Looking forward in 2017 - Questions

[PhilK]

By "hard fork of a later version" do you mean that Australis will be forced on us? Will there be a Classic Theme Restorer equivalent if that's the case? Also, why do we need to fork the XUL/XPCOM addon support from a later Firefox version when we already have been maintaining it?

My impression is that this has to do with a variety of "updated stuph" in later FF builds, not just XUL/XPCOM support per-se.

Which makes perfect sense, considering all the coding-hours that have surely been invested by Mozilla since PM's last fork-point on things like standards-compliance, rendering and performance improvements, bugfixes and so on.

I just didn't realize it was feasible to re-base again, since previous announcements implied the previous fork was the last practicable place to do so.

I think the Australis issue was addressed by Moonchild in his last post. (If a bit ambiguously) It seems they will proceed with 2 separate tracks:

1. The existing PaleMoon - originally based on FF (25.x?) codebase with PM UI, updates, backports and enhancements.
2. The new project (with a different name) based on FF 5x - which may or may not survive depending on how much dev support can be marshalled to maintain it without Mozilla's direct contributions. Initially it will be very similiar to the FF it was based upon. (Including Australis, apparently)

Apparently the idea is, if #2 above hits the wall, PM will still continue on as before. But if #1 looks like it's going to have a strong future, they will attempt to merge the 2 into the "New PaleMoon" at some point, I assume.

[GreenGeek]

5. Which part of the code does the web rendering- the platform or application code?

platform

... is it possible that there could be a mostly common web rendering code base between the two browsers anyway?

There already is, except for things added in newer FF, or tweaks made in PM. Hardly anybody who develops a web browser writes all the page rendering code from scratch.

... ability to keep the web rendering engine current and compatible with sites that are increasingly coding for Blink.

I understand what you mean but I don't want a non-Chrome browser to do everything Chrome does. Blocking or not executing some of a page's code is desirable for those who don't worship Google.

... I don't think this new browser will be "for me", because its essentially the modern Firefox UI, which I hate.

That's it -- newer versions of FF offer nothing important. FF devs have mostly been preoccupied with removing functionality. We're better off with what we have. But I don't think MC et al have said yet what the UI would be; doesn't necessarily have to be Australis-like.

However, I am excited about the new project

I'm more apprehensive, considering that PM is already short on developers. I don't see any need for or benefit from trying to do two browsers.

[Moonchild]

Let me just add this:

This is an early-stage announcement. I made it to provide transparency.

Yes, there are 2 browsers planned with the new one being a proof-of-concept, as well as a development-testbed (since you need something to work the platform as it's built up), as well as a viable Firefox alternative.
Eventually they can be aligned to only differ in product front-end code if they are XUL-based (greatly reducing the work needed to maintain them). When you have a solid, maintained platform that performs all the technical tasks needed, programming the front-end is going to be a much more simple, self-contained task.

Also, I'm still open to any other group wanting to continue developing the XUL platform that Mozilla is abandoning; please do, if you can -- it just seems to me like our team is currently the most well-suited to try our best at this since we are already doing such for Pale Moon right now, and the challenges are going to be extremely similar.

[PhilK]

Replace:

"But if #1 looks like it's going to have a strong future..."

...in my last post with:

"But if #2 looks like it's going to have a strong future..."

Confusing typo. But I'm past the edit-window on that post now.

[Sajadi]

As long as the old customizable UI will stay, i am happy

[gracious1]

Let me just add this:

This is an early-stage announcement. I made it to provide transparency.

Yes, there are 2 browsers planned with the new one being a proof-of-concept, as well as a development-testbed (since you need something to work the platform as it's built up), as well as a viable Firefox alternative.
Eventually they can be aligned to only differ in product front-end code if they are XUL-based (greatly reducing the work needed to maintain them).

Just to make sure I understand (because I have found the discussion on other threads confusing so far), there will be two browsers. The newer one will look like Australis, but it will support XUL and have nothing to do with WebExtensions?

[Moonchild]

there will be two browsers. The newer one will look like Australis, but it will support XUL

Correct. Not only support it for extensions, but will be built using it.

The newer one will [...] have nothing to do with WebExtensions?

The newer one will support Mozilla's flavor of WebExtensions in addition to the other extension types.

[Luna Tic]

Are these two browsers going to use different profiles (or more accurately profile locations, each with its own set of profiles)? Is it going to be like the one way street from 26.5 to 27?
I am thinking using both of them until I figure out which one I prefer. Or maybe forever, one as main browser the other a backup one.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Let me answer that question with a question.. Do Firefox, SeaMonkey, Thunderbird, FossaMail, and Pale Moon use different profile locations?

[Luna Tic]

No idea. Lemme check the over-under at the bookies before I take that bet right there.

[gracious1]

The newer one will [...] have nothing to do with WebExtensions?

The newer one will support Mozilla's flavor of WebExtensions in addition to the other extension types.

Okay, so far so good. But what about Austalis? Why was that brought up, and what will that have to do with the as-yet-unnamed-sister-browser?

And if I am not opening a can of worms, Web Extensions are undesirable because they don't allow the customization that XUL and other types of extensions permit? (E.g. complete themes) ? And is there any other reason ?

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Alright, guess this has run rampant long enough.. I am quite busy atm but stay tuned for a Tobinist Overview of what has already been said with explanations no one will read.

Why? Because I am compelled to by forces I don't understand.

[Moonchild]

I don't think it'll help much, Tobin... And you shouldn't feel compelled to provide answers we don't have, or making decisions about details that are or are not going to be in the browser as a result -- since I don't want to lock things down just yet.

There will not be answers to every question you have because there simply isn't a finished project yet where from these questions can be answered. It's not done yet. It's not clear yet in what way this second browser will operate in every detail because that will be decided in its development. I can only lay our course lines of direction here. Don't ask for details that aren't there yet, don't ask for answers that can't be given yet. don't expect every little scrap of information at your fingertips because that is not how this works -- once more, this is a course plan of action to find a way to continue with and maintain XUL in the years to come. The browser product is secondary to it.

[Latitude]

The Firefox-derivative browser will support WebExtensions and have Australis/CustomizableUI available. The idea is to provide as much of a Firefox-parity browser as possible with that.

The conclusion is that WebExtensions is not all that bad, isn't it?

We need a couple of time for WebExtensions to mature, right?
Maybe, there would be a new APIs.... especially for theming APIs....

[Moonchild]

The conclusion is that WebExtensions is not all that bad, isn't it?

Um... what?
WebExtensions is bad, IMNSHO. For all the reasons already discussed before (mostly the lack of low-level APIs).

Just because one product supports it to cater to what users are forced to use doesn't suddenly make it "less bad". Try taking off your colored glasses when reading my posts - it'll help.

[Latitude]

Um... what?
WebExtensions is bad, IMNSHO. For all the reasons already discussed before (mostly the lack of low-level APIs).

Just because one product supports it to cater to what users are forced to use doesn't suddenly make it "less bad". Try taking off your colored glasses when reading my posts - it'll help.

I have a question.

What does "Australis/CustomizableUI" mean? (Especially the "CustomizableUI" part. Would the new product have CTR-like functionality?)

Regarding "Australis", there is "Australium" theme in APO, right?

[Moonchild]

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/JavaScript_code_modules/CustomizableUI.jsm
Australis uses this to provide its limited customization options.

Unrelated to Australium, CTR, or what not. It is the Firefox 29+ UI.

[Shadeclan]

Moonchild:

It appears to me that you are developing the second interface as a sort of fork to try things out without disturbing the PaleMoon base code. Later on down the road, when you have things worked out, you will re-merge the divergent branches. Makes sense.

I suspect that you are doing this in order to maintain PaleMoon flexibility. There will be a great deal of effort put into creating WebKit extensions and you want to make sure that PaleMoon has the ability to take advantage of them. In spite of the resource allocation, this also makes sense.

I foresee that many add-on developers are going to be either rewriting their add-ons or abandoning them altogether. As PaleMoon continues to move forward, some add-ons may become security risks through unmaintained code. Although I believe that PaleMoon will replace Firefox as more people become aware of it, your experience in that department has been more ... discouraging? - especially in getting the help of the developer community. I believe that, as PaleMoon becomes better known, add-on developers will maintain their code bases, especially when there's so little that they need to do to support PaleMoon.

Someone made the point that PaleMoon technology is "aging" - I suppose they said this because Mozilla says so. Code doesn't necessarily "age" so long as it is maintained and old code can be faster and more reliable than "new" code, especially if the developer of new code is using code-generating software which adds a great deal of overhead to the code base. Many times, so called "new" code is simply repackaged old code and the only really new thing about it is the acronym.

We need to trust Moonchild to maintain add-on compatibility and browser customization - this is PaleMoon's bread-and-butter, to coin an English saying.

The most important thing that we, as the community at large, need to do is stay positive and upbeat. We stand at a crucial crossroads in the browser wars. Practically everyone else is rolling over to WebKit. I believe that there is a large group of people who are only kept from using PaleMoon because they have no idea it exists. Our job is to provide as much support to Moonchild & co as we can and advertize and evangelize for PaleMoon as much as possible.

And Mr. Tobin - don't listen to Moonchild - I always read your posts when I come across them

[yakorav]

Moonchild, can you please describe the philosophy behind this second browser? What problems are the Pale Moon team trying to solve by developing it?

[Moonchild]

Moonchild, can you please describe the philosophy behind this second browser? What problems are the Pale Moon team trying to solve by developing it?

I'm not sure what kind of answer you are looking for here. It will be a demonstration of the platform, as well as a vessel to develop the platform through (we need a product to be able to develop/test/enhance the underlying technology), and it will be a viable alternative for Firefox users who do not want to lose their XUL-based extensions and customization, which will, hopefully, also help fund its development. That's basically it -- there isn't necessarily a philosophy behind the browser apart from it being an extension of the philosophy behind developing the platform.