Pale Moon version number

[mr tribute]

On Mozilla add-ons site Pale Moon identifies as Firefox version 27. Pale Moon uses Firefox compatibility by default so I guess most sites think it’s Firefox version 27? Firefox 27 is very old now so maybe there is a risk that some sites stop working just because of the version number? I know nothing about this, hence all the question marks.

Would a higher version number make sense? I know it was done for FossaMail. Let’s say Pale Moon version 51 or 52.

Pale Moon has taken a conservative approach to version numbers (even after Firefox “38” rebase the version was kept low). It sounds silly but lagging to much in version number compared to Chrome and Firefox may give the impression that Pale Moon is less up to date. Is it extension compatibility that is holding back the Pale Moon version number?

What would the benefits and drawbacks be (if any) of a higher version number?

[adisib]

The version number of Firefox 27 is only used on the Mozilla addons website. Other websites will see something else.

[JustOff]

Default User Agent for Pale Moon 27.4.2 is "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.9) Gecko/20100101 Goanna/3.2 Firefox/45.9 PaleMoon/27.4.2", you can always find this on about:support page. Other useful info on this regard can be extracted from about:config filtered by general.useragent.override.

[mr tribute]

The version number of Firefox 27 is only used on the Mozilla addons website. Other websites will see something else.

Thanks. Sorry for not posting a reply. I have been thinking and sometimes that takes a very long time...

Default User Agent for Pale Moon 27.4.2 is "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.9) Gecko/20100101 Goanna/3.2 Firefox/45.9 PaleMoon/27.4.2", you can always find this on about:support page. Other useful info on this regard can be extracted from about:config filtered by general.useragent.override.

Thanks for useful info. This info will come handy to avoid the new Youtube redesign.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the Original Post the version number is also a form of marketing. I once posted about the Pale Moon icon. I wanted something more cheerful because the branding (and also the "low version number") feel a bit heavy in my opinion.

Maybe some people believe "Pale Moon is lagging behind", when in reality Pale Moon offers more features than any other browser. It's also up to date with web-standards and security. I have promoted/mentioned Pale Moon on various forums. I don't know if people don't like the branding/legacy feel or they simply don't value the possibilities the XUL platform offers. While Pale Moon gets mostly positive comments, some users seem to prefer Opera, Brave or simply sticking with Firefox. It's as it should be I guess.

Moonchild is doing a great job with the technical side and also the community side. I just have this feeling that embracing Pale Moon feels a bit heavy for some people even though it's one of the most lightweight browsers available.

It's Moonchild's project and he came up with the branding in 2009 I read somewhere. I'm not going to post more about the branding, just sharing my thoughts.

[sgage]

mr. tribute,

I like the branding and logo, and to me it's clean and light, and in no way 'heavy' (whatever you mean by that). Everyone has their own preferences, but I doubt it's scaring off potential users. Or the relatively low version number - I just don't see it as a problem. The 'legacy' feel you mention was actually one of the points of the PM project, as I understand it.

Must every browser artificially boost their version numbers and look like Chrome to be hip and marketable? I don't think so. Some people are slaves to superficial fashion, others prefer usability. PM is for the latter.