Palemoon vs Firefox 18

[searchlight]

The newly available FF v18 is touted as fixing many bugs and vulnerabilities inherent in the Firefox browser.

That being said, does this mean that v15.32 of the Palemoon is now more vulnerable and buggy?

Clarification is appreciated.

[lyceus]

Hi!

In short answer: No, Pale Moon 15.3.2 is current like Firefox 18.

The long answer:

Pale Moon is not in rush to "beat" Chrome in numeration like Firefox wants to. So for made a difference, Pale Moon focus on the Gecko core more than to happily move numbers. Current Gecko core is 15, hence Pale Moon is 15 until a new Gecko engine is released. The intermediate updates (15.1, 15.2, ...) adds all the relevant patches and updates released in the Firefox cycle. Is not equal because Pale Moon have different features than Firefox (disabled PDF viewer, no ActiveX, no parental control, real UI, etc.).
Pale Moon avoid to add half baked features included in Firefox, because they break more things than they fix. The current 15.3.2 browser was released way ahead Firefox 18 because the last beta releases were not relevant for add patches or features.

[dabruro]

Lobocursor, that makes sense, but I have run into one practical problem with this numbering method.

When trying to install firefox addons into pale moon, some of them tell me they aren't compatible with my version because of the number. The developer has only tested the addon on, say, firefox 17, so he lists it as compatible with 17 and up. I appear to have "firefox" 15 and so can't install it.

It's true that the developer shouldn't have done that, but nonetheless I'd like to be able to install his addon.

Not to try to "beat" Chrome, but just to maintain numeric consistency for firefox addon compatibility, would you consider following the firefox numbering scheme more closely?

I agree with your opposition to the firefox numbering scheme, but just for pragmatic reasons I suggest that we try to follow it more closely until they see the error of their ways (maybe when they get to 100 they'll have a change of heart).

[Moonchild]

To clarify this:

It's not "just a number". Pale Moon 15.* is based on the UI and rendering engine code of Firefox 15. With the changes made to especially the user interface code, compatibility for add-ons was broken and add-on developers have had to make changes to their add-ons to make them compatible again with later Firefox versions. If addons.mozilla.org would work as it is intended, it would offer the "latest compatible version" of the add-on for your browser automatically, but unfortunately it doesn't work as it should. See also bug #823840:

Yeah, that's another known bug. Search results that specify compatibility only take into account the latest version. I can't find the version number, but it's the same bug that prevents Lightning from showing up in the add-on manager search results for anything but the latest Thunderbird.

To install your favorite add-on, you need to check the addons.mozilla.org page of your add-on, at the bottom, where it says "Version Information" click that to open the panel, then "see complete version history" and find the latest version number that supports the same major version of the Pale Moon you are using (currently 15.*)

[Apollo702]

There is an easy workaround to this issue. One of the add-ons that I run is this one: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/user-agent-rg/?src=ss It enables you to appear as if you are running different browsers. You can also appear to run different version numbers. It is a common problem when developers forget about PM and put their minimum versions too low. This is yet one more problem with Mozilla playing the rabid-release game.

Fortunately most of the add-ons labeled incompatible that is the only real issue. Therefore all you need to do is go to those pages, appear as compatible and you are back in business!

[Night Wing]

but just for pragmatic reasons I suggest that we try to follow it more closely until they see the error of their ways (maybe when they get to 100 they'll have a change of heart).

The Firefox developers will never see the error of their ways because their egos won't let them.

[dabruro]

To clarify this:

It's not "just a number". Pale Moon 15.* is based on the UI and rendering engine code of Firefox 15. With the changes made to especially the user interface code, compatibility for add-ons was broken and add-on developers have had to make changes to their add-ons to make them compatible again with later Firefox versions.

So you're saying that when a developer updates their add-on and labels it as 17+, is it likely to truly be incompible with Pale Moon 15 because they probably changed it to be compatible with 17 and incompatible with 15? I would think it's more likely that it in fact works with both, but they labeled it as 17+ anyway.

If we identified as 17, is there any practical downside other than the possibility of something not working because it really isn't compatible with the 15 UI?

Anway we could always go back to the earlier version of the add-on if the "17" version didn't work with PM.

As it is today, we don't even have the *choice* of installing the "17" version of the add-on, other than by disabling compatibility checking entirely, using the checkCompatibility add-on.

...
To install your favorite add-on, you need to check the addons.mozilla.org page of your add-on, at the bottom, where it says "Version Information" click that to open the panel, then "see complete version history" and find the latest version number that supports the same major version of the Pale Moon you are using (currently 15.*)

That may work, but it's possible that an old version has bugs that were fixed in the most recent version.

I don't think even changing the User Agent string enables installing the "17+" version of the add-on -- it may let you download it but the browser still refuses to install it (could we at least change this part to warn but allow installation in this case anyway?)

[Apollo702]

I don't think even changing the User Agent string enables installing the "17+" version of the add-on -- it may let you download it but the browser still refuses to install it (could we at least change this part to warn but allow installation in this case anyway?)

I have done this several times and it worked without a hitch every time. It seems that Mozilla is trying to throw one more obstacle at PM users but using this method you can get the add-on in a matter of seconds. Although there are some hopelessly old add-ons that just wont work anymore and probably are abandoned most of them are compatible and the only real issue is the silly version number.

Believe me because I am captain-run-a-million-addons and most are going to work flawlessly. I have tested countless add-ons out in both PM and FF and the version numbers were only cosmetic. This whole 18/15 business is nonsense. PM uses a realistic numbering scheme while rabid-release is just version # inflation.

[buggy]

Don't care the egos compatibility: https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/a ... atibility/

[lyceus]

When trying to install firefox addons into pale moon, some of them tell me they aren't compatible with my version because of the number. The developer has only tested the addon on, say, firefox 17, so he lists it as compatible with 17 and up. I appear to have "firefox" 15 and so can't install it.

Several Add-ons works with Pale Moon number, so far I only got like less than 6 add-ons that do not want to install in PM after like some years of daily use. (Since version 3.x) I do not deny that this can happens, but you can either email the dev; install some alternative add-on; or change the user agent to something suitable as others may suggest already.

If the trouble is a plugin, I have good news. I have both PM and FF installed (for beta testing) and they both share the plugins, so one missing in PM can work fine in FF.

[buggy]

If the trouble is a plugin, I have good news. I have both PM and FF installed (for beta testing) and they both share the plugins, so one missing in PM can work fine in FF.

It's another solution you're right but not the best, not many people are beta tester.