Clicking links in TB email won't open in PM w/o closing the browser first Topic is solved

[videobruce]

Using 'Set Default Browser In Registry' registry program for a Portable install of PM to make it the default browser (which works fine with FF);
Links in Thunderbird email won't open in PM when the browser is already open. It gives me a choice of closing PM then reopening it or just cancel neither is any good.
The only way it works s if PM is closed when I click on a link, but only for one link. Clicking on a 2nd link puts me back to where I was; closing the browser & loosing all open pages and starting fresh.
Really strange behavior, how can that be fixed???

(Hope that made sense)

[moonbat]

The portable version by definition is not meant to integrate into the OS no matter what bandaids you try.

[videobruce]

No offense but, it works fine in FF. Why does the browser have to close?? Something to do with sessions?
Just tiring to understand things.

[moonbat]

No offense but, it works fine in FF.

Then stick to FF. Why are you even asking on the board of a browser that is not FF?

Portable software is designed to be self contained and not hook into the host operating system at all, useful when you don't have local admin rights to install stuff or want to just run it directly across multiple computers (hint - the name kinda gives it away). You're trying to do what it isn't designed to do rather than just installing the regular version of Pale Moon where you don't have to mess around with these things.

Just tiring to understand things.

But well, as it is clearly so tiring to understand even this, you're better off with other browsers that won't tax your brain.

[videobruce]

They are both Mozilla based are they not?
I'll try the regular installed version then.

[H Seldon]

Try commenting out (put a semicolon in fron of it) 'MOZ_NO_REMOTE=1' in Environment section of Palemoon-Portable.ini file.
This does not defeat the portability. Making PM default browser defeated portability.

[moonbat]

They are both Mozilla based are they not?

They share a common ancestor from about 4 or 5 years ago, that doesn't mean their contemporary versions are in any way comparable.

[Moonchild]

They share a common ancestor from about 4 or 5 years ago,

More like 10.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Are you running with --no-remote on either application? Because that disrupts shell integration and invocation..

[Moonchild]

They are using the portable, which has no-remote as default.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Then I don't know why they are expecting proper shell invocation of the default browser. They are obviously too ignorant to use my software.

[H Seldon]

Commenting out 'MOZ_NO_REMOTE=' setting does not change the portability of the browser. Pale Moon is not set as my default browser and does not use shell integration. There are applications (email, editors, batch files. etc.) that allow to pass documents and URLs to other applications such as web browsers. This does not change the portability of Pale Moon. It is still 100% portable.

[Moonchild]

Commenting out 'MOZ_NO_REMOTE=' setting does not change the portability of the browser.

If you look at just the browser in an isolated manner, then sure, it does not influence its portability for clean systems.
What it does do, however, is cause problems for the systems the browser is used on, depending on its use. Because people are already confused about basic use of a portable vs self-contained vs. installed version of software, causing the potential issues with attempted system integration of software that is not, in fact, installed in a fixed location is not something I want to have to address, LET ALONE the plethora of people being even more confused about not being able to start multiple copies of the portable concurrently.
This is why remote usage of the portable is disabled by default. Its intended use precludes integration with the OS (it's portable software!) because that use is for "taking the browser with you on removable media" (see also the Pale Moon website).

So yes, if you want system integration with installed OTHER software, you should use the installed version or (at your own risk of breaking associations, getting bogus registry entries, etc.) comment out the no-remote line in the .ini file.

[videobruce]

Try commenting out (put a semicolon in fron of it) 'MOZ_NO_REMOTE=1' in Environment section of Palemoon-Portable.ini file.
This does not defeat the portability. Making PM default browser defeated portability.

Looks like that did it.

Are you running with --no-remote on either application? Because that disrupts shell integration and invocation..

No idea what this is as I have never edited the .ini file nor have I even opened it in TB or PM.

[videobruce]

Questions;
I see FF Portable doesn't have a .ini file and PM does. Why?
Is that why isn't there a problem with FF?
Why is this "no remote" line even there??

[Moonchild]

I see FF Portable doesn't have a .ini file and PM does. Why?

Why do you think we are Firefox?
Why do you think all portable software would be the same?

Is that why isn't there a problem with FF?

No

Why is this "no remote" line even there??

Because I left it in the .ini for people to use IF THEY NEEDED IT. But if you'd rather I remove all configuration options from the portable then that can most certainly be arranged too

[videobruce]

I never stated or implied 'you' were FF, the reference was Mozilla based.
I should of typed that FF has no .ini file.

[Moonchild]

I never stated or implied 'you' were FF,

I see FF Portable doesn't have a .ini file and PM does. Why?

I should of typed that FF has no .ini file.

You did.

I see FF Portable doesn't have a .ini file and PM does. Why?

So my questions remain:

Why do you think we are Firefox?
Why do you think all portable software would be the same?

[H Seldon]

I am not saying the remote setting should not be default. What I am saying is that commenting it out does not necessarily break portability, as in my case, since I do not change any file associations or default browser settings. It remains completley portable.

[videobruce]

Why do you think we are Firefox?
Why do you think all portable software would be the same?

Never stated that, I said Mozilla based. Big difference. Never stated the other either. You are assuming and you are taking things personally which they aren't..