PM x64 33.x crash with noscript

[Mæstro]

It's not only MP4, it also crashes on WEBM, for example, like I outlined in my initial diagnosis here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30911#p249198

The only film type I had tested was mp4, so I had overlooked that. Sorry! The remedy is analogous. I also realise now that one can handle this within the settings menu (Content > Media) and unticking the boxes for any file types which crash the browser.

[Moonchild]

Off-topic:

Block remote fonts with uBlock. See https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix/issues/480

Wait, so I'd have to use an additional addon to block fonts? Why is eMatrix not able to block fonts? Quite the oversight in my opinion.

It's a good question.

You know what is also a good question? Why you feel the need to blanket-block remote fonts. Downloadable fonts are an integral part of web design (just like downloadable images).
If you're worried about Google Fonts tracking you, just block the font host.

[moonbat]

Do you mean the "Acceptable Ads" that you can disable with one checkbox in the settings?

People had quite a problem with it when it was announced, leading to forks that omitted the feature. For an adblocker to start accepting ads, it smells like Mozilla's actions vs their statements about respecting user privacy in Firefox.

many people using PM use it because it has support for old FF addons that FF has abandoned long ago and that have not been re-created for newer FF. Not to mention that many of those people also do not like the newer FF UI. I have no problem saying that if PM did not support these addons I would not use it.

PM is more than a passive frozen vehicle for dead Firefox addons, especially given it has its own ecosystem of addons including ones created for it. Speaking as an author of 5 of them. The fact that it continues to support installing old FF addons is a convenience, not an obligation on its developers to support them. Addons are supposed to keep up with the browser and not vice versa.

So what would you suggest to use instead of NoScript then? The recently updated uBO? Because eMatrix is quite nice (I am using it right now), but it does lack some functionality. It just seems more...superficial than NoScript, whereas NoScript is probably too far in the opposite direction. And would you suggest getting rid of ABL if using uBO as it's possibly redundant?

What functionality does eMatrix lack? You can block or allow individual elements at the domain, subdomain or global level, and the grid shows you at a glance the count of what was allowed or blocked by category and host on a given page.
I use both eMatrix and uBO. They complement each other. eMatrix is a content blocker at the host level, and also blocks background XMLHTTPRequests and prevents previously set cookies from being read, which uBO doesn't support. uBO offers fine grained control over what can get fetched or displayed on individual websites based on comprehensive filter lists, as well as dynamic element filters that you can create yourself with the element picker. And yes, if you're using uBO you can disable/remove ABL - makes no sense to have 2 addons offering the same functionality as they'll conflict.

[Mæstro]

Off-topic:

You know what is also a good question? Why you feel the need to blanket-block remote fonts. Downloadable fonts are an integral part of web design (just like downloadable images).

I realise this question is probably rhetorical, but I happen to do this also and I agree the question is sound, so I would like to answer it directly. For me, it is both an aesthetic choice and retained habit from peculiar conditions which held until recently. I think that the FreeFonts (equivalent to Helvetica, Times and Courier) are pretty, so I use the relevant settings (Content > General > Advanced) to employ these fonts always. Downloading fonts just wastes bandwidth for me, and until half a year ago, when I returned to Germany from a remote place in the USA where the only ISP available restricted bandwidth tightly and was quite slow in any case, I was compelled to use bandwidth as sparingly as possible. Blocking unwanted fonts was logical under such conditions, and I have preserved this habit in my country, for I have no reason to abandon it. I block images over 50 kilobytes by default through µBlock for kindred reasons.

[ron_1]

Addons are supposed to keep up with the browser and not vice versa.

This statement has probably been said, in many different ways, well over dozens of times here on PM's forums the last 10 years or so ... but people still don't seem to get it (generally speaking, I'm not talking about anybody in particular).

[andyprough]

Off-topic:
You know what is also a good question? Why you feel the need to blanket-block remote fonts. Downloadable fonts are an integral part of web design (just like downloadable images).
If you're worried about Google Fonts tracking you, just block the font host.

Off-topic:
The uBlock advice for this seems useful also:

As a lighter alternative, you can also choose to allow first-party fonts and block only third-party fonts by adding the filter

*$font,third-party

to the "My filters" pane. If you want to allow third-party fonts for some specific sites you can add them by modifying the above filter:

*$font,third-party,domain=~example.com|~other.example.net|~different.example.org

[Mæstro]

As above, I hope here respectfully to answer sound questions with honesty. These are the confessions of a NoScript user who seeks to make himself intelligible to others, but without any desire to persuade.

What functionality does eMatrix lack? You can block or allow individual elements at the domain, subdomain or global level, and the grid shows you at a glance the count of what was allowed or blocked by category and host on a given page.

Directly, ηMatrix lacks certain marginal features mostly to be found in NoScript’s settings menu. These include the Application Boundary Enforcer and conversion of POST requests and JavaScript links, among others. Some of these features, like HTTPS enforcement, have been broken off into their own extensions, but others have not. Beside function, there are also cosmetic matters. For many laymen, software’s look and feel can be important or even decisive. We like Pale Moon chiefly because it preserves interface conventions which were typical before 2012/13, which marks the beginning of a noxious trend involving flat, minimalistic design. (Technical features like NPAPI support are important to us chiefly for ensuring access to old Web content, like Flash UI and Java applets.) NoScript 5, with its windowed menu, looks pretty with Pale Moon in a way that NoScript 10+, ηMatrix, Firefox Australis/Quantum/??? and Chromium do not. XUL extensions appeal for cosmetic reasons, not their technical power. To the developer, this must sound horrifying, but for us, Pale Moon is a work of art that lets us live as though the last dozen years were a bad dream, not a practical tool.

PM is more than a passive frozen vehicle for dead Firefox addons, especially given it has its own ecosystem of addons including ones created for it. Speaking as an author of 5 of them. The fact that it continues to support installing old FF addons is a convenience, not an obligation on its developers to support them. Addons are supposed to keep up with the browser and not vice versa.

While this is Pale Moon’s original purpose, and the attitude of developers and much of the community, there is also a large share of users who sees things more like I do. (nb: I use only extensions which have targetted Pale Moon itself, though some have ceased active development.) We are less technically skilled and more dependent on others’ mercy, and Pale Moon has generously indulged us in a way nobody else has. (Even SeaMonkey, with its denial of NPAPI support and plan to phase out XUL, which interest us as noted above, falls short.) We have our own reasons for not ourselves learning to script; mine is that every time I have tried starting over the years has ended in literal panic attacks. (I have an MA in pure mathematics, so it this is no general deficit in relevant skill.) We are rather helpless regarding our technical needs, and it is sorry to say, but we can do little else but appeal for help when in need. You have our awe and gratitude for doing something which is not for everybody and for supporting us in giving us hope and living our dream.

[andyprough]

While this is Pale Moon’s original purpose, and the attitude of developers and much of the community, there is also a large share of users who sees things more like I do.

A huge helluva lot has changed with Pale Moon development, speed, web compatibility, etc etc etc since that survey was taken. Thanks to this amazing development team. I doubt you would get the same survey result response today.

And if the survey question was, "Would you give up the last two years of improvements for the sake of continuing to be able to use some older XUL Firefox extensions?", I'm thinking the positive response rate would be much closer to 0% than to 38%.

[Mæstro]

The only substantial lapse in extension compatibility since it was held, as far as I know, has been that between NoScript and Pale Moon 33 which inspired this thread. This is also to the developers’ credit; everything else has been left intact, and even this gap apparently could be closed if it were so desired. (I tolerate the developers’ decision not to mend this gap; this choice has motivated me to submit my own remedy to the stated problem above. One could also conceive of someone forking Pale Moon like how XP forks exist; the analogy is clear enough.) Otherwise, I do not believe there has been any sacrifice or forced choice in the way your question would suppose. Moreover, I see no reason to foresee sharper breaks soon.

[andikay]

You know what is also a good question? Why you feel the need to blanket-block remote fonts. Downloadable fonts are an integral part of web design (just like downloadable images).
If you're worried about Google Fonts tracking you, just block the font host.

I explained it already before, some font choices are terrible and make reading the content a lot harder than it has to be. Also, we are turning in circles here, with eMatrix you cannot block the font only, you either block a lot more from the host (like all CSS) or nothing. Period. In addition, only blocking the gstatic or font.googleapis.com does not block the font with eMatrix, I tried it.

PM is more than a passive frozen vehicle for dead Firefox addons, especially given it has its own ecosystem of addons including ones created for it. Speaking as an author of 5 of them. The fact that it continues to support installing old FF addons is a convenience, not an obligation on its developers to support them. Addons are supposed to keep up with the browser and not vice versa.

Nobody claims that it's only there for old FF addons, but you should also understand that it's the reason many people use PM in the first place, whether you like it or not.

What functionality does eMatrix lack? You can block or allow individual elements at the domain, subdomain or global level, and the grid shows you at a glance the count of what was allowed or blocked by category and host on a given page.
I use both eMatrix and uBO. They complement each other. eMatrix is a content blocker at the host level, and also blocks background XMLHTTPRequests and prevents previously set cookies from being read, which uBO doesn't support. uBO offers fine grained control over what can get fetched or displayed on individual websites based on comprehensive filter lists, as well as dynamic element filters that you can create yourself with the element picker. And yes, if you're using uBO you can disable/remove ABL - makes no sense to have 2 addons offering the same functionality as they'll conflict.

I have mentioned what eMatrix is lacking more than once already in this topic as well, which is why people (including possibly yourself?) have suggested uBO. I also find the complementation of eMatrix and uBO a lot more difficult to grasp than NoScript and ABL/ABP. Yes, uBO uses filter lists like a usual ad blocker...but it also does more, which to me seems like where it goes into eMatrix territory.

(I have an MA in pure mathematics, so it this is no general deficit in relevant skill.)

Not to rain on your parade, but mathematics are not necessarily a relevant skill for programming. It might be very helpful in certain aspects, but programming for me is more about creativity and understanding of concepts as well as knowing what to look for.

[Mæstro]

Not to rain on your parade, but mathematics are not necessarily a relevant skill for programming. It might be very helpful in certain aspects, but programming for me is more about creativity and understanding of concepts as well as knowing what to look for.

Off-topic:
That line was not my favourite; it was meant only as prolepsis, to represent my general capacity diligently to study an involved discipline. Contrary to what you might expect, I would describe mathematics as about creativity and conceptual understanding. I see it as belonging with the fine arts in its substance, and bleeding into philosophy and linguistics, both humanities, at its base. Natural science and engineering might use mathematics, but this is of no concern to us.

[athenian200]

Directly, ηMatrix lacks certain marginal features mostly to be found in NoScript’s settings menu. These include the Application Boundary Enforcer and conversion of POST requests and JavaScript links, among others. Some of these features, like HTTPS enforcement, have been broken off into their own extensions, but others have not. Beside function, there are also cosmetic matters. For many laymen, software’s look and feel can be important or even decisive. We like Pale Moon chiefly because it preserves interface conventions which were typical before 2012/13, which marks the beginning of a noxious trend involving flat, minimalistic design. (Technical features like NPAPI support are important to us chiefly for ensuring access to old Web content, like Flash UI and Java applets.) NoScript 5, with its windowed menu, looks pretty with Pale Moon in a way that NoScript 10+, ηMatrix, Firefox Australis/Quantum/??? and Chromium do not.

So far, I agree with you. I feel that way about Pale Moon itself, even though I really don't use stuff like uBO or NoScript. That is to say, you and I share the same aesthetic sensibilities when it comes to computer software. This isn't really a shocking perspective here. I'm sure Moonchild feels the same way, or we wouldn't be trying so hard to preserve something that looks like Pale Moon in the first place.

But seriously, though, if you have any doubts that I share your aesthetic preferences... just look at the Epyrus website and tell me whether it looks like the person who wrote that prefers "modern" web design?

XUL extensions appeal for cosmetic reasons, not their technical power. To the developer, this must sound horrifying, but for us, Pale Moon is a work of art that lets us live as though the last dozen years were a bad dream, not a practical tool.

That is actually a concern I have about the Pale Moon userbase. To be blunt, we have a big problem that is only going to become more of a problem over the years. We only wanted to take on the responsibility of maintaining XUL and the Pale Moon interface, but it seems like a lot of our users expect us to keep everything as it was prior to 2012, forever, even if that means working within the limitations of defunct operating systems, unmaintained add-ons that target Firefox, and old hardware. That it to say, they aren't satisfied with Pale Moon itself not following modern GUI conventions, they want to live in the past and use entire operating systems that don't follow modern GUI conventions, use add-ons from that time period that haven't been changed, and use old hardware contemporary to that software. They want the WHOLE 2012/2011 experience, and that's not something we have the means to provide, because we don't provide a large portion of the stack we rely on. And it isn't that we don't prefer that aesthetic ourselves, but as developers, being trapped in 2012 and not being allowed to move forward without huge factions of your users threatening to revolt is kind of a nightmare, especially when you have to target something that moves as fast as the web. I sometimes worry Pale Moon gave those users false hope that they could keep that dream alive indefinitely, believing they were being offered a modern program that can support the legacy way of doing literally everything forever, which is, as they say "too good to be true."

While this is Pale Moon’s original purpose, and the attitude of developers and much of the community, there is also a large share of users who sees things more like I do. (nb: I use only extensions which have targetted Pale Moon itself, though some have ceased active development.) We are less technically skilled and more dependent on others’ mercy, and Pale Moon has generously indulged us in a way nobody else has. (Even SeaMonkey, with its denial of NPAPI support and plan to phase out XUL, which interest us as noted above, falls short.) We have our own reasons for not ourselves learning to script; mine is that every time I have tried starting over the years has ended in literal panic attacks. (I have an MA in pure mathematics, so it this is no general deficit in relevant skill.) We are rather helpless regarding our technical needs, and it is sorry to say, but we can do little else but appeal for help when in need. You have our awe and gratitude for doing something which is not for everybody and for supporting us in giving us hope and living our dream.

To be clear, no one is asking you to step up and personally fork an extension if you don't have the skill. I think all we're asking here is that you don't hold us accountable for keeping unmaintained extensions viable as the JS engine evolves, and instead petition for something like, say, a fork of NoScript that would be maintained and keep up with development. Maybe you and other NoScript users could get together and offer a bounty for anyone willing to fork NoScript and adapt it to Pale Moon's current state? I don't think anyone is saying you don't have a right to ask for your problems to be fixed, what we are saying is that you're going in the wrong direction entirely suggesting that we have to reverse progress on Pale Moon itself, or else face another fork that has poorer web compatibility, is slower, and exclusively focuses on maintaining compatibility with old Firefox extensions at the expense of everything else. At this point it kind of seems like NoScript users are so entrenched in this idea that the browser is at fault for NoScript not working properly, that they are getting ready to fork Pale Moon over the issue and create... NoScript Navigator, I guess? LOL. I wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry if we wound up with our NoScript users going rogue and doing a Pale Moon fork on some other community where they talk shit about us for not supporting NoScript...

Nobody claims that it's only there for old FF addons, but you should also understand that it's the reason many people use PM in the first place, whether you like it or not.

To be clear, we are VERY aware of that, and it terrifies us, because it's not something we can keep doing forever... we will eventually have to let those users down, and we expect the backlash to be huge when we finally go far enough in development that the majority of unmaintained Firefox extensions no longer work. I myself use Pale Moon for NPAPI a lot... and I've noticed that I can't get Flash Player to work on modern Linux at all thanks to glibc changes and Wayland. It's an inevitable consequence of wanting to keep something unmaintained that's dependent on a software stack not fully under your control going... the clock is always ticking on it, some part of the stack it depends on will break in a place where you can't mend it. :/

Only the difference is, with NoScript, someone could actually patch it up so it works. But they still treat it like dead code and expect everything it targets to adapt to it.

[suzyne]

As someone who came to Pale Moon within the past year, and who actively supports the project financially in my own small way (on ko-fi) to help see it advance, I find some of the suggestions here that Pale Moon should (no, must!) be a legacy browser and be literally tied to the past quite worrisome.

It feels like some want to keep it as a browser exclusively for what I presume is themselves and an ever decreasing user base, whether that be for reasons of nostalgia, existing hardware, or personal likes and dislikes in software design.

Right now, I simply wish to add my voice and encouragement to the development team who intend to move forward and not be pressured to be maintainers of a fossilised bit of technology.

[Mæstro]

I have perhaps too thoroughly mingled speaking for myself and on behalf of NoScript users as a class. I hope I could better distinguish them here.

But seriously, though, if you have any doubts that I share your aesthetic preferences...

I harbour none. My purpose has been only to indicate that aesthetic concerns enjoy relative precedence over certain other matters for us. We both know of some to whom it trumps even security: he who would stay on v32 for ever.

That is actually a concern I have about the Pale Moon userbase. To be blunt, we have a big problem that is only going to become more of a problem over the years…t seems like a lot of our users expect us to keep everything as it was prior to 2012, forever, even if that means working within the limitations of defunct operating systems, unmaintained add-ons that target Firefox, and old hardware.

they want to live in the past and use entire operating systems that don't follow modern GUI conventions, use add-ons from that time period that haven't been changed, and use old hardware contemporary to that software. They want the WHOLE 2012/2011 experience, and that's not something we have the means to provide, because we don't provide a large portion of the stack we rely on.

We do wish to live in the past. We wish that ReactOS’s desire to target Windows Server 2003 were made standard for applications, that internet standards remained fixed at HTML 4·01. We wish the personal computer, mobile phone and web crystallised in the way books have since Gutenberg. We think it absurd that two decades counts as fossilised when the wheelbarrow is still sound after two millennia. Ignoring security concerns, my usage habits are such that I could switch tomorrow to XP without being impaired at all. I acknowledge that the shifts imposed on you are chiefly because of trends in web design of and for which you are innocent.

We see no reason things cannot be as I have described. Sites could restore their old layout, or one could impose it through mirrors like Invidious and Nitter or clever style sheets and scripts. Hardware could be built to older design as the patents expire. We already see something like this in eg the new version of the original PlayStation. Recent legislature in the EU spearheads a trend for better operability between websites; one can build upon this trend and spread it worldwide. I see us as passengers aboard the ark, waiting for the deluge to end and to replenish the world with what we have preserved. SeaMonkey perhaps provided this comfort also until removing NPAPI and XP support※ in turn, leaving only you. Without your work, this would be impossible, and you have my thanks for this. It is far too much for you alone; what I have described is a complete social movement, comparable to the organic (which uses only methods from before the war) in agriculture. I think of you as part of its core.
※Because the forks adapt your work, I regard you as indirectly supporting them, which is to your honour.

I understand and respect that serving the above is not your vision, but I still believe it is to your merit that you have made this possible for us. I believe that, though it is not your goal, it will continue to remain so without any special effort on your part. Our visions are, in my opinion, compatible without any pains for you. I am optimistic.

… as developers, being trapped in 2012 and not being allowed to move forward without huge factions of your users threatening to revolt is kind of a nightmare…

If I may offer a picture, you are the chain between a post, ie we who are anchored in the old ways, and a mad dog, ie the net as it has been since. One holds fast while the other pulls ever further, and you are caught in the tension.

I sometimes worry Pale Moon gave those users false hope that they could keep that dream alive indefinitely, believing they were being offered a modern program that can support the legacy way of doing literally everything forever, which is, as they say "too good to be true."

I own that I might have upheld these fears, but we believe it a true hope, and I seek to have offered some hint of why I believe it true.

I think all we're asking here is that you don't hold us accountable for keeping unmaintained extensions viable as the JS engine evolves, and instead petition for something like, say, a fork of NoScript that would be maintained and keep up with development. Maybe you and other NoScript users could get together and offer a bounty for anyone willing to fork NoScript and adapt it to Pale Moon's current state?

I agree with you. I do not hold you to account in this way, as I have tried to say in past messages. Many NoScript users however do, and they can be caustic. For them, I make no excuse. I would be interested in such a fork, and I am interested in principle in such a bounty programme. I would even volunteer to direct the organisational work involved. Here, I am the victim of my own ignorance. I do not know what a fair bounty would be, how it would be collected or how we would then find a competent programmer (and artist, if NoScript’s branding cannot be retained). Answering these questions deserves a thread to itself.

face another fork that has poorer web compatibility, is slower, and exclusively focuses on maintaining compatibility with old Firefox extensions at the expense of everything else. At this point it kind of seems like NoScript users are so entrenched in this idea that the browser is at fault for NoScript not working properly, that they are getting ready to fork Pale Moon over the issue and create... NoScript Navigator, I guess? LOL. I wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry if we wound up with our NoScript users going rogue and doing a Pale Moon fork on some other community

I would not be surprised if the extant XP forks patch their versions to accommodate NoScript should the incompatibility be as I suspect, but I think we are too incompetent to fork it ourselves.

we expect the backlash to be huge when we finally go far enough in development that the majority of unmaintained Firefox extensions no longer work.

In v33, we have reached the point where Moonchild believes it senseless to note how many Mozilla patches were irrelevant to us. This might sound naïve, but I think the worst might be behind us.

I myself use Pale Moon for NPAPI a lot... and I've noticed that I can't get Flash Player to work on modern Linux at all thanks to glibc changes and Wayland.

This is my chief reason for staying with Debian 10. I have not yet decided what to do when ELTS expires five years hence. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

[Moonchild]

I'd also like to remind people that with the big backlash of working on removing the old Firefox Extension installation allowance in the past, when I restored that to the way it was before and made the choice to continue allowing non-native extensions, I was extremely clear that extensions would likely start breaking sooner or later, and that the only proper solution would be to fork them and maintain them. Y'all seem to have forgotten that little tidbit.

So, to reiterate:

• Installing and using Firefox add-ons is at your own risk. It is the reason we have indicators in the add-on manager. If the dot is orange, you are in unsupported territory and potentially dangerous waters.
• Extensions need to be maintained to solve issues with the browser updating and developing further. This was always the case and has not changed. The only thing that changed with Firefox extensions is that extension devs have abandoned them and stopped updating them. No fault of them, since they targeted Firefox. But it does mean that the necessary maintenance to adjust extensions for a changing browser no longer occurs, hence the unsupported/dangerous note above.
• If these unmaintained extensions break in such a way that they cause stability or security issues in the browser, they will be blocked.

[Mæstro]

Everything Moonchild says above is true. Fellow NoScript users, please listen to him. I have been trying to represent how we (tend to) think in a way those who respectfully disagree can still understand, and the Pale Moon developers (upon whom we rely!) do the same. We need to find somebody who can maintain NoScript for us.

[moonbat]

The thing is many legacy FF extensions will happily work with Pale Moon, especially the ones that were popular in their time (and if you're getting them from CAA, the versions targeting pre-Firefox 29 which introduced Australis which are not marked as restartless).
For the vast majority of them, the XUL front-end and the XPCOM interfaces haven't changed, there was exactly one instance so far of removing a deprecated draft Javascript API that broke a few extensions but by and large even the Javascript engine doesn't introduce breaking changes.

NoScript is a unique exception due to how it hooks into the browser internals and can actively interfere with them, given that the same Javascript engine is used to control the browser UI itself. Were it under active development, it would require far more skill than the average extension to maintain and the maintainer would have to work closely with the development team and verify that it works fine with each PM release. Presumably its developers closely monitor Firefox updates (given how much more frequently they break even regular extensions); unless they or someone else with the technical expertise steps up to fix the Pale Moon compatible version, it is not recommended for use.

[andikay]

@athenian200: I do not mind progress, the web is progressing after all (albeit not in a manner some of us may like) and PM has to keep up with it if it wants to stay even the tiniest bit relevant. But I do mind progress that cuts off ties to what made many users come to PM in the first place. It's literally shooting yourself in the foot. I think PM has always been for people who look for something that users cannot get from Chrome, Edge, and FF - especially users who grew up with the old FF. If you switch course then you will alienate a large portion of your user base.

Personally I do not use many addons, six in total, and only one of them is an old FF extension (oldbar) since I am working with eMatrix and not NoScript right now. But I certainly am using PM because it gives me that experience that the old FF used to give, including the UI with a suitable theme and addons such as L4E, which are essential for me. We both know that while PM has some unique things to offer, it cannot compete with the big browsers regarding compatibility and speed. PM users know that and they are willing to make that trade-off as long as they are getting what they want from it.

To circle back to the topic, I suppose I have to try the uBO fork that got updated recently since eMatrix+ABL is not enough for me regarding security and blocking capabilities.

[Shadow]

Set to false. It'll prompt a download instead.

Code: Select all

media.play-stand-alone

You can use the http(s) direct link .mp4/.webm and stream it in something like MPC-BE or probably VLC if you don't want to download.

Not sure about direct .mp3.

I wanted to test if PM Player add-on would take a http(s) direct link but it won't install on Basilisk, needs a version update to accommodate for it I guess.

Didn't really want to post this method here, although I already did in the Basilisk section weeks ago, given the general animosity.

It's not a perfect solution, as for example something weird is up with archive.org, but it helps for now.

[athenian200]

@athenian200: I do not mind progress, the web is progressing after all (albeit not in a manner some of us may like) and PM has to keep up with it if it wants to stay even the tiniest bit relevant. But I do mind progress that cuts off ties to what made many users come to PM in the first place. It's literally shooting yourself in the foot. I think PM has always been for people who look for something that users cannot get from Chrome, Edge, and FF - especially users who grew up with the old FF. If you switch course then you will alienate a large portion of your user base.

Well, we plan to maintain XUL as a technology indefinitely. So we're not cutting off ties or changing course... the only thing that is changing over time is that completely dead extensions that are not maintained at all might stop working unless they are forked. That was always the course we were on.

But unfortunately you are right. A lot of users will see it as changing course, and refuse to be reasonable or understanding about the situation. The moment we don't support every extension that ever worked on old Firefox, without modification, we will inevitably start losing people.

Let me be clear on what I know about Pale Moon's situation. It's perfectly obvious to anyone with half a brain that the main reason a lot of Pale Moon users came to Pale Moon was to keep using their old Firefox extensions. In fact, that is one of the main search terms associated with Pale Moon on Google and Bing... "use old Firefox extension." We understand that... it's why we have tried so hard to maintain compatibility with those extensions where possible without compromising progress. If we weren't striving for some kind of balance, extensions would break far more often.

I will say though, that I get what you're trying to say. You're trying to say that most users don't care to understand the difference between Mozilla moving to WebExtensions and completely ditching XUL technology, and us developing our JS engine further and requiring XUL extensions to be maintained. In their eyes, "old extension no work," is the same and they won't take any excuse for it. The moment it happens, we are the same as Mozilla in their eyes. Got it, I am totally aware that is the situation we are in. When the users heard that they could use their old Firefox extensions, they didn't listen to the part about how they wouldn't work forever unmaintained, they just heard the first part about the old extensions working right now because that was what they wanted to hear. They are like drunks that have heard they are going to get free whiskey for the next three days or something, then they have to start paying... they didn't listen to the part about paying after three days, they just heard "free whiskey."

I'm not oblivious to human nature, I get that this is how people work. And the moment anything we do interrupts the flow of free whiskey, they won't care that we said it was going to happen before, they won't care that the bar can't stay in business providing free whiskey forever, they're just going to get angry and start saying how much we suck because we cut their free whiskey off.

Well, now what you're telling me is that by ceasing to offer free whiskey, we're shooting ourselves in the foot, and eliminating the reason why a lot of people came to our bar in the first place. Like the bar in the analogy, we can't accommodate forever people who don't contribute anything, but expect the same level of service to continue on forever regardless. So... yeah, it was always inevitable that Pale Moon was going to reach a point where the free whiskey was going to start running dry, and we'd be dealing with a bunch of angry drunks who couldn't get their drinks. So yeah, we will unfortunately be forced to alienate those users... just like the bar in the analogy will wind up alienating the people who came for free whiskey and resent the end of the promotion coming.

The only hope is that we have enough users who weren't just here for unmaintained XUL extensions, and are happy to stay with us and appreciate the ecosystem that has been built around the browser, even though it isn't as large and complete as the one that previously existed around Firefox. And even knowing all that... yeah, I am scared of alienating those users, but I do not see another way forward. Accommodating them was always unsustainable, I just see this as the bill coming due for the promotion we were running to give people a taste of what's possible, and it is very possible we won't survive it. I just have to hope not everyone is that unreasonable and unable to see the bigger picture. Maybe it was a mistake to appeal to people who wanted old Firefox extensions to work without modification in the first place... but once people knew it was possible to use them, there wasn't much we could do to avoid attracting those kind of users in the first place, even though we knew they were fair-weather friends and we wouldn't be able to count on people who were just here for the unmaintained Firefox extensions when the chips are down.

We've always known we were going to lose those users eventually... and yes, it does suck that we can't please them, and yes, losing them is a blow to the project. In the end, we'll be left with a smaller community of people who get out of Pale Moon what they are willing to put into it, and we have to hope it doesn't succumb to the "tragedy of the commons."