New Firefox fork

[suzyne]

Off-topic:

Which is why by definition, they are add-ons and not part of the browser core

It doesn't matter that they are add-ons because my point is that Firefox encouraged the expectation that you can do almost anything inside the browser. That the browser is a place where you can run app like programs and here I am not thinking of technicalities, but more users perceptions. Yes, there is a big difference between webapps and add-ons, but to the user, Mozilla made Firefox capable of acting more like a self contained OS, and so I think they should share the blame for the current attitude that a browser is more than a document viewer.

[moonbat]

Off-topic:

Firefox encouraged the expectation that you can do almost anything inside the browser.

Yes, that you, the end user, can do anything inside the browser, not that the browser vendor will stuff it and the spec with ten thousand different pieces of crap so that websites can serve as substitutes for desktop applications and you're stuck with a lame extension technology that absolutely cannot extend the browser interface in any way.
How does that make it an OS? Firefox today is far less customizable than it was in the original era - if by OS you mean a 70s mainframe where you interact with a dumb terminal and have no control over anything on the client side, that's the direction Google has pushed the web and general computing today.Google laid the foundations within the browser so that it can be used as an office suite or a graphical editing tool or a gaming platform tied to subscriptions instead of being separate pieces of software locally installed. This has nothing to do with extensions and you customizing the browser your way.

[fatboy]

Keen to test the first release

[Michaell]

Windows version planned? I saw you mentioned it at first. I installed Fx 10 and it runs on Win10. But I don't know any sites it will load because of the secure linking protocols. If so, what about addons - will we need to hunt for compatible ones in Classic Addons Archive?

[moonbat]

will we need to hunt for compatible ones in Classic Addons Archive?

Pretty much, or the internet archive version of the Mozilla Addons site from the time of Firefox 10's release.

[andreasr]

The Firefox 10 revival project had some progress today. I learned that there is a library called HarfBuzz.
I am struggling to fix compilation errors, which I think are caused by mismatches between the bundled HarfBuzz in Firefox 10 and the system HarfBuzz, something like this.

Code: Select all

2024-10-09T20:50:22.2643749Z /home/runner/work/wunderfox/wunderfox/gfx/thebes/gfxHarfBuzzShaper.cpp: In member function ‘void gfxHarfBuzzShaper::GetGlyphAdvance(gfxContext*, hb_codepoint_t, hb_position_t*, hb_position_t*) const’:
2024-10-09T20:50:22.2646785Z /home/runner/work/wunderfox/wunderfox/gfx/thebes/gfxHarfBuzzShaper.cpp:252:43: error: ‘hb_blob_lock’ was not declared in this scope; did you mean ‘hb_blob_t’?
2024-10-09T20:50:22.2648525Z   252 |         reinterpret_cast<const HMetrics*>(hb_blob_lock(mHmtxTable));
2024-10-09T20:50:22.2649309Z       |                                           ^~~~~~~~~~~~
2024-10-09T20:50:22.2649926Z       |                                           hb_blob_t

So all respect to the Pale moon project for actually having a working Firefox fork.

I am kind of hopefull still for a community effort of reviving Firefox 10. https://github.com/wunderfox/wunderfox/

By now, I wonder if forking Firefox 131 would be more useful and fun and possibly remotely possible. I could axe away code I don't want and turn the fork into what Firefox 131 could have been.

[andreasr]

The HarfBuzz library is the current obstacle which prevents compilation of Firefox 10. There is an embedded Harfbuzz in Firefox 10:

https://github.com/wunderfox/wunderfox/tree/main/gfx/harfbuzz

Can I disable HarfBuzz? Is it possible to remove HarfBuzz fully, in order to achieve compilation? It seems like the HarfBuzz api has changed since the glory days of Firefox 10.
Can I "hide" the system HarfBuzz library, so that only the embedded HarfBuzz library is found? Or is the problem in the embedded HarfBuzz library?

[Shadow]

By now, I wonder if forking Firefox 131 would be more useful and fun and possibly remotely possible. I could axe away code I don't want and turn the fork into what Firefox 131 could have been.

Just my selfish opinion, but why not 115?

The folks using the current extended extended 115 will be looking for a modern fork to go to once it's axed March 2025. Sure, some already exist, but you could be a go to set up by then. The carry on process, simply able to migrate their profiles over to yours, and never miss a beat.

They refuse to accept (wonder why ) that there are folks who don't want to use 10 and above Windows. They end the updates for 10 in a years time as well, and they'll start their whining again, with those who want to stick with that. Remember when 10 was supposed to be it lol. Pretty sure I didn't believe them at the time. Now Windows 12 is going be a thing and cluttered with AI spying features your average person never asked for.

[andreasr]

There is New HarfBuzz (2012–), and Old HarfBuzz. Firefox 10 is using Old HarfBuzz, I guess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HarfBuzz

[andyprough]

There is New HarfBuzz (2012–), and Old HarfBuzz. Firefox 10 is using Old HarfBuzz, I guess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HarfBuzz

libharfbuzz is one of the libraries involved with pango text and font rendering, correct? Have you tried disabling pango in .mozconfig? Here's what the disable option should look like:

Code: Select all

ac_add_options --disable-pango 

I've seen various reports, that some programs run fine without it, and for some programs all the text rendering is a mess if you disable it. But I don't see any reports for Firefox. Might be worth a try though.

Edit: There was a bug 12 years ago where the build system was still checking for libraries when pango was disabled, not sure if this would impact you: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=780646

[andreasr]

I tried forking Firefox 131 today. It uses too much disk space in order to build on Github. So I am still thinking about how to proceed with this Firefox fork project.

[frostknight]

The idea of forking such an old firefox, is interesting to me, but besides using less memory, would it also use less cpu power?

If so, you could potentially run it on an old computer like tinycore linux maybe.

you would have to update certain things though, to make it able to function in modern times though.

Thus, would it be a significant improvement in either cpu power and memory once that is done?

I wonder about that.

And bare in mind, I am comparing against palemoon itself. So... idk.

Just a thought I wanted to convey though.

[KlarkKentThe3rd]

Off-topic:
Something about this thread is giving me strange vibes. Feel free to ignore this message.

[Schimon]

Andreas, I congratulate and support your endeavour and wish you good luck.

However, I would also encourage you to support other projects such as Falkon or Otter Browser.

You can, create extensions for Falkon. And the extension system of Falkon is as good as the XUL extension system, and it allows to build software that can be utilized as standalone software and as extension software,

See https://portal.mozz.us/gemini/woodpecke ... uction.gmi

Yet, you can also try to do these:

1) Port the Gecko backend to Falkon, Otter or other HTML browsers as an additional alternative to Chromium/WekKit (Epiphany used to have both, Gecko and WebKit backends); and

2) Port the XUL extension system to Falkon, Otter or other HTML browsers, and by that create a new mutual system (i.e. "ecosystem" so called) that would benefit to Pale Moon and other XUL supported browsers as one.

[moonbat]

And the extension system of Falkon is as good as the XUL extension system

It's a Chromium wrapper, so that statement needs to be taken with a kilo of salt. No browser can claim to be 'independent' unless it has its own separate rendering engine, instead of merely repackaging or building a shell around Blink/Gecko as almost everything else is these days.

[Schimon]

And the extension system of Falkon is as good as the XUL extension system

It's a Chromium wrapper, so that statement needs to be taken with a kilo of salt. No browser can claim to be 'independent' unless it has its own separate rendering engine, instead of merely repackaging or building a shell around Blink/Gecko as almost everything else is these days.

I agree. Then a Gecko backend could be a feature which would be of great benefit.