may require a significant volume of support requests to get prioritized. If nobody ever contacts them because people give up before they even try, it will never get into the papermill and will never get fixed. I'd think it's a small effort for anyone to provide a simple, short, feedback notice to site owners. But if that's too much...

Of course rolling back the changes to GUID work when rebuilding from source, but that will not solve the reason why it is a bad idea to carry Mozilla Firefox as GUID on a different product that is not Mozilla Firefox and never will be again.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

Locked