Regarding browser restrictions, Topic is solved

Add-ons for Pale Moon and other applications
General discussion, compatibility, contributed extensions, themes, plugins, and more.

Moderators: FranklinDM, Lootyhoof

User avatar
frostknight
Apollo supporter
Apollo supporter
Posts: 38
Joined: 2022-08-10, 02:25

Regarding browser restrictions,

Unread post by frostknight » 2022-10-04, 20:21

https://addons.basilisk-browser.org/addon/ematrix/
https://addons.palemoon.org/releases/ematrix/


I don't really know if this is the right place to mention this or not, but for those of us who use specific forks, of UXP, etc...

I understand if you don't provide support for these forks, aka, iceweasel-uxp for example.

The reason I bring this up, is I am unable to get newer versions via the addon site. Also, some still have the blockage issue from before when there was some chaos within the project.

I don't want to go too far into the chaos, for the sake of people here, including the devs themselves, etc...

This all being said, I wondered if it is possible, you guys could tell me how to be able to make my web browser be able to access the addon sites again. Aka, download updates to current addons I have.

Thoughts, anyone?

Basically, can we go back to when the addon site was "neutral"

Aka, when you could download the addons regardless of the web browser you are using?

If not, can you tell me why?

Thanks in advance. I had emailed you Moonchild, but I haven't quite gotten a reply back, so I am somewhat confused. That did happen at one point for the same reason the server went down at that one point, didn't it?

:?

User avatar
andyprough
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 370
Joined: 2020-05-31, 04:33

Re: Regarding browser restrictions,

Unread post by andyprough » 2022-10-04, 21:35

You just need a Pale Moon useragent.
Self-compiled Pale Moon on Libre-antiX GNU/Linux respin, 32-bit and 64-bit, and on Hyperbola GNU/Linux 64-bit

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 33040
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Tranås, SE
Contact:

Re: Regarding browser restrictions,

Unread post by Moonchild » 2022-10-04, 22:50

Code: Select all

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.0
Are you surprised we're not serving you add-ons that are known incompatible with your UA?
By the way, Mozilla does the same. "only with Firefox" ;P
"The best revenge is to not be like the person who wronged you." -- Marcus Aurelius
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb

User avatar
moonbat
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4161
Joined: 2015-12-09, 15:45
Contact:

Re: Regarding browser restrictions,

Unread post by moonbat » 2022-10-05, 01:34

You should never fiddle with the global user agent. It does nothing for online anonymity - there are plenty of other data points websites can use to build a profile of you and a proper adblocker works better at this, plus it will break most websites you browse.
For compatibility with individual sites, PM supports site specific user agent overrides which you can set with PermissionsPlus or Sasuga.
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."

Image
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX

User avatar
frostknight
Apollo supporter
Apollo supporter
Posts: 38
Joined: 2022-08-10, 02:25

Re: Regarding browser restrictions,

Unread post by frostknight » 2022-10-05, 02:05

Moonchild wrote:
2022-10-04, 22:50

Code: Select all

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.0
Are you surprised we're not serving you add-ons that are known incompatible with your UA?
By the way, Mozilla does the same. "only with Firefox" ;P
Do they?

hmm...

That is odd, because I hadn't seen that happen of late...

Very strange...

Did they just start doing that?

Btw, are forks of basilisk browser and iceweasel-uxp that different? And others, etc?

I used to be able to download them and use them without any effort.

Very weird...

Was trying to reply btw, at first... accidentally hit solved. :P

Either way do you know when mozilla started doing this? I never had this problem before with mozilla. As for palemoon's forks, only after sometime in 2020 did this problem occur, last I checked.

Might have been late in the year, but it was weird, when it occurred, for the same above reason.

Hmm... more or less, you can still do this:

https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/down ... -0.7.6.xpi

If you meant, mozilla's addon structure no longer works for anything below 57, though youd be 100% right tho.

User avatar
frostknight
Apollo supporter
Apollo supporter
Posts: 38
Joined: 2022-08-10, 02:25

Re: Regarding browser restrictions,

Unread post by frostknight » 2022-10-05, 02:13

moonbat wrote:
2022-10-05, 01:34
You should never fiddle with the global user agent. It does nothing for online anonymity - there are plenty of other data points websites can use to build a profile of you and a proper adblocker works better at this, plus it will break most websites you browse.
For compatibility with individual sites, PM supports site specific user agent overrides which you can set with PermissionsPlus or Sasuga.
Yeah... I was actually speaking of something else, aka, my web browser is more or less basilisk browser with some colorful and interesting changes.

I wonder if the problem is due to the useragent within this browser not being updated correctly to fit the new basilisk owner's setup.

Wouldn't surprise me.

He been, very entrenched in other issues...

So... that would be solely on people, or me, to let him know, right?

Unless I am missing something.

I would use basilisk's regular browser to get the info, but those tarballs have never worked since certain components within Hyperbola are no longer within it.

*cough dbus *cough

;)

User avatar
andyprough
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 370
Joined: 2020-05-31, 04:33

Re: Regarding browser restrictions,

Unread post by andyprough » 2022-10-05, 05:18

frostknight wrote:
2022-10-05, 02:13
I would use basilisk's regular browser to get the info, but those tarballs have never worked since certain components within Hyperbola are no longer within it.

*cough dbus *cough
LOL, I built you dbus-free Pale Moon AND Epyrus. Even did it on Hyperbola for you. You wouldn't be having these add-on site compatibility issues if you stuck with the builds I gave you, zapper my friend.
Self-compiled Pale Moon on Libre-antiX GNU/Linux respin, 32-bit and 64-bit, and on Hyperbola GNU/Linux 64-bit

User avatar
frostknight
Apollo supporter
Apollo supporter
Posts: 38
Joined: 2022-08-10, 02:25

Re: Regarding browser restrictions,

Unread post by frostknight » 2022-10-05, 08:00

andyprough wrote:
2022-10-05, 05:18
frostknight wrote:
2022-10-05, 02:13
I would use basilisk's regular browser to get the info, but those tarballs have never worked since certain components within Hyperbola are no longer within it.

*cough dbus *cough
LOL, I built you dbus-free Pale Moon AND Epyrus. Even did it on Hyperbola for you. You wouldn't be having these add-on site compatibility issues if you stuck with the builds I gave you, zapper my friend.
Fair point, but to be honest, iceweasel-uxp has kind of grown on me...

:P

Although, I haven't tried Epyrus enough, to know if its good enough yet.

So... yeah lol.

BenFenner
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 403
Joined: 2015-06-01, 12:52
Location: US Southeast

Re: Regarding browser restrictions,

Unread post by BenFenner » 2022-10-06, 16:40

Moonchild wrote:
2022-10-04, 22:50
Are you surprised we're not serving you add-ons that are known incompatible with your UA?
Kind of, yes. Sounds an awful lot like UA sniffing to me, which as we all know is completely obnoxious. Isn't feature detection or similar the correct course instead?
Any chance that could work?
Or just let people download things from the web page from any browser like any other page on the Internet?
Moonchild wrote:
2022-10-04, 22:50
By the way, Mozilla does the same. "only with Firefox" ;P
A perfect reason to second-guess this type of solution.

vannilla
Moon Magic practitioner
Moon Magic practitioner
Posts: 2017
Joined: 2018-05-05, 13:29

Re: Regarding browser restrictions,

Unread post by vannilla » 2022-10-06, 17:34

BenFenner wrote:
2022-10-06, 16:40
Isn't feature detection or similar the correct course instead?
Any chance that could work?
The thing is, that's true for general site navigation: opening menus, reading text, seeing images, etc.
Here it's specifically about downloading/installing extensions.
Since extensions by definition are aimed at a specific application (you can't install Emacs extensions on Pale Moon, for example), is it really that bad if you don't provide an installation method for programs that are not the target application?
There is no right or wrong answer: some people say yes, like Emacs packages that can be download freely anywhere; some people say no and only let you see the web page for the extension blocking all download attempts, like APMO does.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 33040
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Tranås, SE
Contact:

Re: Regarding browser restrictions,

Unread post by Moonchild » 2022-10-06, 17:51

BenFenner wrote:
2022-10-06, 16:40
Sounds an awful lot like UA sniffing to me, which as we all know is completely obnoxious.
This is one of the few cases where it's not completely obnoxious and actually necessary. The thing is this is not about -downloading- anything but directly installing extensions.
BenFenner wrote:
2022-10-06, 16:40
A perfect reason to second-guess this type of solution.
Just being contrarian for the sake of it? No thank you.
"The best revenge is to not be like the person who wronged you." -- Marcus Aurelius
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb

User avatar
gepus
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 826
Joined: 2017-12-14, 12:59

Re: Regarding browser restrictions,

Unread post by gepus » 2022-10-06, 20:45

Moonchild wrote:
2022-10-04, 22:50
By the way, Mozilla does the same. "only with Firefox" ;P
Out of curiosity I checked if one can download extensions from Mozilla with Pale Moon.
You get a warning that you'll need Firefox to use the extension but the download works nevertheless.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 33040
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Tranås, SE
Contact:

Re: Regarding browser restrictions,

Unread post by Moonchild » 2022-10-07, 01:22

Well, we currently don't have a doubled-up serving mechanism (downloading AND installing). If you all want to have that extra functionality then feel free to contribute to phoebus. Its repository is available and linked.
"The best revenge is to not be like the person who wronged you." -- Marcus Aurelius
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb

User avatar
frostknight
Apollo supporter
Apollo supporter
Posts: 38
Joined: 2022-08-10, 02:25

Re: Regarding browser restrictions,

Unread post by frostknight » 2022-10-07, 11:15

Moonchild wrote:
2022-10-07, 01:22
Well, we currently don't have a doubled-up serving mechanism (downloading AND installing). If you all want to have that extra functionality then feel free to contribute to phoebus. Its repository is available and linked.
This is actually a very reasonable response, so I will agree with you here.

So you wouldn't care as much, if someone contributed a patch for this, aka, to make such a thing possible?

Aka, allowing downloading/installing?

Or is it more so that its something irrelevant to you?

Either way, would be nice to have a disable switch to install those addons, with the warning that:

"IF YOU INSTALL THIS, YYOU ARE ON YOUR OWN! DO NOT EXPECT SUPPORT!"

That would be a preferred approach over the current, but either way, that would also require a patch too...

xD

If there already is one, though, no worries.

;)

User avatar
gepus
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 826
Joined: 2017-12-14, 12:59

Re: Regarding browser restrictions,

Unread post by gepus » 2022-10-07, 13:43

Moonchild wrote:
2022-10-07, 01:22
Well, we currently don't have a doubled-up serving mechanism (downloading AND installing).
Neither has Mozilla. Download and installation are the same link.
Clicking the link will install while right click "save link as" will download.
Attachments
amo.png
amo.png (2.56 KiB) Viewed 1593 times

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 33040
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Tranås, SE
Contact:

Re: Regarding browser restrictions,

Unread post by Moonchild » 2022-10-07, 13:51

frostknight wrote:
2022-10-07, 11:15
So you wouldn't care as much, if someone contributed a patch for this, aka, to make such a thing possible?
It's open for a reason... if this is desired functionality and someone wants to improve phoebus to add it, then by all means, contribute :)
gepus wrote:
2022-10-07, 13:43
Moonchild wrote: ↑
07-10-2022 03:22
Well, we currently don't have a doubled-up serving mechanism (downloading AND installing).

Neither has Mozilla. Download and installation are the same link.
Clicking the link will install while right click "save link as" will download.
Then they probably don't use installTrigger to install extensions like we do, and likely just go by .xpi extension and/or MIME type. *shrug* wouldn't surprise me. Their website code is vastly different than ours and I have no interest in running whatever python abomination it probably is they use. It doesn't need to be the same feature for feature either. It's been a while since I looked at their addons site anyway, so my knowledge may also be outdated. Either way it's not important.
"The best revenge is to not be like the person who wronged you." -- Marcus Aurelius
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb

BenFenner
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 403
Joined: 2015-06-01, 12:52
Location: US Southeast

Re: Regarding browser restrictions,

Unread post by BenFenner » 2022-10-07, 16:29

vannilla wrote:
2022-10-06, 17:34
Since extensions by definition are aimed at a specific application (you can't install Emacs extensions on Pale Moon, for example), is it really that bad if you don't provide an installation method for programs that are not the target application?
It's reasonable to want to only offer installation of an extension for the browser that extension targets. Sure. But presumably the OP wanted to install a Pale Moon extension while using Pale Moon. Clearly that is a bug. UA sniffing is not the right solution here, as it fails in so many ways we are all too familiar with.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 33040
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Tranås, SE
Contact:

Re: Regarding browser restrictions,

Unread post by Moonchild » 2022-10-07, 17:54

Not using UA sniffing in this case would require gathering of information from the client in other ways I'm not comfortable with. How else would you be collecting the necessary information about which browser and which version is in use if the user is taking steps to specifically mask their browser identification? It is simply the consequence of faking your client to websites. if you pretend to be Firefox 60, which does NOT support ANY of the extensions on our extension site, there is no overlap, and no reason whatsoever to be serving those extensions to them. Even if they were compatible, then i would still not be happy about having the addons infra used for something that is in no way in need of freebie server bandwidth from us.
"The best revenge is to not be like the person who wronged you." -- Marcus Aurelius
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb

User avatar
frostknight
Apollo supporter
Apollo supporter
Posts: 38
Joined: 2022-08-10, 02:25

Re: Regarding browser restrictions,

Unread post by frostknight » 2022-10-07, 21:24

Moonchild wrote:
2022-10-07, 17:54
Not using UA sniffing in this case would require gathering of information from the client in other ways I'm not comfortable with. How else would you be collecting the necessary information about which browser and which version is in use if the user is taking steps to specifically mask their browser identification? It is simply the consequence of faking your client to websites. if you pretend to be Firefox 60, which does NOT support ANY of the extensions on our extension site, there is no overlap, and no reason whatsoever to be serving those extensions to them. Even if they were compatible, then i would still not be happy about having the addons infra used for something that is in no way in need of freebie server bandwidth from us.
Hmmm... well your ethics regarding not feeling comfortable with data collection, is very good, so I definitely give you credit for that for sure.

As for the last part, it is very puzzling. I ask, because this wasn't your policy in the past.

Long story short, I am just curious why you changed your mind since before. It might help me understand you.



either way, should I assume you don't plan to host any of the addons somewhere where it wouldn't cost you a dime, like, sourcehut type thing, etc? Again with some sort of warning, akin to, use something compatible but you won't get support if it isn't related to us, because we don't work on that version, etc...?

Whatever your next answer will be, it could probably be marked solved. This is probably the only other question I kind of wanted an answer to.

Also, no need to beat a dead horse any further up the mountain anyhow, at that point for me anyways... but others, meh... no idea.

;)

User avatar
frostknight
Apollo supporter
Apollo supporter
Posts: 38
Joined: 2022-08-10, 02:25

Re: Regarding browser restrictions,

Unread post by frostknight » 2022-10-07, 21:36

Moonchild wrote:
2022-10-07, 13:51

Then they probably don't use installTrigger to install extensions like we do, and likely just go by .xpi extension and/or MIME type. *shrug* wouldn't surprise me. Their website code is vastly different than ours and I have no interest in running whatever python abomination it probably is they use. It doesn't need to be the same feature for feature either. It's been a while since I looked at their addons site anyway, so my knowledge may also be outdated. Either way it's not important.
Wow, if python is an abomination, that makes me wonder... what the hell is java... and javascript!

:D

Although, I begin to wonder if Rust will turn out to be just as bad as java down the road. Aka, bloatware usually ends up getting massively too complex to fix all the hidden crap inside of it.

This is why java has been such a meltdown of issues... you probably have a better idea of this than I could...

You almost wonder if making software with insanely complex code and also like more lines of code then needed might be a problem...

Hmm....

;)

Small EDIT:

https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/Open ... ml#preface

Hmm:

"The code base that would become OpenJDK 6 and 7 had over a decade of history and over six million lines of code before the sources of JDK 7 build 11"

Seems that goes back to 2012...

Thats startling, considering as of 2020, even systemd doesn't have that 2 million lines of code yet...

lol

Post Reply