It seems to me there is an over reaction on both sides -- the add-on can still be used in Pale Moon so it's not the end of the world. That said, I don't see why Pale Moon wants to do what I would also call an over reaction which in my view is purely based on not wanting to support Pale Moon users who elect to use the add-on because of the relatively rare cases involving NS users who fail properly use NS
. But think about it -- as we all are very well aware -- there are a myriad of add-ons that will break Pale Moon (or any browser for that matter)
and as we all know it is always recommended to test a browser problem using "Safe Mode" or using a "fresh" profile. So with that in mind it occurs to me that Pale Moon could have avoided all of the antagonism from its users by just sticking to the warning about NS and leave it at that and not take it a step more as they have in order to avoid all of the angry rhetoric and over reaction by previous loyal users and at the same time avoid reactions we see in many places one example of which is this: Hold on your palemoon horses! Danger!
... as well (take a read on this link to see an example of what I mean).
The fact is, if I may say so with all due respect -- this new implementation by Pale Moon was in my opinion not thought out well and if you don't believe me just look around at other websites and forums (i.e. NoScript and others) where you will find this new development in Pale Moon is vociferously being discussed in ways that would appear to only be detrimental to Pale Moon's user base
. Really, why damage the growing popularity Pale Moon simply because an add-on is perceived to make it more difficult to support the browser? It is impossible to alleviate all the potential problems that the misuse of add-ons can create in a browser and it makes absolutely no sense to black-list add-ons for "instability" or "usability" alone that as we know are ultimately caused by the user which in my view is the case since to claim actual "security" risks are a reason, which is clearly the only valid reason to black-list, are to be fair at best a real stretch.
A matter of attempting to limit a level of support inconvenience is simply not worth all of this -- clearly the add-on does NOT create a "security risk"
! Another example of an over reaction on the part of Pale Moon (who has from what I know prided itself in allowing users the greatest amount of freedom of choice regarding what they want in a browser) is exactly how Pale Moon describes the reasons for their decision:
Your add-on has been blocked or disabled because it is
known to be malware, has known security vulnerabilities (especially in the case of plugins), is known to cause instability, or known to cause (severe) usability issues.
I have struck-out what I would call arguably inaccurate conclusions -- it is most certainly NOT "malware"
and I would like to know what "security vulnerabilities" that exist any more than would potentially be the case with any software that might need to sometimes apply upgrades to address issues that develop which happens to be the case for ALL software including Operating Systems themselves
. Sure the add-on can cause "instability" and/or "usability issues" -- how many other add-ons can also do this when used improperly?
This is a prefect example of what I would in my view call an over reaction. I would suggest that Pale Moon make an effort going forward to take a step back and mollify their over reaction regarding this add-on
who's purpose it is to actually improve Internet security.