Pale Moon forum

NotWorthKnowing wrote: What I would have really liked is for all you guys making all these forks or custom builds to get together and work on one killer customizable browser that can compete with the big guys, but I know it's a pipedream.

But there's only one "big guy" and that's Chrome.

How do you compete with Chrome? Moz is trying it with their "let's copy them" approach, but that ain't working particularly well.

And what defines "one killer customizable browser"?

doofy wrote:And what defines "one killer customizable browser"?

Pale Moon.

NotWorthKnowing wrote:

Block third-party cookies.

Agree: standard setting in all my browsers.

I usually do this too, but I do find cases where it is still necessary to allow exceptions. Not being able to make exceptions at all is worse, in my book.

NotWorthKnowing wrote:

Disables clipboard events, breaking many sites that use JS to place data on the clipboard

Agree: don't need scripts messing with clipboard, that's for me the user.

This isn't just sites modifying the clipboard text; clipboard events are also used for things like dragging and dropping files from your desktop onto imgur's site to upload them. In other words, for convenience, not solely for malicious purposes.

Sampei Nihira wrote:@ Intika
"browser.display.use_document_fonts" set to 0

Already answered and as it is already mentioned it's not the proper place for support

Moonchild wrote:OK, so, Librefox thinks that the following things are good to enforce for the user:
...

Wow you took the time to review all the settings thanks very much for that, i will open an issue about what you mentioned, the project is still young, and for most what you mentioned there is a reason we did so, but yes i am open to any discussion/critique to make the product better.

Sajadi wrote:Security good and nice...
What really would be necessary/what would be a good idea - would be to find a way to bring back customization back into Firefox....

There is an open issue about that, and we will probably include an advanced settings in future version, thanks a lot for your feedback

Al6bus wrote:also hard block

Yes, its explained why on the main settings and this can still be changed in mozilla.cfg. but thank you for your feedback i am taking note about that

NotWorthKnowing wrote:I'll comment on some of these but since nobody cares, I'll hide it.

Thanks for you feedback (i care !) i will add that to the issue with Moonchild's comments

NotWorthKnowing wrote:That bothered me too, and already knowing I don't agree with Miss Pants and crew on a lot of the settings, I almost didn't even check it out. I'm finding that editing moz config is no different than editing user.js. It's taking a lot of time the first time because I had been ignoring all the changes since 52 ESR. Already spent many hours and am only less than half way through.

There is a tool to compare changes on mozilla.cfg/user.js it could facilitate want you want to do (it's listed on Librefox page)

NotWorthKnowing wrote:Well whatever it is or will be, I have to admit I like it better out of the box than the official one from MozCo. Seems to be quieter (not loading stuff on startup), has better look (icons not drawn with crayons) and has more privacy/security mods I agree with than disagree with. So it may have promise as an alternative to falling back to official Fx, either of which may be better than Chromium.

Thank you a lot for your feedback it's appreciated

NotWorthKnowing wrote:What I would have really liked is for all you guys making all these forks or custom builds to get together and work on one killer customizable browser that can compete with the big guys, but I know it's a pipedream.

In my personal opinion, there are already Palemoon and Ungoogled-Chromium so... i don't know what would be a result of getting together, but one thing for sure is having the choice is a must !... we don't really need a lot of developer to make changes to (firefox/chrome) and it's very very complicated to please everyone, you could even create a killer browser as you say and you would still have users complaining about too much settings or something else, so...

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:Pale Moon.

hahahaha i just said that and now am reading the same thing

Isengrim wrote:

NotWorthKnowing wrote:

Block third-party cookies.

Agree: standard setting in all my browsers.

I usually do this too, but I do find cases where it is still necessary to allow exceptions. Not being able to make exceptions at all is worse, in my book.

NotWorthKnowing wrote: This isn't just sites modifying the clipboard text...

Thanks you i take note of that as well

@Moonchild @Tobin I know and agree that this is not the place for support/feedback for Librefox, i don't know... it's just to let you know

NotWorthKnowing wrote: What I would have really liked is for all you guys making all these forks or custom builds to get together and work on one killer customizable browser that can compete with the big guys, but I know it's a pipedream.

what would be needed for that is an automated tool that regularly checks mozilla for updates, downloads the sources, applies and merges patches, builds a set of variants, tests for bugs and then publishes it for users to install - all completely automatically, only needing someone to set it up once and fix problems if incompatibilities are being introduced. kinda like what nlite/ntlite is to windows but since firefox is free software you can also do this on a server and automatically publish the final installer.

Why do you care about Firefox in this day and age? What they do has very little impact on our projects.

Pale Moon is not Firefox and never will be again. Basilisk isn't Firefox anymore. Borealis was never Firefox. And.. Interlink isn't Thunderbird and hasn't been from the very start.

elypter wrote:what would be needed for that is an automated tool that regularly checks mozilla for updates, downloads the sources, applies and merges patches, builds a set of variants, tests for bugs and then publishes it for users to install - all completely automatically, only needing someone to set it up once and fix problems if incompatibilities are being introduced.

It's more complicated than that. Firefox's codebase has diverged significantly from the code that was forked from FF 52. There has been a lot of refactoring and code churn in the Mozilla code that makes bugs difficult to find and patches hard to follow. As such, many of the patches made in Firefox don't directly apply. Some patches are for e10s or the Webextensions API, and don't apply at all to the UXP codebase. This is because UXP is a true fork of Firefox, not just a rebuild of it with a few changes. That is why the changes that are ported are done so manually, not using automated tools.

I'm sure he was thinking of projects that shared the same platform code because it wouldn't make sense otherwise. I used to make exe diff patches and post those for other people to download instead of a whole application. Saved an awful lot of bytes to d/l back when that mattered. I wish more developers did that now.

NotWorthKnowing wrote:Saved an awful lot of bytes to d/l back when that mattered. I wish more developers did that now.

So, if it no longer matters, then what is the point?

As i said i did opened an issue following what moon Moonchild reviewed (https://github.com/intika/Librefox/issues/53) again thank you very much for taking time to review my work!

Now about the fact that i am not building from source this is because of the different targeted platform and builds currently 15 and it will probably grow to 20 and also to come with a semi official binary to be trusted while the project is super young.

Now regarding legal issue this could not stay that way... i have to weather create a patcher or build everything from source (time consuming but the right thing to do).