howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

General discussion area and chat

Moderator: satrow

Forum rules
This General Discussions forum is an open chat area, so you can talk about almost any subject. Please keep things civil, though!

Please do try to somewhat stick to the relevance of this forum, which focuses on everything around the Pale Moon project and its user community. "Totally random" subjects don't really belong here, even in the general discussion area.
User avatar
bonesz
Apollo supporter
Apollo supporter
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue, 15 Jan 2013, 22:20
Location: Sandpoint, Idaho

howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Postby bonesz » Thu, 22 Feb 2018, 20:53

I was reading in the subreddit Firefox the following article regarding not using Palemoon, Basilisk browser, and why its not a good idea to use them. Here is the link to the article

Code: Select all

https://www.howtogeek.com/335712/update-why-you-shouldnt-use-waterfox-pale-moon-or-basilisk/


Not sure how accurate the finding are just wanted to bring it to the attention of the Devs and Community

SpockMan02
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun, 24 Sep 2017, 16:35

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Postby SpockMan02 » Thu, 22 Feb 2018, 21:26

They have some points, but I think they're making too big of a deal of slight delays in security patches, and they clearly have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to Pale Moon.

User avatar
Moonraker
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 791
Joined: Wed, 30 Sep 2015, 23:02
Location: Lincolnshire.UK.

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Postby Moonraker » Thu, 22 Feb 2018, 22:16

i will use whichever browser i see fit and palemoon is my favourite browser irrespective of the "opinions" of others. :D
Linux Lite 3.6 64bit.
Pale moon 27.7.1

User avatar
slp_se
Moongazer
Moongazer
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon, 11 Apr 2016, 14:50
Location: Sweden

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Postby slp_se » Thu, 22 Feb 2018, 22:57

From TFA:

[...] your browser is just too important to be left to a small community of enthusiasts.


Actually, I think this is exactly why it's important. We have the best of Firefox, without a huge cooperation looking over our shoulders while browsing. Just like it used to be years ago.

User avatar
Isengrim
Fanatic
Fanatic
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue, 08 Sep 2015, 22:54
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Postby Isengrim » Thu, 22 Feb 2018, 23:20

I usually respect HTG articles, but this one I definitely disagree with. My browser is too important for someone else to be in control of.
Linux Mint 18.3 Cinnamon (64-bit)
Windows 7 (64-bit)

User avatar
Thehandyman1957
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1315
Joined: Tue, 19 May 2015, 02:26
Location: Arizona U.S.

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Postby Thehandyman1957 » Fri, 23 Feb 2018, 00:09

This sounds to me, more like a Mozilla hit piece than anything else. Some FF fanboy figured he better set us all straight.

Lets dissect this a little bit shall we?

We like Firefox Quantum, which is faster and more modern than previous releases of Firefox. If you want to keep using your old add-ons that no longer work in Firefox Quantum, we recommend Mozilla’s Firefox Extended Support Release (ESR) instead.


Faster, and more modern? These are opinions at best, not facts. You will notice the use of "old add-on's" here.
Let's make sure that everyone now knows that the FF gods have chosen to call all previous add on's old.

But, after taking some deserved public heat, they’ve made policy changes and we’re hopeful they’ll do better in the future.

Hopeful?? So the only thing they admittedly "took some heat on" is Looking Glass? :wtf: Yes I'm sure they are simply ignoring all the other
complaints of all the other "policy changes" they decided on.

Even if you don’t completely trust some of Mozilla’s business decisions, your browser is just too important to be left to a small community of enthusiasts. We think it’s best to go with a big project with a large number of developers that receives a lot of attention to security.

Wait a minute, some of those "business decisions" are the very reason folks are leaving FF in droves. And where are they going? To the small communities of enthusiasts that still care about the folks that they claim to build for. And why are they leaving? Because the "Big Projects" don't give a rats ass about their people anymore. Oh wait, don't you get it. It's all about better security right? More about that in a minute. :coffee:

Today, Waterfox is based on Firefox ESR. It advertises support for traditional XUL Firefox extensions and NPAPI plug-ins like Java and Silverlight. These are both features of Firefox ESR, so you don’t need to switch to Waterfox to get them. After Firefox ESR reaches end of Life, “a “new” browser will be developed to follow the ethos of Waterfox of customisation and choice”.

Wait a minute, So even though they are saying you should stick with FF ESR and we all know that once that ends it's the end of the road for anything
FF with XUL extensions and NPAPI support, they still want to you stick with that instead of a browser that has a future in mind? :wtf:

That means Waterfox users waited nine days for a security patches from a minor release, compared to if they were just using Firefox. We don’t think it’s a good idea to wait that long.

OMG :o Nine whole days. :shock: What will the world come to? :crazy:

So now lets get down the real down and dirty, shall we?
Pale Moon Is Based on Very Outdated Firefox Code

Did you get that "very outdated part"? IF not then perhaps we needed to use a larger font to make our point. :evil:

Pale Moon is based on older Firefox code. The current version of Pale Moon is based on Firefox 38 ESR, which was originally released in 2015. The prior release was based on Firefox 24 ESR, which was released in 2013. The project uses an older Firefox interface created before the Australis theme, and still supports XUL add-ons.

Just in case you still weren't sure how old PM is we just wanted to make sure we added a few more clues for you.

While Waterfox is based on code that’s currently supported by Mozilla, Pale Moon is based on much older code. It won’t have the new web features or performance improvements of modern versions of Firefox, nor does it support watching certain kinds of video with DRM.

Did you forget how old and outdated PM is yet? Well let us help you. Oh and it does not support DRM. Hmmm, and why does it not support DRM?
Perhaps it's because this goes against the whole idea of Open source, maybe? :think:

More importantly, basing a browser onsuch old code makes security patches harder. Pale Moon’s developer tries to keep up with Firefox security patches, but he’s maintaining old code that Mozilla has abandoned. Mozilla reportedly has over a thousand employees, while Pale Moon has one primary developer, trying to maintain a huge amount of code that’s becomingincreasingly outdated. The older code also omits features that help make modern browsers so secure, like the multi-process sandboxing features that have finally arrived in Firefox Quantum.

At this point you might get the idea of how much a old hunched back senior citizen PM is but just in case you still don't quite get it. :wave:
Oh, and did you know that there is only one developer for PM. I mean, this guy must be as old and decrepit as PM itself. And it's just simply impossible for such a guy to actually keep a browser secure right. :eh: Psssst, hey you, just a secret between you and me, did you know that there is an actual PM Team :?: Nooooo, say it ain't so. :!: But that don' t matter, nope, all that matters is that you saw that part about "OVER A THOUSAND EMPLOYEES". See, all better now.

Besides, Pale Moon tends to perform worse on browser benchmarks compared tomodern browsers, which isn’t surprising given its age. The developer disagrees with browser benchmarking, but it’s not surprising a browser based on four year old code might be slower than a modern one.

Old, Old, OLD, OUTDATED!!! Hmmm, perhaps there is a valid reason the developer disagrees with benchmarks? But we won't talk about that.
All you need to remember is FF is modern, Modern, MODERN, AND MORE SECURE!!! Yea, you get it right?

Oh, and you didn't think we'd stop there did ya? no no no, we have a bigger fish to fry before were done.
Basilisk Is a More Modern, But More Unstable Pale Moon

Were going to show you how much more in a minute.
Basilisk is a new browser from the creator of Pale Moon. While Pale Moon is based on Firefox 38 ESR, Basilisk is based on newer Firefox code. The developer is working on the “Unified XUL Platform (UXP)”, which is a fork of Mozilla’s code without the new Servo and Rust code that makes Firefox Quantum so fast. It also doesn’t enable any multi-process features.

So, don't forget that PM is old, first and foremost. But this new thing, Basilisk is it called? First, just to make sure you get it. It's been gutted of all of our prize stuff that makes time travel possible but it's also real slow too. Oh, and don't look behind the curtain to see that Basilisk is actually being based off of that same version we mentioned earlier that you should be using because it's better. Oh, and it's faster and newer and will actually make your coffee taste better too. :coffee:

A future version of Pale Moon will be based on this code, but right now the developer considers Basilisk an unstable development platform.
Oh yea, since we probably need to throw this in just to keep the lawyers away, but remember, it's unstable, Unstable, UNSTABLE!!!

Oh hey, wait. I've got this convenient pile of dirt on my desk, gee how did that get here. Oh well, better not waste it. 8-)
This fits Pale Moon’s kind of weird history. The first major version of Pale Moon was based on Firefox 24 ESR, due to a disagreement about where Firefox was headed. But the developer eventually had to switch to Firefox 38 ESR to get more modern features. Now, the developer is doing the same thing again, basing this new version largely on the pre-Quantum Firefox code. We don’t see the point of resisting new features only to make a major leap to them every few years anyway. Just stick with a browser that’s continually updated, like Firefox.

Were not going to mention what that disagreement was. :mrgreen: See here, we will show you just how great FF really is and how we are the
parent and PM is just the black sheep of the family that eventually see's the error in his ways and decides to follow in our shadow. :angel:
Oh, and did you know that FF is CONTINUALLY UPDATED by THOUSANDS? What? wait a minute, what's that you say? PM gets updates too? Shhhhh, don't say that to loud around here. You can't be putting any fertilizer in this dirt I'm flinging, It might actually grow something. Can't have that. :problem:

As for why you shouldn’t use this browser, aside from the same security and usability concerns inherent with Pale Moon, even the developer says it’s “development software” that should be considered beta.

So listen, don't just take our word for it, get it from the Big guy himself. See, even he admits that he is a bat shit crazy old man that can't keep up, and his stuff is
as unstable as can be.

These aren’t the only Firefox-based browsers out there, but they are the most popular—and most others will likely come with similar issues. It’s best to stick with a browser that has a big team behind it so security problems can be caught, fixed, and patched as fast as possible.

So see, now do you get it. You would be as bat shit crazy as the guy who thought he could do better than us if you decide to actually use his stuff.
So come back to the light, that's it. Just give me your hand and I'll help you from making the BIGGEST MISTAKE OF YOUR LIFE!!!

Oh your welcome, no please, it's ok. I'm just doing my job. :mrgreen:

Chris Hoffman is a technology writer and all-around computer geek.

And all around FF fanboy.
butt-kisser-smiley.gif
butt-kisser-smiley.gif (7.69 KiB) Viewed 1262 times
"Watch your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they become actions. Watch your actions; they become habits. Watch your habits; they become your character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny."

User avatar
gracious1
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 785
Joined: Sun, 15 May 2016, 05:00
Location: bitterly cold upstate NY
Contact:

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Postby gracious1 » Fri, 23 Feb 2018, 04:52

I am a little shocked at the bias of this article.
I guess the man is entitled to his opinion, as we all are, but he shouldn't be presenting conclusions and value judgments as facts.
Last edited by gracious1 on Fri, 23 Feb 2018, 04:57, edited 2 times in total.
Image“We look forward to the time when the Power of Love will replace the Love of Power. Then will our world know the blessings of peace.” — William Ewart Gladstone

User avatar
fatboy
Moonbather
Moonbather
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue, 19 Dec 2017, 08:03

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Postby fatboy » Fri, 23 Feb 2018, 09:23

As a Scientist I find it extremely irritating when people use their opinions as facts. This article has a lot of bias, as you all already pointed out. Furthermore, most tech articles are written with a certain "goal in mind", i.e. propaganda, monetary gain etc.
One example I think of is when Softpedia writes an article about a Virus affecting "All computers", rather than "this virus affects all Windows Computers" or even "This virus affects all Windows computers, but Linux is unaffected".

Also, the writer of this article forgot about Firefox needing to patch their browser for the Meltdown/Spectre exploit, whereas Pale Moon was unaffected by this exploit.

I would think that "old code" is more secure since it has been revised a whole lot more?

User avatar
Sajadi
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 845
Joined: Fri, 19 Apr 2013, 00:46

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Postby Sajadi » Fri, 23 Feb 2018, 11:48

And as usual... security is used as an excuse to bash rebrands like Vivaldi or Brave browser or real forks like Pale Moon ;) It is poor when there is almost no real argument anymore to justify the existence of Firefox.

At that point it would be no big loss if Mozilla just would merge with Google and be done with it. Their dream goal is anyway to emulate Chrome in visions and goals.

Real Mozilla and real Firefox are dead. What is left is a revived corpse, kept alive with Google money for one real purpose... So no one can accuse Google of having a full monopoly over the browser market :twisted: Which is enough for Mozilla as they are still earning that way tons of money. Their once pure and honest visions and ideas are for those leaders of Mozilla anyway of no interest anymore.
Last edited by Sajadi on Fri, 23 Feb 2018, 11:49, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
slp_se
Moongazer
Moongazer
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon, 11 Apr 2016, 14:50
Location: Sweden

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Postby slp_se » Fri, 23 Feb 2018, 12:01

Thehandyman1957 wrote:Oh, and did you know that FF is CONTINUALLY UPDATED by THOUSANDS?


I've always wondered how many of these "thousands" work on actual Firefox code, and how many of these are busy with marketing and drafting completely browser-unrelated "policies".

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4351
Joined: Tue, 09 Oct 2012, 19:37

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Postby New Tobin Paradigm » Fri, 23 Feb 2018, 12:05

Uhh besides the bias and hit piece elements they have major factual errors. Waterfox for example is a rebuild on mozilla-release 56 not mozilla-esr52. ONLY a rebuild and rebrand with very trivial and surface patches they are not even on the same level as we have been in the past four years.

Pale Moon has been going since 2009.. So i dunno how they can say its first major version was 24 lol.. BUT it was at that point when we said no more..

And as most should know by now Pale Moon 27 is not Firefox 38.. Not a trace of Firefox 38 is in Pale Moon 27 at all.. I deleted Firefox 38 and put Pale Moon's 24-26 code on to mozilla-esr38 to form Tycho and much development has happened before and since release including every applicable security patch from mozilla and others of our own finding.. New css and js features and features never seen in mozilla and features long gone and oh yeah an almost totally rewritten media subsystem..

This article is amazing.. They see us as a threat. We should all be very happy about it.. Not upset.

We are seen as a force that threatens them now.
Last edited by New Tobin Paradigm on Fri, 23 Feb 2018, 12:11, edited 3 times in total.
OH, BUT MY PRIDE! GRR! I WISH I WERE A CARROT!
[ ニュー・トビン・パラダイム ]

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 20811
Joined: Sun, 28 Aug 2011, 17:27
Location: 58.5°N 15.5°E
Contact:

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Postby Moonchild » Fri, 23 Feb 2018, 12:33

Sounds like another PR push to try and convince people to stay with Firefox through manipulation of opinion. Honestly though, if people still don't get it after all this time, they probably never will. The same inaccuracies repeated that seem to be popular because they sound good for the people who never looked into this before, and are easy to mindlessly repeat without first verifying.

I don't even understand why HTG published this, because it hardly provides any sort of howto, tip, or useful and practical information to get something done, and is just a hate-article for anything that is building on Mozilla but not published by MozCo. What's the point?

For the record, security patches are applied the moment they become available in context. Why is this later than Mozilla Firefox releases for the same reported potential vulnerabilities? For the simple reason that Mozilla does not grant security bug access to me (who does the sec audits and porting) until 1-1.5 weeks after their official release dates, and then only at my personal request to them, at that, despite years of good conduct keeping sec bugs completely non-disclosed. It's Mozilla's control structure that makes for this discrepancy, and another important point to note is that details of these vulnerabilities do not become public knowledge until much much later; so the delay ultimately only matters if there is something already actively exploited in the wild.

EDIT: Also, an additional note is that for the sec bugs in each Mozilla release cycle, a pretty significant percentage are new sec regressions or new vulnerabilities introduced by their own refactoring and generally poor forward thinking when developing new features or incorporating yet another third-party-sourced feature, and also often apply to part of the Mozilla browser we don't even need or want like e10s or quantum/servo/stylo.
Last edited by Moonchild on Fri, 23 Feb 2018, 12:46, edited 1 time in total.
Improving Mozilla code: You know you're on the right track with code changes when you spend the majority of your time deleting code.

User avatar
TwoTankAmin
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 631
Joined: Wed, 23 Jul 2014, 13:56
Location: New York

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Postby TwoTankAmin » Fri, 23 Feb 2018, 15:00

As far as i an concerned most of the above amounts to a pile of horse poop. There are only two facts that matter.

Fact #1: Firefox originally "built a better mousetrap" and the result was they approached a 50% market share.

Fact 2#: Firefox lost its way and the result is they lost about three quarters of their users.

I realize there are no published user numbers for Pale Moon. But I would be willing to bet dollars against donuts that the Pale Moon user base numbers, although tiny, are higher today than they have ever been.

I would also note that in the 3.5 years I have been using Pale Moon, it has never functioned as well as it does now.
“No one has ever become poor by giving.” Anonymous
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”" Daniel Patrick Moynihan
"The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it." Neil DeGrasse Tyson

User avatar
fatboy
Moonbather
Moonbather
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue, 19 Dec 2017, 08:03

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Postby fatboy » Fri, 23 Feb 2018, 16:55

I'm really positive about Pale Moon and my experiences with the browser is ALWAYS positive and a pleasure. Don't think we need to be too concerned with these people trying to pull us away from our lovely Pale Moon.

User avatar
mr tribute
Moonbather
Moonbather
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat, 19 Mar 2016, 23:24

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Postby mr tribute » Fri, 23 Feb 2018, 19:25

TwoTankAmin wrote:Fact #1: Firefox originally "built a better mousetrap" and the result was they approached a 50% market share.


Firefox never attained 25 %, not even when Firefox peaked between 2008-2010. After Firefox 4 in 2010 user base became smaller.

Less than 12 % today according to StatCounter:
http://gs.statcounter.com/browser-marke ... /worldwide

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4351
Joined: Tue, 09 Oct 2012, 19:37

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Postby New Tobin Paradigm » Fri, 23 Feb 2018, 19:35

Firefox once had almost 50% usership back in the day.
OH, BUT MY PRIDE! GRR! I WISH I WERE A CARROT!
[ ニュー・トビン・パラダイム ]

User avatar
Sajadi
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 845
Joined: Fri, 19 Apr 2013, 00:46

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Postby Sajadi » Fri, 23 Feb 2018, 19:43

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:Firefox once had almost 50% usership back in the day.


And if a company stops listening to their users, they leave the sinking ship - and all whats left are now all the Mozilla apologists - and quite some of them are now crawling into that howtogeek article and spread their uninformed venom over all the evil, evil forks out there which try to refuse to be like Google and Chrome :lol:
Last edited by Sajadi on Fri, 23 Feb 2018, 19:45, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
helloimustbegoing
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1762
Joined: Thu, 28 Jun 2012, 01:20

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Postby helloimustbegoing » Fri, 23 Feb 2018, 19:44

Off-topic:
mr tribute wrote:
After Firefox 4 in 2010 user base became smaller.

Even I, who am by no means a computer guru, could see a decline in quality starting with version 4. Version 3.6 was the best they had.

Swibbz
Moongazer
Moongazer
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed, 19 Oct 2016, 17:44

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Postby Swibbz » Fri, 23 Feb 2018, 19:58

With that said, Chrome isn't that great either. I could be reading some site, and all of a sudden, the site just randomly crashes for no reason. Firefox these days is horrible, but Chrome isn't a great option either.

User avatar
Moonraker
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 791
Joined: Wed, 30 Sep 2015, 23:02
Location: Lincolnshire.UK.

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Postby Moonraker » Fri, 23 Feb 2018, 20:24

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:Firefox once had almost 50% usership back in the day.

I think that was the transitional period from the netscape navigator to firefox early period.Users were perhaps more curious than anything by this new and exciting browser and there was a download frenzy.
Linux Lite 3.6 64bit.
Pale moon 27.7.1


Return to “General discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests