Idea for a new browser product

[Lucio Chiappetti]

about advertising was anybody aware of this site ? http://pale-moon.software.informer.com/

[dark_moon]

Thanks. I vote on that site.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

My only nit is with CharmCityCrab's post is the liberal use of the word Firefox when it should be Mozilla (maybe at this point they should just rename them selves to Firefox inc.). I don't fault for that perse though as MozCo has lied and abstracted and treated the whole codebase as soley theirs for Firefox's benefit only (which it is but also is supposed to be community's too.. see: Corporate Abuse of Open Source for more). Just keep in mind the Mozilla (and mozilla-like codebases that we use) are a platform from which MANY projects/products can be built from.

Firefox (/browser)
Firefox for Android (/mobile/android)
Firefox OS (/b2g)
The infinitely useful stub xulrunner (/xulrunner)

And things that were kicked out but still build on that platform code just the same
Thunderbird or FossaMail for us ([comm]/mail, [comm]/mailnews, [comm]/chat, [comm]/calendar)
SeaMoneky ([comm]/suite, [comm]/mailnews, [comm]/editor/ui, [comm]/calendar)
InstantBird ([comm]/im, [comm]/chat)

As well as things that are no longer or never where apart of mozilla-central or comm-central
Standalone Composer (wysiwyg html editors like Blue Griffin and Kompozer)
Standalone Calendar (Sunbird which used shared code with the Lightning extension)
A Multimedia Player (Originally Songbird but forked and stalled as Nightingale)
--and much much more.

What the end result program is, is what application specific code gets compiled says it is (platform code is compiled regardless). Just as multiple (and totally different) applications can be built on top of the same platform code we intend to bring our application specific code (with it's non-australis UI and unique features and everything else) forward and build that on the new modified platform code. (Now when we make platform changes I make it my personal mission that it doesn't potentially hinder anything else from being built as it is at it's nature shared platform code that is useful for anything you can imagine).

There are so many possibilities with such a codebase and our intended new target codebase is still capable of all this plus, after we are done with it, everything everyone has come to expect from us specifically. One of the reasons we do this because Mozilla would and IS destroying all that because if it doesn't serve Firefox it doesn't matter. So yes, our browser is our primary product and focus but it not need end with that. Someone, anyone, can take that codebase and create something new and exciting and our continued development benefits them and their development depending on what it is they want to do can be contributed back and benefit us. That is supposed to be how it works and that IS how Mozilla USED to work. No, we aren't looking at doing dozens of projects with our codebase but that platform concept remains present and for the same reasons it produces such a powerful and versatile web browser, it can produce powerful and versatile ANYTHING and to lose that possibility, that potential would be a shame and if working on our browser and our codebase will prevent that.. Then that is just icing on the cake!

[Walter Dnes]

Here's a totally outside-the-box idea. Howsabout rebasing on, or joining, the Dillo Project http://www.dillo.org/ For an idea of where they're at, see http://www.dillo.org/Plans.html

Yes, they still lack javascript and graphical plugins. And they have ports for multiple platforms, NOT including Windows. Dillo uses the FLTK (Fast Light Tool Kit http://www.fltk.org/index.php ) open source library, which is available for Windows, Unix/Linux, and Mac OSX.

But the incomplete state may be an advantage. The Mozilla platform is humongous. The dillo-3.0.5.tar.bz2 tarball is only 717 Kbytes (YES! K! bytes). They do NOT use sqlite or whatever. Bookmarks/configs and other preferences are in text files. Ad blocking is simplified by the fact that specifying

* .doubleclick.net

in ~/.dillo/domainrc blocks "foo.doubleclick.net", "bar.doubleclick.net", "fubar.doubleclick.net", etc, etc. This is a lot simpler and faster than multi-megabyte hosts files.

IANAP... (I Am Not A Programmer) but I seriously wonder if maybe, just maybe, finishing up Dillo to Pale Moon's current level might be less work overall than refactoring and wrestling with the current Mozilla codebase for a rebasing project.

[dark_moon]

I would say this were a lot of work- maybe more then building a browser from scratch.

[Moonchild]

Dillo is not an option for us; not just because it's a completely different beast that none of our developed code can be ported to, either. It's not mature, doesn't target modern standards (they aim for HTML4.01 compliance), doesn't have even close to required CSS support, etc. etc. etc. -- using that as a base for Pale Moon would be immediately signing our death warrant because it is absolutely not what anyone in our user base would expect or is looking for in a browser.
I do, however, support their efforts and if you like their browser, then I'd rather see you support their efforts directly (instead of asking to make another variant of it and splintering it up).

[Trippynet]

Dillo is a neat tool for older computers. I use it on a couple of my SGI machines for that very reason as it's far quicker than old ported versions of Firefox and SeaMonkey on the same hardware. However, its rendering engine is very, very simplistic and is struggles with most sites as a result unless the sites are very simple.

Dillo quite simply isn't a browser you can use on a daily basis to browse all manner of websites as it's just not up to the job. To be clear, it's not intended to be so. However as Dillo and Pale Moon target two very different groups of end users, it'd be a non-starter for Pale Moon to be based upon it.

[richardboegli]

The infinitely useful stub xulrunner (/xulrunner)

the Mozilla code base is, above all, a platform for multiple types of applications. This is why SeaMonkey and Thunderbird (and FossaMail based on our Mozilla fork) as well as the framework by itself (AKA xulrunner that can run completely custom applications) have existed and can exist.

XULRunner I think could be an additional way to attract more users and developers to this new browser, as there are a number of projects that have potentially been affected by Mozilla depreciating XULRunner in July 2015.

From wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XUL#XUL_applications

Other applications using XUL include:

• The Ample SDK open-source GUI framework provides a cross-browser implementation of XUL in JavaScript.
• The ActiveState Komodo IDE uses XUL as well as the Open Komodo project announced in 2007.
• The Nightingale and Songbird music-players and Miro video-player all use built-in XUL.
• The Elixon WCMS/XUL Content management system uses exclusively remote XUL, thus overcoming some of the aforementioned limits of remote unprivileged XUL documents.
• The developers of the Celtx media pre-production application used XUL.
• The Flickr Uploader was built using XUL, and source code is available under GPLv2.[8]
• Kiwix, the offline Wikipedia-viewer
• BlueGriffon is a WYSIWYG HTML-Editor based on Gecko, XUL and Javascript

EDIT: But I assume this has already crossed your minds...

[LimboSlam]

Well speaking of other browser to potentially merge with or base/fork-off, how about K-Meleon and SeaMonkey? They seem to be inline with our path with being fully customizable in toolbars (add-on bars, menu bars, bookmark bars, etc, etc) menus, context menus and keyboard shortcuts. They also have their own set of themes and add-ons/extensions. Now this is with all keeping up with W3C standards, though they do follow the Firefox code base pretty closely, soooooo?

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Ok.. this is getting out of hand.

The new browser is simply going to be based on our own code and some updated platform code. Ok, got it? Good.

Enough with the alt engines alt projects.

[Moonraker]

Thanks matt.
your reply seems to indicate that this new browser project is not just merely an idea but is actually going to become a reality.

Thats good news.

[Moonchild]

your reply seems to indicate that this new browser project is not just merely an idea but is actually going to become a reality.

It is the plan. There's not enough backing at the moment to use the current code and get the roadblocks with it taken care of.
Preliminary tests on the intended base are also promising, although we're obviously nowhere near a prototype yet.

[Walter Dnes]

Preliminary tests on the intended base are also promising, although we're obviously nowhere near a prototype yet.

Apparently the Mozilla folks are looking at dumping gstreamer. I'm not sure what their replacement is. One idea mentioned in gstreamer discussions was to dump gstreamer entirely, and have Pale Moon feed video+audio directly to ffmpeg. If you're going to "re-boot" Pale Moon, maybe this would be the time to go over to ffmpeg.

[C1xLb]

There's not enough backing at the moment to use the current code and get the roadblocks with it taken care of.
Preliminary tests on the intended base are also promising, although we're obviously nowhere near a prototype yet.

Great stuff - very encouraging. Building a new product is a great idea given the recent developments shared in the thread and given the progress Steve Pusser has made in creating repositories for Ubuntu and Debian, I think this lays more ground work in getting more people involved in PM, at least from the Linux side of things...

[Scratchy123]

I'm a new user, because I was not satisfied anymore with FF on my old Linux PC.
I came to Palemoon after having done any possible optimization on FF and still not getting it less hungry in memory.
My focus was not on the UI (Australis or not) and I don't think most of users know about it. But to know there is a light browser based on Firefox was definitely an entry point.

And, when looking at that, I've found Light and Palemoon.
I Kept Palemoon because it is less hungry in memory when using many tabs.
But both share the idea of strimming down Firefox.

And that makes me think about LXDE evolvement: it was stuck on GTK2 and decided to go with Qt and they're nealry there now. Why? Because they merged with RazorQt team.

My question is: would'nt be interesting to talk to Light dev team to see if such a future is possible. It would mean more manpower, but both would have to make compromises. However, you will have only one, and more identifiable browser for people to know of.

Apart from that, here are some remarks:
- I don't think Sync should be mandatory (couldn't be an addon?). I've never used it in years... and it's not included in Light either
- I use developer tools, however this could also be optional. Or dev people could only rely on extensions like Firebug. FF also offers developer edition
- apart from the UI, don't forget that many people chose Palemoon because it uses less memory. However, there is still room for improvements this should be kept in mind
- are your thoughts about PPAPI the same than FF folks? I'm stuck with Flash 11.2 and sadly some website still uses it. And shumway seems getting nowhere ?
- last but not least: we need a browser with a clear marketing difference from others so people can talk about it.
I think there is also room for improvement in making it to the mass: e.g. make it available easily in most software centers, etc.

[DawnFalcon]

Okay, please bear me since I don't have time to read the entire thread - I do promise this isn't a "rebase on something else" idea though;

From an end user perspective, I do see this as simply a major version change.
Although, yes, we really start needing to use an issue tracker - this could be as simple as making the "report a bug" "forum" link direct to github's one for the project
(And maybe use trello for roadmapping? hmm)

(I'm fairly technically adept but a game designer rather than a coder. You don't want me near a *coding* language (trust me - my being "helpful" on one small project got my access to change the project code (as opposed to script) revoked ))

However - There's an ecosystem out there which is about to find itself orphaned by Mozilla. By which I mean the addon community. Please consider reaching out to major addons where the functionality is simply going to be lost - the major and critical one for me is NoScript, for instance, and working with them. (Noscript or it's equivalent for me is basically mandatory for me given bad adverts reaching major networks - without that, I'm going to end up running my browser in a VM...)

Oh, and yes, I'd pay towards a kickstarter or other crowdfunding project if you started one.

(Other reasons I use Pale Moon other than addons - speed, UI (I HATE Chrome's UI, and don't like Australis either, although I was on PM before Firefox went there anyway), memory usage is far lower (admittedly now I have 16GB RAM no longer an issue, but...), Mozilla seem to have gone nuts and refuse to admit things are going wrong while their userbase shrinks away)

edit; Oh and as a note, how about a special useragent code which does "say I'm always the latest version of firefox"?

[Shadeclan]

I've read the whole thread - I've been using PaleMoon since the Australis travesty. Where apps in general and browsers in particular are concerned, I like to have things in a certain place where I can easily find them, so I was very upset when my carefully crafted interface was completely destroyed by the Australis upgrade and I would have had to rebuild it completely if I hadn't found PaleMoon - your browser was truly a godsend. I'm also a heavy add-on user. Several of my favorite add-ons have been abandoned because of Mozilla's update schedule and apparent sociopathic need for total control over everything. PaleMoon runs everything for me, even the add-on "Live Gold", which has been abandoned since 2011.

I am a programmer by trade. My main expertise is Oracle PL/SQL (where I'm quite familiar with the concept of "overloading"). My favorite code to write is back-end stuff that nobody sees but everybody depends on . I have coding experience in languages as diverse as HTML/CSS/JavaScript, VB6, Postscript, JCL, etc. Unfortunately, no experience with "C" of any flavor, although I have always wanted to learn it. No access to the Microsoft IDE you mentioned either, as all my "expensive" tools are provided for by my employer - I'd have to pick up my own copy or send code changes to you for compilation.

Although I would like to see compatibility maintained with existing add-ons, I understand the issues. I assume that nearly all currently existing add-ons will eventually be abandoned with the decline and imminent demise of Firefox - judging from what I've read in this thread, add-ons for browsers using some of these other web parsers can only be implemented in a very crude manner - that makes PaleMoon the biggest game in town as far as add-ons are concerned.

I think that the biggest issue is getting more exposure for PaleMoon. Take a leaf from Microsoft's playbook - in the beginning, other graphical OS's ran circles around Windows but they advertized like crazy and everyone bought it and developed for it. If you wish to attract more users and programmers to the project, you're gonna have to advertize a lot more than you have been. This is where crowd-sourcing and other means of revenue may help. PaleMoon is a superior browser - it just needs more exposure.

Whether you fix the existing code or adopt a more recent Firefox code base, I would be happy to help with PaleMoon development, although I currently have no time to devote to the project - an issue which I'm sure many people have in the current economic client. May I contact you in a few months about helping out?

[DawnFalcon]

No access to the Microsoft IDE you mentioned either, as all my "expensive" tools are provided for by my employer - I'd have to pick up my own copy or send code changes to you for compilation.

That's not actually an issue - the free versions of Visual Studio are sufficient (with some additional free downloads).

[van p]

The Waterfox forum is having a (so far) minor discussion about the future of that browser. In a thread called Will Waterfox "pull a Pale Moon"?, the Waterfox developer says:

One of my fears though is that remaining on the last possible XUL build will be like trying to keep a sinking ship afloat. Sure it's great if the platform that is loved is still around...but how many people will really develop for it? And after a while it'll end up a bit like Palemoon where it'll lag severely on various web sandards, which in a web that is evolving rapidly more than ever before. IT would be a severely crippling user experience, More so than having a deprecated platform being maintained.

I'm not a technical person and therefore not really qualified to comment on this quote, but since it's about what this thread is about and it mentions Pale Moon, I figured it might elicit some meaningful comments from those of you who are technically knowledgeable.

[richardboegli]

The Waterfox forum is having a (so far) minor discussion about the future of that browser. In a thread called Will Waterfox "pull a Pale Moon"?, the Waterfox developer says:

One of my fears though is that remaining on the last possible XUL build will be like trying to keep a sinking ship afloat. Sure it's great if the platform that is loved is still around...but how many people will really develop for it? And after a while it'll end up a bit like Palemoon where it'll lag severely on various web sandards, which in a web that is evolving rapidly more than ever before. IT would be a severely crippling user experience, More so than having a deprecated platform being maintained.

For those who want to follow the conversation:
Link to subbreddit thread: Will Waterfox "pull a Pale Moon"?:
Link to quoted post