Re: Can we freely discuss the new Palemoon direction?
Posted: 2014-10-24, 13:09
I have the compact mode off too and didn't have any website which doesn't work.
Discussion forum for the Pale Moon web browser
https://forum.palemoon.org/
I also wonder how Google was able to build their own browser. Didn't Chrome encounter user-agent sniffing websites back when it was new? Or was it less widespread then? (2008 or so.. ?) Oh, and I also agree with you.Supernova wrote:The very big players who promote open things only do that for public relations, or to promote that they shouldn't be restricted.Moonchild wrote:
- Added a "Firefox compatibility mode" selection in Options -> Advanced.
- This mode is enabled by default (reluctantly so), because too many websites (including some very big players who, themselves, promote an Open Web...)
If antritust laws were applied, Google would no longer exist.
I've just installed 25.0.2 and the first thing I did was to disable Firefox Compatibility mode also. The only site that gives me a problem has been Google and the rest of the Google sites. So I've decided (for now) to keep the User Agent Overrider add-on/extension to get around Google "nagging" me to use Chrome or Firefox.back2themoon wrote:I've already disabled the Firefox Compatibilty mode
Well we did add a GUI optionback2themoon wrote:It's important to understand that nothing was "fixed" on 25.0.2, but rather the "Firefox compatibility flag" was restored and set as enabled by default. Problematic websites work again of course but the root of the problem remains: websites that don't adhere to proper Internet standards/policies. You can "break" those websites again by disabling Options/Advanced/Firefox compatibility mode. It's not a Pale Moon-specific issue. The best we can do is to keep contacting such websites until they properly adjust their pages to support not only Pale Moon, but as a consequence any capable browser - without the need to temporarily mask the problem.
As cooperb21 said, this problem will come back and the current solution might not work any more.
HTML5 DRM is, in fact, still downloading a custom binary component - and in fact one that you aren't even legally allowed to analyze the behavior of (so it could pretty much contain any proprietary code that people would want to put in there! And even if you find out that it does something malicious or against privacy, you can't make it known to others because you'll get sued for reverse-engineering the module...).cooperb21 wrote:When google or netflix switch to things like only there html 5 player which requires html5 drm. Mozilla is already forced into this just to stay competitive.
To be fair palemoon is much much smaller and alot easier to say "no" to this sort of thing. Mozilla need to do it or some sites wont work going forward. Do you really think palemoon could not do same if it was size or Mozilla.?Moonchild wrote:HTML5 DRM is, in fact, still downloading a custom binary component - and in fact one that you aren't even legally allowed to analyze the behavior of (so it could pretty much contain any proprietary code that people would want to put in there! And even if you find out that it does something malicious or against privacy, you can't make it known to others because you'll get sued for reverse-engineering the module...).cooperb21 wrote:When google or netflix switch to things like only there html 5 player which requires html5 drm. Mozilla is already forced into this just to stay competitive.
So, all things being equal, you're still playing it through a plugin. The difference being that you don't install it yourself, and that it's hidden from you - but it's still a plugin.
DRM has no place in Pale Moon. Mozilla wasn't particularly forced into this, either, from a technological point of view. The statements by Mozilla upper management speak of "fear of becoming irrelevant" if DRM is not included - forward-looking statements that aren't even ringing true to me, personally. What appalls me most is that the WWW consortium is even feeling the need to consider this kind of proprietary inclusion as part of upcoming draft standards!
This whole "competitive" or "relevance" edge is based on one single assumption: that the Internet needs Hollywood. But it's the other way around: Hollywood needs the Internet.
If Netflix were to switch to some kind of "you don't know what you are downloading and running" black box DRM HTML5-only shim to decode the videos, instead of the already perfectly working and properly isolated/sandboxed Silverlight+DRM modules (running in the low-integrity, limited access plugin container) they use now, then they can just keep their damn movies, and I'll get my streaming elsewhere.
Note I said Mozilla as in both the Foundation and the Company.. Not Firefox. There IS a difference despite appearances.cooperb21 wrote:Not really Chrome has like 50% of Market share. Firefox is less than 1/4 now.
They would wish they had 50%cooperb21 wrote:Not really Chrome has like 50% of Market share.
They did have 50% back in 2012.Moonchild wrote:They would wish they had 50%cooperb21 wrote:Not really Chrome has like 50% of Market share.
Good thing they don't or it'd result in more strong-arming by Google.
When it comes to desktop market share, Chrome has no where near 50%. More like 21%.cooperb21 wrote:Not really Chrome has like 50% of Market share. Firefox is less than 1/4 now.
How can we trust that website? Go to any other one and they all say chrome i could like about 20 plus.Night Wing wrote:When it comes to desktop market share, Chrome has no where near 50%. More like 21%.cooperb21 wrote:Not really Chrome has like 50% of Market share. Firefox is less than 1/4 now.
http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-m ... pcustomb=0
Then how can we trust the web sites you prefer?cooperb21 wrote:How can we trust that website? Go to any other one and they all say chrome i could like about 20 plus.Night Wing wrote:When it comes to desktop market share, Chrome has no where near 50%. More like 21%.cooperb21 wrote:Not really Chrome has like 50% of Market share. Firefox is less than 1/4 now.
http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-m ... pcustomb=0
For example wiki has 3 sites saying around 45% and only one saying ie is higher.
We cant its one mans word vs another. But i do know thats most people i know use chrome follow by ie then firefox.Night Wing wrote:Then how can we trust the web sites you prefer?cooperb21 wrote:How can we trust that website? Go to any other one and they all say chrome i could like about 20 plus.Night Wing wrote:When it comes to desktop market share, Chrome has no where near 50%. More like 21%.cooperb21 wrote:Not really Chrome has like 50% of Market share. Firefox is less than 1/4 now.
http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-m ... pcustomb=0
For example wiki has 3 sites saying around 45% and only one saying ie is higher.
Most of my friends use Pale Moon, not Chrome. Yet, in the small town I live in, there are many elderly people and they are computer illiterate. Do you know what browser they use? They use IE since it came with Windows 7.cooperb21 wrote:But i do know thats most people i know use chrome follow by ie then firefox.