Contributed builds for Windows XP

About this bulletin board and the Pale Moon website

Moderators: satrow, Lootyhoof, FranklinDM

User avatar
palacs
Moongazer
Moongazer
Posts: 14
Joined: 2018-09-18, 20:30

Contributed builds for Windows XP

Unread post by palacs » 2019-03-17, 19:40

There are at least two 3rd party builds for Windows XP, still actively maintained. Mypal by Feodor2, and New Moon by roytam1.

Why aren't these on the Contributed Builds page?

yami_
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 474
Joined: 2018-04-26, 11:05

Re: Contributed builds for Windows XP

Unread post by yami_ » 2019-03-17, 19:46

https://www.palemoon.org/contributed-builds.shtml wrote:If the browser is not in this list, it is not an authorized redistribution/build.
cat came back from Berkeley waving flags -- rob pike

User avatar
palacs
Moongazer
Moongazer
Posts: 14
Joined: 2018-09-18, 20:30

Re: Contributed builds for Windows XP

Unread post by palacs » 2019-03-17, 19:50

What does it mean that a build is authorized?

What is the authorization process?

What requirements does it have to meet?

yami_
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 474
Joined: 2018-04-26, 11:05

Re: Contributed builds for Windows XP

Unread post by yami_ » 2019-03-17, 19:55

Authorized build are allowed to use the official branding.
cat came back from Berkeley waving flags -- rob pike

ron_1
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1996
Joined: 2012-06-28, 01:20

Re: Contributed builds for Windows XP

Unread post by ron_1 » 2019-03-17, 19:56

palacs wrote:
Why aren't these on the Contributed Builds page?
Probably because XP has been end-of-life for almost 5 years now (and I'd do the same thing also if I were responsible for PM). Not good for security even if the browser is up to date.

User avatar
palacs
Moongazer
Moongazer
Posts: 14
Joined: 2018-09-18, 20:30

Re: Contributed builds for Windows XP

Unread post by palacs » 2019-03-17, 19:58

Okay, clear now.

So my question is then: Why can't the maintainers of XP builds use the official branding? Why weren't they authorized?
helloimustbegoing wrote: Probably because XP has been end-of-life for almost 5 years now
XP is still a very stable and usable operating system. Since security threats are basically coming from the Internet, it's enough if you have a secure browser. Of course it's also a good idea to disable some network-bound services (like SMB) and have no open ports.

User avatar
Fedor2
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 628
Joined: 2016-04-11, 01:26

Re: Contributed builds for Windows XP

Unread post by Fedor2 » 2019-03-17, 20:04

Possible you missed topic https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=16241
Read and you will understand

The Mypal is not Palemoon even if i use its source code.

ron_1
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1996
Joined: 2012-06-28, 01:20

Re: Contributed builds for Windows XP

Unread post by ron_1 » 2019-03-17, 20:08

Fedor2 wrote:
Possible you missed topic viewtopic.php?f=5&t=16241
And specifically this post by Moonchild in that thread: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=16241&start=140#p132224

Technically, they are not 3rd party builds. They are forks of Pale Moon. You know, like how Pale Moon is a fork of Firefox.

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Off-Topic Sheriff
Off-Topic Sheriff
Posts: 5457
Joined: 2012-10-09, 19:37
Location: Sector 001

Re: Contributed builds for Windows XP

Unread post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2019-03-17, 20:19

The more baseline factor is that beyond code changes for NT5x compatibility (let's set that aside for a moment) these people are also radically changing other swaths of code to suite them. Which is fine but the results are materially not Pale Moon or Basilisk or any other UXP application thus they will not be accepted nor allowed to be branded as such. They are non-aligned.

Now I don't want to start another conflict with the XP people without a good reason.. So, lets end it right here and now.

Moderator: Please lock this thread.
Last edited by New Tobin Paradigm on 2019-03-17, 20:21, edited 1 time in total.
Image

- So then, "mono" means one, and "rail" means rail! -
And that concludes our intensive three-week course.
http://binaryoutcast.com/ | http://thereisonlyxul.org/

User avatar
palacs
Moongazer
Moongazer
Posts: 14
Joined: 2018-09-18, 20:30

Re: Contributed builds for Windows XP

Unread post by palacs » 2019-03-17, 20:21

So it's basically because Moonchild doesn't want to provide any support for XP users. However, I don't really understand why. Does he want to support Slackware Linux or CentOS 6 for example, as he authorized the builds for them? Isn't those supported by the maintainers anyway?

Moonchild stated: [1]
This will prevent intermixing XP specific issues with our own development, and prevent confusion about what is supported and what isn't (e.g. html5 video).
For instance, what if there is an issue with CentOS 6's old kernel which is only patched by Red Hat and isn't available on other systems outside the RHEL world? Should it be fixed by Pale Moon core devs? Or should it be fixed by László Kovács, the maintainer for CentOS 6? I would think that it would be the task for the maintainer to provide a fix. If I'm correct, it seems illogical to refuse authorizing 3rd builds for XP because if we regard it as a different platform, then platform-specific issues should be dealt with by the maintainers (Fedor2 and roytam1). The requirement for rebranding also seems excessive. It's like Pale Moon developers were afraid of their browser known to be available for XP.

I don't really understand that either. Pale Moon used to have a separate XP build for Atom processors. So Fedor2's patches could be merged into UXP/PaleMoon/whatever or available on a different branch of a separate build for XP in the Pale Moon Git repo. Why not join forces? Why do Pale Moon core devs maintain this kind of separation? Why can't core devs work together with Fedor2 and roytam1 to provide XP support? They have done an excellent job so far, maintaining their forks.

yami_
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 474
Joined: 2018-04-26, 11:05

Re: Contributed builds for Windows XP

Unread post by yami_ » 2019-03-17, 20:43

Making UXP work on Windows NT 5 requires some significant and undesired changes, like using FFmpeg instead of Media Foundation. People maintaining those applications also removed some of the platform features (https://github.com/Feodor2/Mypal/commit ... 3baf10213c) or restored some features removed from the official repo (https://github.com/Feodor2/Mypal/commit ... 4be5c388d1). At this point those applications are different enough that Pale Moon developers do not want them to carry the Pale Moon name.
cat came back from Berkeley waving flags -- rob pike

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 23700
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: 58°2'16"N 14°58'31"E
Contact:

Re: Contributed builds for Windows XP

Unread post by Moonchild » 2019-03-17, 20:44

Okay, I guess I need to (once again) clarify a few things here despite it already having been said many times.

You're absolutely correct i don't want to provide any support for Windows XP as an operating system any longer. Not only is it by now 5 years past its extended life cycle support by its vendor, it also builds on a completely unsupported version of the NT kernel (5.*) that is not only a different generation but does many critical things in a different way. Catering to that would inherently mean NOT catering to the potential of later OS-es and I refuse to let an ancient, unsupported OS hold back development.
The main problem here is not that it's some arbitrary decision, but that it makes absolutely no sense to continue catering to this kernel version that is not in any way supported by anyone today and should be considered a hobbyist project for those who still want to run it. I'm not going to go into the security risks of it either because there will be an endless stream of BUTs coming out of proponents mouths to work around those vulnerabilities -- but that still doesn't justify running it in the first place.

Also, seriously, you want to compare it to CentOS 6? :lol:
Some facts:
Windows XP: Release date August 2001, EoL April 2014
CentOS 6: Release date July 2011, Still under support

That's 10 f*ing years apart for release. Don't compare apples and oranges. 10 years in IT is a massive gap. Even CentOS 3 was released after XP and nobody in their right mind still supports that as a viable OS.

Then there are the increasingly large hacks and code changes "Windows XP versions" of Pale Moon employ that nobody but their maintainer(s) have vetted or analyzed. Do I want my brand name and reputation staked on that? Hell no. So yeah of course I am very adamant about people re-branding it to be their own thing because that IS what they are making it into: a "YMMV" hobby project for a hobby OS for ancient hardware.
City of Heroes public server: https://www.moonshard.org/ -- Vote for it: Image

"If you want to build a better world for yourself, you have to be willing to build one for everybody." -- Coyote Osborne
"I'm afraid you have me mistaken for someone who can be shamed by a child." -- Quillspawn

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 256
Joined: 2012-05-17, 19:06

Re: Contributed builds for Windows XP

Unread post by Admin » 2019-03-17, 21:51

yami_ wrote:At this point those applications are different enough that Pale Moon developers do not want them to carry the Pale Moon name.
With all those changes it simply is no longer Pale Moon! Also, are they really going to support WebExtensions? 8-) Good luck!
Did you know that moral outrage triggers the pleasure centers of the brain? It's unlikely you can actually get addicted to outrage, but there is plausible evidence that you can become strongly predisposed to it.
Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p002w557/episodes/downloads - "The cooperative species" and "Behaving better online"

Locked