About using Firefox extensions on Pale Moon (discussion)

General discussion, compatibility and contributed extensions.

Moderators: Lootyhoof, FranklinDM

Lurker_01
Moon lover
Moon lover
Posts: 88
Joined: 2015-06-12, 14:59
Location: Uruguay

Re: About using Firefox extensions on Pale Moon (discussion)

Post by Lurker_01 » 2020-07-17, 07:04

moonbat wrote:
2020-07-17, 06:54
Lurker_01 wrote:
2020-07-17, 06:15
unless this was done with the intent for somebody to actually step up, but i don't think this change will push people to do that.
Had Firefox not dumped XUL, these very extensions would still be only compatible with version 57 and require work from their developers to keep up with the latest changes. Can't expect everything to just run on cruise control without maintenance.
I think everybody expects that Firefox extensions would break over time, like i said it is unfortunate that that some firefox extensions are still working without any need of modification without the arbitrary check and were broken this way.
If this would have been a browser functionality change i think there would be less post about this or just posts to find alternatives.
edit: There is no ""install anyway"" that was in AMO or just enabling the extension after it was disabled. (yes in some cases you do indeed need to modify the extension version check for it to work) (in case if that were Firefox)

User avatar
letmeindude
Banned user
Banned user
Posts: 150
Joined: 2018-10-09, 08:56

Re: About using Firefox extensions on Pale Moon (discussion)

Post by letmeindude » 2020-07-17, 07:07

Lurker_01 wrote:
2020-07-17, 07:04
and were broken this way.
Not really broken, you just get the warning, right?

Lurker_01
Moon lover
Moon lover
Posts: 88
Joined: 2015-06-12, 14:59
Location: Uruguay

Re: About using Firefox extensions on Pale Moon (discussion)

Post by Lurker_01 » 2020-07-17, 07:11

letmeindude wrote:
2020-07-17, 07:07
Lurker_01 wrote:
2020-07-17, 07:04
and were broken this way.
Not really broken, you just get the warning, right?
It didn't break traditional extensions but every other kind of extension like dictionaries
edit: Through for traditional extensions some people find extra warning very annoying. (the extension indicator existed before to inform you that this is not a Pale Moon targeted extension)

User avatar
moonbat
Moon Magic practitioner
Moon Magic practitioner
Posts: 2777
Joined: 2015-12-09, 15:45

Re: About using Firefox extensions on Pale Moon (discussion)

Post by moonbat » 2020-07-17, 07:17

Lurker_01 wrote:
2020-07-17, 07:11
It didn't break traditional extensions but every other kind of extension like dictionaries
edit: Through for traditional extensions some people find extra warning very annoying.
Dictionaries I think were ported over from Firefox before they went Webextensions, so as of now only Tobin is maintaining those. And the extra warning is only on the addons page. Who goes to look at their addons page everyday? it's not as though the browser reminds you every time you start it or with an intrusive periodic alert like Windows update does.
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."

Image
Linux Mint 20.1 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
Advanced URL Builder(fork)|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX

Lurker_01
Moon lover
Moon lover
Posts: 88
Joined: 2015-06-12, 14:59
Location: Uruguay

Re: About using Firefox extensions on Pale Moon (discussion)

Post by Lurker_01 » 2020-07-17, 07:33

moonbat wrote:
2020-07-17, 07:17
Lurker_01 wrote:
2020-07-17, 07:11
It didn't break traditional extensions but every other kind of extension like dictionaries
edit: Through for traditional extensions some people find extra warning very annoying.
And the extra warning is only on the addons page. Who goes to look at their addons page everyday? it's not as though the browser reminds you every time you start it or with an intrusive periodic alert like Windows update does.
I think this is a matter of preference at least for me, in my case i changed some tab/url bar looks and also some other changes that i didn't like because i could do it. i think if i were to really have a Linux install that i would use, it would take me a lot of time to customize(more than just gui preferences) or i will just give up.
There were some points mentioned why these warning were annoying between all the threads created and i wont list them here.
edit:The extension status was shown already so i think some people found the change to warnings too intrusive.
Anyway i am very thankful that there is no intrusive reminders implemented.
Off-topic:
I think browser update reminders were changed a time ago so that they would show up regardless instead if you left the browser to idle (like watching a video without interaction for certain amount of time) sooo that got changed back...(happens regularly to me so i don't miss any updates regardless)

User avatar
adesh
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1277
Joined: 2017-06-06, 07:38

Re: About using Firefox extensions on Pale Moon (discussion)

Post by adesh » 2020-07-17, 10:00

athenian200 wrote:
2020-07-17, 02:26
I guess my perspective is, and always has been, that everyone is selfish. I'm selfish because I want this project to thrive for my own reasons, and if I want other people to help me make that happen, I need appeal to their selfishness too.
Off-topic:
That has been my outlook on selfishness since last one and a half year or so. But that's a technicality, in general sense selfishness is different. I think we share quite a few things in terms of philosophy.

thosrtanner
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 321
Joined: 2014-05-10, 18:19
Location: UK

Re: About using Firefox extensions on Pale Moon (discussion)

Post by thosrtanner » 2020-07-17, 12:49

Something that might help people's perspective is something that was mentioned in passing in another post - that as the version number increases, it will start to conflict with version numbers of firefox releases since aurora.

It so happens whilst I was porting tab groups manager, I found some checks for firefox >3.5. So I added an issue for myself to get rid of all the firefox version checks. And scanning the code today I found a check for firefox version > 28. So next major release, that's going to trigger some code that isn't currently running.

I'm sure tab groups manager isn't the only extension that does that sort of thing - where things have been done for backward compatibility but never removed again.

User avatar
Lootyhoof
Themeist
Themeist
Posts: 1461
Joined: 2012-02-09, 23:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: About using Firefox extensions on Pale Moon (discussion)

Post by Lootyhoof » 2020-07-17, 12:59

thosrtanner wrote:
2020-07-17, 12:49
And scanning the code today I found a check for firefox version > 28.
Since your extension targets both Pale Moon and Basilisk, if the extension really does something special for Australis then you could either bump the version to 52 (slight hack still) or better yet, just check for Basilisk's (aka Firefox's) GUID and do the Australis code if it sees Basilisk is running.

User avatar
letmeindude
Banned user
Banned user
Posts: 150
Joined: 2018-10-09, 08:56

Re: About using Firefox extensions on Pale Moon (discussion)

Post by letmeindude » 2020-07-17, 13:42

thosrtanner wrote:
2020-07-17, 12:49
And scanning the code today I found a check for firefox version > 28. So next major release, that's going to trigger some code that isn't currently running.
How do you know it is some Australis interface code and not something else, because Pale Moon core is based on Firefox v52?

vannilla
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1468
Joined: 2018-05-05, 13:29

Re: About using Firefox extensions on Pale Moon (discussion)

Post by vannilla » 2020-07-17, 14:40

letmeindude wrote:
2020-07-17, 13:42
How do you know it is some Australis interface code and not something else, because Pale Moon core is based on Firefox v52?
Because extensions have nothing to do with the core of the browser, but Australis has a different way to interact with the UI so checking for the browser version means checking for Australis.

User avatar
letmeindude
Banned user
Banned user
Posts: 150
Joined: 2018-10-09, 08:56

Re: About using Firefox extensions on Pale Moon (discussion)

Post by letmeindude » 2020-07-17, 14:43

vannilla wrote:
2020-07-17, 14:40
checking for the browser version means checking for Australis.
Thank you, good to know.

thosrtanner
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 321
Joined: 2014-05-10, 18:19
Location: UK

Re: About using Firefox extensions on Pale Moon (discussion)

Post by thosrtanner » 2020-07-17, 15:51

Lootyhoof wrote:
2020-07-17, 12:59
thosrtanner wrote:
2020-07-17, 12:49
And scanning the code today I found a check for firefox version > 28.
Since your extension targets both Pale Moon and Basilisk, if the extension really does something special for Australis then you could either bump the version to 52 (slight hack still) or better yet, just check for Basilisk's (aka Firefox's) GUID and do the Australis code if it sees Basilisk is running.
I'm pretty sure the code is making an assumption which is just plain wrong, but I need to play with it a bit.

User avatar
letmeindude
Banned user
Banned user
Posts: 150
Joined: 2018-10-09, 08:56

Re: About using Firefox extensions on Pale Moon (discussion)

Post by letmeindude » 2020-07-17, 16:24

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:
2020-02-13, 15:33
This is the same reason that Basilisk and Interlink retain their respective 52.9 version numbers even if it isn't widely displayed.
Why can't Pale Moon retain its version number 28? We can call it Pale Moon 29, but retain that magical 28.

User avatar
docR11
Hobby Astronomer
Hobby Astronomer
Posts: 17
Joined: 2020-08-26, 20:04

Re: About using Firefox extensions on Pale Moon (discussion)

Post by docR11 » 2020-08-26, 20:39

Reasonable path forward. I was fond of the lowkey color symbols signifying target application prior to 28.11, but I can imagine people overlooking them and blatantly installing 5 year old Ff extensions and then being stumped when they misbehave with their 2 week old UXP browser. I'd say the shade of yellow conveys the message more clearly ;)

Now what I'm wondering about is the next major version, presumably 29.x. Can one assume the dual-GUID system will be dropped at that milestone? If a legacy Firefox extension by grace of shared ancestry works apart from the targeted application, then the only work necessary for a potential forker in the short term is to change the GUID to target Pale Moon?

Of the 17 extensions I use, only 2 were acquired from Classic Add-ons Archive. Really stoked by the amount of Pale Moon-specific add-ons accumulated over the years. Kudos to all those involved.
Off-topic:
I've returned after a hiatus from Firefox. I got depressed after updating every ESR and noticing more and more XUL deprication, resulting in browser elements looking increasingly more like a webpage, adhering less to the system theming. That and the HTML add-ons manager and configurations editor did it in for me. Aris's customjs and customcss scripts work wonders, but I have serious doubts about the future. The fact userChrome styling has to be unlocked from the configurations editor kind of has it marked for death, I would think.

User avatar
moonbat
Moon Magic practitioner
Moon Magic practitioner
Posts: 2777
Joined: 2015-12-09, 15:45

Re: About using Firefox extensions on Pale Moon (discussion)

Post by moonbat » 2020-08-28, 00:52

docR11 wrote:
2020-08-26, 20:39
then the only work necessary for a potential forker in the short term is to change the GUID to target Pale Moon?
Pretty much. You can also try contacting the original author to ask if they can fork it for Pale Moon, I've had some success doing that.
Off-topic:
docR11 wrote:
2020-08-26, 20:39
I got depressed after updating every ESR and noticing more and more XUL deprication, resulting in browser elements looking increasingly more like a webpage
They follow a standard pattern now - Remove feature -> demote it to about:config -> demote it to ESR -> get rid of it altogether. And it's ridiculous the amount changes you have to make to a fresh install of a supposedly private browser to stop it snooping on you. The fact that there are so many 'hardened' prefs.js projects on Github speaks for itself.
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."

Image
Linux Mint 20.1 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
Advanced URL Builder(fork)|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX

User avatar
docR11
Hobby Astronomer
Hobby Astronomer
Posts: 17
Joined: 2020-08-26, 20:04

Re: About using Firefox extensions on Pale Moon (discussion)

Post by docR11 » 2020-08-28, 02:50

moonbat wrote:
2020-08-28, 00:52
They follow a standard pattern now - Remove feature -> demote it to about:config -> demote it to ESR -> get rid of it altogether. And it's ridiculous the amount changes you have to make to a fresh install of a supposedly private browser to stop it snooping on you. The fact that there are so many 'hardened' prefs.js projects on Github speaks for itself.[/offtopic]
Off-topic:
Precisely. That utterly scared the shit out of me. It was like that long before even Photon, like when the tabs-on-bottom switch was moved to the configurations editor just before Australis. userChrome and js scripts are what kept me sane while using Ff, but I knew I was in jeopardy back there. Chrome/ium has my current OS marked for death a mere one year from now (and raises the same complaints I had with Ff raised ^10), and Firefox is gradually shaving its few redeeming(ish) functions and drifting out of relevance. Only a matter of time before they turn into Brave 2.0, or hell even dissolve the Firefox brand entirely.
moonbat wrote:
2020-08-28, 00:52

Pretty much. You can also try contacting the original author to ask if they can fork it for Pale Moon, I've had some success doing that.
Off-topic:
I've actually considered that for a small handful of lesser-essential extensions I still keep around. They've shown no signs of breakage over time with newer PM builds, and I don't foresee that happening with 29.x either. If I had to I could just edit the GUID for my own personal use, or share them on AMO if I get proper authorization.
PM 28.x, Win7 Ult x64 (vista-themed), Precision t5810 w. Xeon e5-1650v3, 16 GB 2133, EVGA 970 / Latitude E7250

User avatar
__NM64__
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 259
Joined: 2013-10-17, 05:29
Location: Northeast Ohio

Re: About using Firefox extensions on Pale Moon (discussion)

Post by __NM64__ » 2020-08-28, 03:58

Question about the unstable development builds of Pale Moon as of this post (v29.0.0a6).


I humored myself by downloading portable v29.0.0a6 and copying in my user profile from Pale Moon v28.12 0 to see if any of the traditional Firefox-targeting XUL extensions that I use would be disabled or the like, and it doesn't look like it does so despite v29 currently using a label in the Add-ons Manager saying "[extension name] is incompatible with Pale Moon 29.0.0a6".

So I'm kind of confused because the labeling suggests to me that the extension should straight-up either not work or get automatically disabled, and yet it still seemed to function and remain enabled. (I can understand that some extensions may very well bork out, but the two relatively simple ones I tested did not bork out).

Are unstable dev builds by chance not set to disable traditional Firefox-targeting XUL extensions, and that the final version stable v29 will in fact disable them in the way that traditional Firefox-targeted XUL themes are already disabled in current stable Pale Moon? Or is the wording of the label meant to be nothing more than a more blatant "you're on your own if this extension doesn't work" kind of thing?

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 29276
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Tranås, SE
Contact:

Re: About using Firefox extensions on Pale Moon (discussion)

Post by Moonchild » 2020-08-28, 05:33

They should be outright disabled in the latest unstable. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean they will be immediately whenever v29 is released, but we are working on making this change work as-intended for which the unstable is, of course, the designated testing ground. It doesn't seem to work entirely as-intended yet.
"Son, in life you do not fight battles because you expect to win, you fight them merely because they need to be fought." -- Snagglepuss
Image

User avatar
Andrew Herbert
Fanatic
Fanatic
Posts: 165
Joined: 2019-11-25, 21:46

Re: About using Firefox extensions on Pale Moon (discussion)

Post by Andrew Herbert » 2020-09-05, 14:19

Aren't web technologies, such as JavaScript, supposed to be backwards compatible? To remind, the latest update that broke extensions consisted of removing non-standard functions:
Removed the non-standard object.prototype.watch()/unwatch() functions. Please note that this may affect some extensions; those will need to be updated to no longer use these non-standard functions

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 8918
Joined: 2012-10-09, 19:37
Location: Seriphia Galaxy

Re: About using Firefox extensions on Pale Moon (discussion)

Post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2020-09-05, 15:12

A lot of web standards used to be yes. But that entails a commitment to legacy and as you well know.. Legacy is NOT valid anymore in today's web un-standards as presented by the Google Cartel.

It simply isn't possible to conform to the web un-standards and old true standards anymore. Especially when something overlaps. This is totally by design. A design of chaos.

Maybe if JS had a runtime target to specify version of a standard but it doesn't and wouldn't work anyway going forward with these living un-standards.
How far are you prepared to go? How much are you prepared to risk? How many people are you prepared to sacrifice for victory?
Are you willing to die friendless, alone, deserted by everyone? Because that's what may be required of you in the war that is to come.

Image

Post Reply