Important sites disfunctional on PaleMoon
Moderator: trava90
Forum rules
This board is for technical/general usage questions and troubleshooting for the Pale Moon browser only.
Technical issues and questions not related to the Pale Moon browser should be posted in other boards!
Please keep off-topic and general discussion out of this board, thank you!
This board is for technical/general usage questions and troubleshooting for the Pale Moon browser only.
Technical issues and questions not related to the Pale Moon browser should be posted in other boards!
Please keep off-topic and general discussion out of this board, thank you!
Re: Important sites disfunctional on PaleMoon
@Indigoprophet
Nobody can or will force you to accept anything.
Simply use the browser "working on all operational sites"!
Pale Moon doesn't. We all know it.
The devs do their best and as much as they can to improve web compatibility.
Posts like yours aren't of any help. Period.
What posts like yours manage to do nonetheless is to waste Web Space, to frustrate devs and to annoy the few users trying to help people encountering problems.
Nobody can or will force you to accept anything.
Simply use the browser "working on all operational sites"!
Pale Moon doesn't. We all know it.
The devs do their best and as much as they can to improve web compatibility.
Posts like yours aren't of any help. Period.
What posts like yours manage to do nonetheless is to waste Web Space, to frustrate devs and to annoy the few users trying to help people encountering problems.
Re: Important sites disfunctional on PaleMoon
Non-chromium browsers? My uneducated view on it:Indigoprophet wrote: ↑2022-04-08, 08:34But how do you explain this issue for non-Chromium browsers?
WebKit, used by iOS/Safari
Blink engine (forked from WebKit), used by: Chromium-based browsers, including Microsoft Edge, Vivaldi, Opera
Gecko (Firefox), copies and glues-in Chromium features/codes as fast as possible, being as close to a Chromium-clone as possible without being Chromium, sponsored mainly by Google
So the other "non-chromium" browsers is mainly Firefox, which is the "Exact Same" (if you are paid by Google, you will do as Google says), I'm not sure it's really fitting to call it non-chromium browser for web-compatibility, as they don't follow "web standards" but "chromium".
We are left with Goanna (Pale Moon) as non-Chromium, and as long as websites are following "Chromium" instead of "standards" (PM is pretty good at standard-compliance, just the websites/frameworks themselves are not), non-chromium-copies will need more time to adapt (and that time depends on a lot of things, including available resources, and even in just that regard comparing Pale Moon with Firefox shows a pretty big difference).
Of course it makes sense for websites to only care about Chromium, as most of the internet is using Chromium(-based browser), but that means a non-Chromium engine/browser is not checked against relative slow-changing (with sane timelines) standards, but against the ever-changing Chromium-features websites/frameworks implement whenever they feel like.
- Pallid Planetoid
- Knows the dark side
- Posts: 4279
- Joined: 2015-10-06, 16:59
- Location: Los Angeles CA USA
Re: Important sites disfunctional on PaleMoon
^ Ditto the above - right-on!
How can a browser be "operational" on all sites at all times when that would require basically becoming a Chrome clone? It's the other way around, "putting in jeopardy the future of a privacy-friendly product" (as you say) would be the case if the Pale Moon Project were to succumb to Google for the sake of the browser working on all sites at all times. And yes, a browser that eschews the go-along-to-work Google crowd of browsers IS, as you say, "worth it's weight in gold these days" - but by doing so, there will necessarily be issues that arise as a result of preserving the goal to stay independent of the "Google disease" (that continues to spread among so many other browsers) with the goal in mind to sustain a level of continuity globally across all browsers.
And yes, we, that appreciate what Pale Moon stands for, are more than willing to support the Pale Moon Project while it works through issues that take time -- and why? --- simply because Pale Moon does continue to remain steadfast in its goal to not fall prey to those who would suggest we must inevitably compromise and join the ever larger group that increasingly dispenses with recommended Web Standards in order to serve their own purposes.
Your premise is NOT "obvious" (in part, based on what you further said yourself)....Indigoprophet wrote: ↑2022-04-08, 08:34The obvious truth is that a browser is useful only when it's working on all operational sites, otherwise it's useless. And you're saying that we must accept it.
But the saddest thing about this is that you're putting in jeopardy the future of a privacy-friendly product which is not a skank of big companies like Google. These products are worth its weight in gold these days, but with such attitude you're pushing your users away from it. The users who were willing to support it.
How can a browser be "operational" on all sites at all times when that would require basically becoming a Chrome clone? It's the other way around, "putting in jeopardy the future of a privacy-friendly product" (as you say) would be the case if the Pale Moon Project were to succumb to Google for the sake of the browser working on all sites at all times. And yes, a browser that eschews the go-along-to-work Google crowd of browsers IS, as you say, "worth it's weight in gold these days" - but by doing so, there will necessarily be issues that arise as a result of preserving the goal to stay independent of the "Google disease" (that continues to spread among so many other browsers) with the goal in mind to sustain a level of continuity globally across all browsers.
And yes, we, that appreciate what Pale Moon stands for, are more than willing to support the Pale Moon Project while it works through issues that take time -- and why? --- simply because Pale Moon does continue to remain steadfast in its goal to not fall prey to those who would suggest we must inevitably compromise and join the ever larger group that increasingly dispenses with recommended Web Standards in order to serve their own purposes.
Current Pale Moon(x86) Release | WIN10 | I5 CPU, 1.7 GHz, 6GB RAM, 500GB HD[20GB SSD]
Formerly user Pale Moon Rising - to provide context involving embedded reply threads.
Good judgment comes from experience and a lot of that comes from bad judgment. - Will Rogers
Knowing Pale Moon is indisputably #1 is defined by knowing the totality of browsers. - Pale Moon Rising
Formerly user Pale Moon Rising - to provide context involving embedded reply threads.
Good judgment comes from experience and a lot of that comes from bad judgment. - Will Rogers
Knowing Pale Moon is indisputably #1 is defined by knowing the totality of browsers. - Pale Moon Rising
- Indigoprophet
- Moongazer
- Posts: 11
- Joined: 2022-04-01, 14:10
Re: Important sites disfunctional on PaleMoon
You're so wrong here. Such posts are of utmost importance, because they are the sole source of knowledge that:
a) the browser doesn't work on all sites
b) your attitude to users' critical problem is poor
There's no other way for a potential user of the browser to find out this crucial information before actually starting using it than to come to the forum and read through this thread. So I've done a great favor to many users by writing it.
Re: Important sites disfunctional on PaleMoon
Profile of Indigoprophet
Registered on April Fool's Day 2022.
7 posts till now. All of them of zero value for this forum.
The fact that Tobin was rightfully banned doesn't mean that this forum should turn into a place where some people who otherwise have nothing useful to say are registering only to troll.
Registered on April Fool's Day 2022.
7 posts till now. All of them of zero value for this forum.
The fact that Tobin was rightfully banned doesn't mean that this forum should turn into a place where some people who otherwise have nothing useful to say are registering only to troll.
Re: Important sites disfunctional on PaleMoon
Let's keep things civil, shall we?
@Indigoprophet: Please consider this a one-time warning to tone down your self-importance and negativity.
@Indigoprophet: Please consider this a one-time warning to tone down your self-importance and negativity.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite
- andyprough
- Astronaut
- Posts: 701
- Joined: 2020-05-31, 04:33
Re: Important sites disfunctional on PaleMoon
While you are generally correct, it's important to note that there are huge numbers of sites that do not work with webkit browsers (at least among the many webkit browsers I've tried on Linux), and there are huge numbers of complaints about broken sites on the Chrome and Firefox and Vivaldi user forums, including the same sites that are complained about here. Broken websites is not a Pale Moon problem or a "non-chromium" problem, it is a website developer problem. Until they get their crap together (which is probably never), this will always be a whack-a-mole struggle regardless of which browser you choose.Potkeny wrote: ↑2022-04-08, 10:23Of course it makes sense for websites to only care about Chromium, as most of the internet is using Chromium(-based browser), but that means a non-Chromium engine/browser is not checked against relative slow-changing (with sane timelines) standards, but against the ever-changing Chromium-features websites/frameworks implement whenever they feel like.
The best advice I've seen is to simply refuse to visit non-standards compliant sites. If there's a non-standards compliant site you MUST visit for work or school, make sure you've got a backup browser or two that you can use when it's broken. Currently Edge is the one that seems to be bending over backwards the most to render sites, but at the same time Edge and Chrome are probably the least privacy respecting. Pick your poison. Or maybe pick a couple of "privacy" browsers like Brave and Librewolf as your backups and hope for the best.
- RealityRipple
- Astronaut
- Posts: 647
- Joined: 2018-05-17, 02:34
- Location: Los Berros Canyon, California
- Contact:
-
- Astronaut
- Posts: 654
- Joined: 2014-09-01, 15:11
- Location: Milan Italy
Re: Important sites disfunctional on PaleMoon
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. (G.B. Shaw)
Re: Important sites disfunctional on PaleMoon
Someone should make an ironic version of this with 'Chromium based browser' instead.
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX
Re: Important sites disfunctional on PaleMoon
Off-topic:
The fact that there isn't such a thing shows that the current situation is even worse than it was in the 90s/00s. I mean, at least that banner acknowledges the fact that there are other browsers out there.
Last edited by ron_1 on 2022-04-09, 19:20, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Important sites disfunctional on PaleMoon
There are several sites that work with Safari (Webkit but not Blink) but do not work with chromium-based browsers.
- Indigoprophet
- Moongazer
- Posts: 11
- Joined: 2022-04-01, 14:10
Re: Important sites disfunctional on PaleMoon
Moderator note: complaints toward staff removed.
But let's get back to the subject.
So we've all lost a battle for the standard, but if you don't want to lose the whole war for internet privacy in the end, you must fight back. How? The main weapon of Google in this war is unawareness of the public - most users simply don't know that some sites are developed only for compliance with Chromium. In order to win, you need to break this unawareness. In order to achieve this, you must unveil this tactic of Google by publishing articles explaining it (and the threat it poses for internet privacy) in all leading internet outlets. Most of them are easy to get in touch with. And at the same time you must create a public registry of sites which are Chromium-only (a kind of wall of shame if you like) and I'm sure the users will gladly help you with this part (as well as the first part actually). With these two steps combined the public will be alerted of this privacy threat and the sites mentioned in the registry will highly likely roll back to standard compliance, cause in the age of privacy awareness no one likes to look like a privacy violator, doesn't he? So here's the battle plan - all you have to do is open the registry and call for volunteers. The volunteers who fill this registry and volunteers who will explain the threat to journalists (and give them a link to the registry of course). So there's little you have to do by yourself.
And now comes the moment of clarity - what will you do? Of course you can ban me for irritating you. But this would be plain stupid to drop an ally who is fighting on your side and offering you a plan. So the wise thing to do here would be accepting the plan along with my help. So make up your mind, the choice is yours.
But let's get back to the subject.
This is why a wrote that operational sites must work in the browser. And by operational I mean the sites that are made in compliance with the standard, whether it's working or draft one. If the site is simply broken, it's indeed not the browser's fault and is out of the question.While you are generally correct, it's important to note that there are huge numbers of sites that do not work with webkit browsers (at least among the many webkit browsers I've tried on Linux), and there are huge numbers of complaints about broken sites on the Chrome and Firefox and Vivaldi user forums, including the same sites that are complained about here. Broken websites is not a Pale Moon problem or a "non-chromium" problem, it is a website developer problem. Until they get their crap together (which is probably never), this will always be a whack-a-mole struggle regardless of which browser you choose.
And this is the main point. It is a plastering for the whole internet community that we've allowed Google to establish its own de-facto standard instead of the official one. But if your only response to this defeat will be sitting here and ranting how bad Google is, you'll eventually lose, because most users need a browser that works everywhere (with the mentioned reservation) and they will drop Pale Moon in favor of something else, there'll be just a small crowd of fans left.Of course it makes sense for websites to only care about Chromium, as most of the internet is using Chromium(-based browser), but that means a non-Chromium engine/browser is not checked against relative slow-changing (with sane timelines) standards, but against the ever-changing Chromium-features websites/frameworks implement whenever they feel like.
So we've all lost a battle for the standard, but if you don't want to lose the whole war for internet privacy in the end, you must fight back. How? The main weapon of Google in this war is unawareness of the public - most users simply don't know that some sites are developed only for compliance with Chromium. In order to win, you need to break this unawareness. In order to achieve this, you must unveil this tactic of Google by publishing articles explaining it (and the threat it poses for internet privacy) in all leading internet outlets. Most of them are easy to get in touch with. And at the same time you must create a public registry of sites which are Chromium-only (a kind of wall of shame if you like) and I'm sure the users will gladly help you with this part (as well as the first part actually). With these two steps combined the public will be alerted of this privacy threat and the sites mentioned in the registry will highly likely roll back to standard compliance, cause in the age of privacy awareness no one likes to look like a privacy violator, doesn't he? So here's the battle plan - all you have to do is open the registry and call for volunteers. The volunteers who fill this registry and volunteers who will explain the threat to journalists (and give them a link to the registry of course). So there's little you have to do by yourself.
And now comes the moment of clarity - what will you do? Of course you can ban me for irritating you. But this would be plain stupid to drop an ally who is fighting on your side and offering you a plan. So the wise thing to do here would be accepting the plan along with my help. So make up your mind, the choice is yours.
Re: Important sites disfunctional on PaleMoon
@Indigoprophet: I think you are howling at the moon... as in being hopelessly unrealistic about human behaviour.
To 'Google' is now a common verb worldwide and has been for many years. Some people think FaceBook and Google are the internet, and in some countries they practically are.
In my experience, and even with intelligent, well-educated, English as first language speakers, the vast majority of internet users simply don't care. They just want everything to work when they hit the button, and quickly too. Most often from their phone or pad.
Even if you explain what is being done to them (filter bubbling, attention hijacking, pushing more extreme material to keep user eye-time on a website, etc.) and then what is being done with all their 'stolen' data (tracking, profiling, surveillance society, surveillance capitalism, etc.)... they still don't care. I find this attitude incredibly disappointing, but it is what it is.
Only a small minority of users are interested enough in privacy and/or the mechanics of websites and browsers to take the degree of interest required to use a non-standard browser.
The best hope IMHO is that the lawmakers slowly catch-up with the mega-internet companies and enforce competition, anti-trust law, and privacy laws such as GDPR within the EU.
To 'Google' is now a common verb worldwide and has been for many years. Some people think FaceBook and Google are the internet, and in some countries they practically are.
In my experience, and even with intelligent, well-educated, English as first language speakers, the vast majority of internet users simply don't care. They just want everything to work when they hit the button, and quickly too. Most often from their phone or pad.
Even if you explain what is being done to them (filter bubbling, attention hijacking, pushing more extreme material to keep user eye-time on a website, etc.) and then what is being done with all their 'stolen' data (tracking, profiling, surveillance society, surveillance capitalism, etc.)... they still don't care. I find this attitude incredibly disappointing, but it is what it is.
Only a small minority of users are interested enough in privacy and/or the mechanics of websites and browsers to take the degree of interest required to use a non-standard browser.
The best hope IMHO is that the lawmakers slowly catch-up with the mega-internet companies and enforce competition, anti-trust law, and privacy laws such as GDPR within the EU.
- andyprough
- Astronaut
- Posts: 701
- Joined: 2020-05-31, 04:33
Re: Important sites disfunctional on PaleMoon
Seems that Google is rapidly losing this "war" you speak of. Chrome itself peaked in terms of marketshare in 2019 and has seen a significant decline in percentage of users since that time. Some market share websites show Chrome losing as much as 9% of their user base since 2019.Indigoprophet wrote: ↑2022-04-11, 11:18The main weapon of Google in this war is unawareness of the public - most users simply don't know that some sites are developed only for compliance with Chromium.
Last edited by andyprough on 2022-04-11, 14:23, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Moon Magic practitioner
- Posts: 2986
- Joined: 2015-09-26, 04:51
- Location: U.S.
Re: Important sites disfunctional on PaleMoon
Off-topic:
@andyprough, your quote was misattributed, and it links to the wrong source-post. Occasionally the forum's quote function acts a little strange.
@andyprough, your quote was misattributed, and it links to the wrong source-post. Occasionally the forum's quote function acts a little strange.
- andyprough
- Astronaut
- Posts: 701
- Joined: 2020-05-31, 04:33
Re: Important sites disfunctional on PaleMoon
Off-topic:
It's probably because I wasn't accessing the forum software from Google Chrome, I'd better install it.
You're right, thanks! Fixed it.coffeebreak wrote: ↑2022-04-11, 14:04@andyprough, your quote was misattributed, and it links to the wrong source-post. Occasionally the forum's quote function acts a little strange.
It's probably because I wasn't accessing the forum software from Google Chrome, I'd better install it.
Re: Important sites disfunctional on PaleMoon
You do know that every non Pale Moon browser is either a wrapper around Chrome's engine Blink, or is desperately trying to turn into it (Gecko/Firefox)?andyprough wrote: ↑2022-04-11, 13:35Chrome itself peaked in terms of marketshare in 2019 and has seen a significant decline in percentage of users since that time. Some market share websites show Chrome losing as much as 9% of their user base since 2019.
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX
- andyprough
- Astronaut
- Posts: 701
- Joined: 2020-05-31, 04:33
Re: Important sites disfunctional on PaleMoon
I was thinking about the statement "The main weapon of Google in this war". Edge and Brave must be causing some heartburn at Google HQ, as those browsers use Google's own engine to steal users from Chrome and try to push people onto the Bing and Brave default search engines to siphon off the search revenue.
Browser wars - same old stuff. Stealing users. Now Google's getting stolen from. I will shed a tear for them.
Re: Important sites disfunctional on PaleMoon
Unlike them, Chrome is not the only bit contributing to Google's data harvesting and advertising. You've forgotten about Android, where Google ads are baked into the system, location based tracking is on by default and the system webview component used by apps to render webpages is also Chromium based by default.
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX