A change of direction for Pale Moon in 2022

Talk about code development, features, specific bugs, enhancements, patches, and similar things.
Forum rules
Please keep everything here strictly on-topic.
This board is meant for Pale Moon source code development related subjects only like code snippets, patches, specific bugs, git, the repositories, etc.

This is not for tech support! Please do not post tech support questions in the "Development" board!
Please make sure not to use this board for support questions. Please post issues with specific websites, extensions, etc. in the relevant boards for those topics.

Please keep things on-topic as this forum will be used for reference for Pale Moon development. Expect topics that aren't relevant as such to be moved or deleted.
User avatar
Drugwash
Fanatic
Fanatic
Posts: 216
Joined: 2016-01-28, 12:08
Location: Ploieşti, Romania
Contact:

Re: A change of direction for Pale Moon in 2022

Unread post by Drugwash » 2021-12-16, 16:13

There are a few things that I thought should be spelled out:

- people don't need the add-ons/extensions per se - they need the functions provided by those add-ons/extensions they chose. Even though some/many may feel connected to certain names, aspect and other particularities of their installed - let's call them - extras due to a (very) long usage time, having more or less direct replacements for the same functions should/would eventually allow them to get accustomed to newer extras if old and existing ones become unusable or unfeasible. Thing is, there should be a database available with most/all needed functions so that new extras could be created - or old ones modified - in a way that functions would not be unnecessarily duplicated in countless different and yet too similar extras. Currently there are too many redundant extras that perform same or very similar functions.

- the requirement for creating or modifying extras and maintaining them indefinitely is probably one of the reasons capable people are getting put off. Especially in these uncertain times very few people can afford to take on such responsibility. To use myself as an example, I was able years ago to fix YARIP and many other add-ons in order to make them PM-compatible, be it by merely adding the GUID to the RDF or other changes too, but couldn't take responsibility for maintaining them because I never had the certainty of the next day; currently there are a couple of people on the web that send me food and pay my bills because I can't sustain myself - what if I publish those things and in a week or a month I starve to death?
So if you loosen a little those requirements and maybe provide means for allowing alternate maintainers or whatever other useful ideas, at least some people may dare publish new/modified extras specifically tailored for Pale Moon.

- the licence issue has always driven me crazy. If it were for me everything in the world would be completely free. That being too utopian though even for free-spirited people, let me get to the one point I cannot agree with, namely work bearing no licence whatsoever being forbidden from modifying and republishing. I consider this a huge mistake for a simple reason: if one really really cared about the path of their work and really really wanted to get any recognition and/or material advantages from it, they should unequivocably make it clear beyond any doubt anywhere within their work; that is, place very visible licence information in any reasonable form. When such licence is missing, it should be assumed the said work has been placed in the public domain or whatever it may be called when the author doesn't give a rat's ass on what happens with their work after it's been released publicly.
In case the work had a licence and has subsequently been altered by previous third parties, a simple proof that it has been received that way - without licence information, that is - should be enough to exempt the user or republisher, in case the author reclaims any rights. Otherwise perfectly good, usable pieces of code that may have been created especially for the benefit of the many could be "killed" by excessive fear. Something that did happen here as I understand it.

- let's compare barenaked browsers: what does each of them offer to the user, what would the main criteria be for the user to choose one over the other(s)?
1. compatibility with most if not all websites, very old and very new altogether
2. handy functions to assist in daily online activities
3. security and protection against malevolent actions
Now, how does a bare Pale Moon currently fare against all other, also bare, browsers? Some of them have ad-blockers built-in and enabled by default, some have strict(er) security settings, some have additional useful functions built-in and so on. The more advanced ones are much more web-compatible than PM. So what does PM currently have to at least attempt to balance the situation? Extras - that is add-ons and extensions. Which can only provide useful functions as per #2 and to certain degree additional security and protection as per #3 above.
Unfortunately #1 still remains a problem, and for a certain number of users this could well be a major problem. Some of them mentioned the use of alternative browsers for the places where PM fails, but that is not an acceptable solution in a long term.

So my belief is that web compatibility should be the main concern for the immediate future, together with a possible relaxation of add-ons/extensions publishing requirements. Please feel free to disregard all my ramblings above if you consider my reasoning as being wrong.

User avatar
fretless
Moongazer
Moongazer
Posts: 7
Joined: 2014-06-14, 22:11
Location: New York State, US

Re: A change of direction for Pale Moon in 2022

Unread post by fretless » 2021-12-16, 20:00

Hmm, lots of drama, as usual. For my part, assuming anybody cares, I agree with Tobin. This change appears to be driven in large part by a bunch of whining imbeciles that haven't bothered to pay attention to the clearly stated goals and direction of the browser they themselves chose to use, then cry bloody murder because some extension that's been abandoned and obsolete for 10+ years stops working.

I've been a Pale Moon user for more years than I can remember because it looks and works the way I like. Over that time I've had to replace or abandon old extensions when they stopped functioning. In every case, I either found something better or, more frequently, found that the native functionality of the browser was adequate for my needs (most recently the latter for NoSquint). I have no sympathy for people who bitch and whine and complain about software they get to use for free.

Anyway, that's my two cents worth. And as long as you don't dumb it down to be yet another chrome-zilla abomination, I'm still on board.

User avatar
Cassette
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 395
Joined: 2015-05-08, 14:30
Location: Wichita, KS

Re: A change of direction for Pale Moon in 2022

Unread post by Cassette » 2021-12-16, 21:42

Although this isn't the direction I would choose, I agree with backing off on the forced breakage of extensions. It does little more than give Tobin a chance to rub his hands together and celebrate unhappy users. The browser is already having issues displaying many popular websites; if you went on to break nearly every legacy extension with the unnecessary manifest format change, how would that benefit the user base other than make them more "pure"? So, good move backing off on that stuff.

That said I don't think this is the best direction based on how things are going with development and I wish I could have argued my case in the poll. Web compatibility is an issue and it's only getting worse. I personally have switched to Firefox ESR because of it and I think there's interesting possibilities with Pale Moon rebasing on Firefox ESR. It would solve the issue of constantly trying to work in new web standards that are difficult to implement and instead focus on improving the Firefox experience. Give user choice back like re-enable NPAPI plugin support, tab on top/bottom option in the menu so CSS tricks aren't required, reimplement a functional status bar, and etc. Instead of trying to make your own browser which is a massive undertaking, improve one that already exists and basing on ESR would make that process easier. Yes, XUL extensions would be gone and that sucks, but we seem to have to choose between a web that works, and using our preferred extensions. But, alas, that's not the way it's going and that's fine. If web components can be worked out, it'll be alright, but if they cant....

User avatar
bukvatykev
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: 2021-05-06, 21:15

Re: A change of direction for Pale Moon in 2022

Unread post by bukvatykev » 2021-12-16, 21:44

Moonchild wrote:
2021-12-16, 06:55
... Then you should also include the decision about WebExtensions that was a hard choice you gave me, if you recall. I wouldn't call that particular even a collective decision, but a compromise.
So there was a talk about implementing WebExtensions support in the past? Is there a chance to reconsider in the future? As you've said the extensions development targeting Pale Moon is not as successful as most of us hoped and legacy FF extension library is frozen in time. For these reasons I'd think the WebExtension support would greatly expand customization of Pale Moon. It is just a high level view though, I have no idea if there is major technical limitation for this or how difficult it would be.

Anyway I'm very happy with the decision and the new direction. I've been using Pale Moon as my main browser since FF move to Australis and I'd like to continue to do so.

Michaell
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 282
Joined: 2018-05-26, 18:13

Re: A change of direction for Pale Moon in 2022

Unread post by Michaell » 2021-12-16, 21:56

He was likely referring to removing the limited support for web extensions in Basilisk that it inherited from forking. It wasn't fully developed so likely to confuse users.
Win10home(1709), PM33.0.0-portable as of Feb 1, '24

Sablesword
Hobby Astronomer
Hobby Astronomer
Posts: 18
Joined: 2017-04-01, 06:50

Re: A change of direction for Pale Moon in 2022

Unread post by Sablesword » 2021-12-16, 22:32

Moonchild wrote:
2021-12-16, 12:25
thousands of regular Firefox users had no problem creating and maintaining the extensions that were created, many of them from scratch.
Those were not regular Firefox users who created the extensions. Those were an elite few percent of Firefox users - thousands, yes, but out of hundreds of thousands of users. They were those Firefox users who were, as you put it in another thread, "wizards of coding." They were people who had day jobs as programmers and/or who had various other open-source projects in addition to Firefox extensions.

For example, EbonJaeger, who was the maintainer of the NoSquint fork for Pale Moon, has another 46 repositories on Github. A "regular Firefox user" (or regular Pale Moon user) would not have any projects there.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35403
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: A change of direction for Pale Moon in 2022

Unread post by Moonchild » 2021-12-16, 22:53

bukvatykev wrote:
2021-12-16, 21:44
So there was a talk about implementing WebExtensions support in the past? Is there a chance to reconsider in the future?
When we uplifted to the ESR52 base we had basic WE support for what was available in WE APIs back then. But that ship has long, long since sailed and no, there is no way in any circumstance that we can bring that back, and update it with the things WEs expect now. Besides, it's likely incompatible with our front-end anyway. A choice was made to drop them and not the xul extensions. We inherited that in the end when Firefox dropped all support for xul extensibility.
fretless wrote:
2021-12-16, 20:00
Hmm, lots of drama, as usual. For my part, assuming anybody cares, I agree with Tobin. This change appears to be driven in large part by a bunch of whining imbeciles that haven't bothered to pay attention to the clearly stated goals and direction of the browser they themselves chose to use, then cry bloody murder because some extension that's been abandoned and obsolete for 10+ years stops working.
In the end, 40% of all users didn't care about the goals set, only that the direction was away from what they wanted. I cannot ignore that. So you call that drama? You agree with Tobin that all those users are fucking morons? heh. :think:
Drugwash wrote:
2021-12-16, 16:13
- people don't need the add-ons/extensions per se - they need the functions provided by those add-ons/extensions they chose.
And how, pray tell, would those functions be supplied to the users if not through extensions? Shove everything in the core and make sure nobody can ever hope to maintain it? The whole point of Pale Moon is that the core remains fairly slim and extensions provide the power to the user to make it theirs, in their way.
Sablesword wrote:
2021-12-16, 22:32
Those were not regular Firefox users who created the extensions.
Most bloody well were! How do you think even EbonJaeger started? By making their first extension... all those repositories didn't just sudden;ly appear in their account, maybe they -became- a good programmer -because- of working on extensions, ever stop to think about that? Plenty of them were made by regular users. Not all of course. some smart programmers and some companies surely chipped in but the vast majority? Regular users.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

User avatar
Drugwash
Fanatic
Fanatic
Posts: 216
Joined: 2016-01-28, 12:08
Location: Ploieşti, Romania
Contact:

Re: A change of direction for Pale Moon in 2022

Unread post by Drugwash » 2021-12-16, 23:54

Moonchild wrote:
2021-12-16, 22:53
Drugwash wrote:
2021-12-16, 16:13
- people don't need the add-ons/extensions per se - they need the functions provided by those add-ons/extensions they chose.
And how, pray tell, would those functions be supplied to the users if not through extensions? Shove everything in the core and make sure nobody can ever hope to maintain it? The whole point of Pale Moon is that the core remains fairly slim and extensions provide the power to the user to make it theirs, in their way.
Not necessarily bloating the core with everything, but there may be certain select functions that could benefit from a closer relationship with the core dev(s) - those that could easily break the entire application if implemented wrongly or incompletely by some amateur coder.
However, my point was that users don't necessarily care about what extensions' names are, or how their button icons look like, or how their settings panel - if any - is designed and so on - they care mostly about the actual functions available through those extensions, their effectiveness, the user-friendliness of reaching those functions and any settings that may require tweaking. Cleverly designed extensions could allow various related (or not) functions grouped together instead of a myriad of single-function extensions that would clutter the Addons Manager and confuse the hell out of the user. I know there are pros and cons to complex extensions, that's why I mentioned cleverly designed - which means functions could be enabled/disabled separately without interfering with each other if not directly related, and their code would be modular internally.

Think Total Commander if you will. It's been around in the Windows world for more than 20 years. It allows plug-ins separated by categories, which greatly enhance its utility, but it still has certain select functions - such as the multi-rename tool, comparison by content and so on - which are integral part of the core. And as much as the OS changes, old plug-ins still work, even ANSI ones, if one is satisfied with their existing functions. It also ships in 32bit and 64bit versions. First thing one sees right under its homepage header (at the time of typing this) is:
Total Commander, Version 10.00, is a Shareware file manager for Windows® 95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP/Vista/7/8/8.1/10/11, and Windows® 3.1.
(emphasis mine)
There are differences and there are similarities between the PM and TC projects, won't get into that now. Idea is to think long and hard, again, and consider how the PM project can achieve longevity, user base, positive notoriety etc similar to TC (or any other project worthy of comparison to).

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35403
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: A change of direction for Pale Moon in 2022

Unread post by Moonchild » 2021-12-17, 00:13

Drugwash wrote:
2021-12-16, 23:54
There are differences and there are similarities between the PM and TC projects,
Apples and oranges comparison. You cannot compare a tool that acts on local file systems and has plenty of utility for archaic OSes with a web browser that will only facilitate unsafe use of known vulnerable OSes past their time on the (hostile) internet. Not that that has been the one reason to drop support for it (there was no one reason) but certainly by now it has become a pretty big factor to consider.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

User avatar
moonbat
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4942
Joined: 2015-12-09, 15:45
Contact:

Re: A change of direction for Pale Moon in 2022

Unread post by moonbat » 2021-12-17, 00:15

Drugwash wrote:
2021-12-16, 23:54
users don't necessarily care about what extensions' names are, or how their button icons look like, or how their settings panel - if any - is designed and so on - they care mostly about the actual functions available through those extensions, their effectiveness, the user-friendliness of reaching those functions and any settings that may require tweaking.
What are you basing this on? Users who go looking for extensions are precisely the sort who want fine control over their experience instead of what is generically provided out of the box. The vast majority of users are not like this and are very well served by Chromezilla where features are stuffed into the browser core. And a shoddily designed extension isn't going to make things better for them. All of mine for instance provide keyboard mnemonics for their preference pane options where present, because it is a decades old desktop convention that your UI should be usable both with and without a mouse.

Total Commander isn't a valid comparison with a web browser that has to deal with the brave new world of no standards and draft features being introduced every other week. The set of tasks for managing a file system is pretty much fixed and static compared to keeping up with an ever changing web. And as Moonchild has now said - there's a difference between running a dead OS like XP in a virtual machine isolated from any network because of some irreplaceable legacy application vs using it as a daily driver on the current internet.
"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

Sablesword
Hobby Astronomer
Hobby Astronomer
Posts: 18
Joined: 2017-04-01, 06:50

Re: A change of direction for Pale Moon in 2022

Unread post by Sablesword » 2021-12-17, 00:57

Moonchild wrote:
2021-12-16, 22:53
Sablesword wrote:
2021-12-16, 22:32
Those were not regular Firefox users who created the extensions.
Most bloody well were! How do you think even EbonJaeger started? By making their first extension... all those repositories didn't just sudden;ly appear in their account, maybe they -became- a good programmer -because- of working on extensions, ever stop to think about that? Plenty of them were made by regular users. Not all of course. some smart programmers and some companies surely chipped in but the vast majority? Regular users.
How I think EbonJaeger started was by already being a good, experienced coder before he tackled his first extension. He had those other 40-odd repositories up there before he forked NoSquint.

Likewise with other Firefox extensions. Not all of course, some novices surely tackled a Firefox extension as their very first coding project. But the vast majority? Already experienced coders.

User avatar
moonbat
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4942
Joined: 2015-12-09, 15:45
Contact:

Re: A change of direction for Pale Moon in 2022

Unread post by moonbat » 2021-12-17, 02:35

Sablesword wrote:
2021-12-17, 00:57
some novices surely tackled a Firefox extension as their very first coding project
As several right here on this forum have, for Pale Moon. But of course it's easier to just sit back and say it can't be done or expect the browser dev team that is already stressed for time implementing core features to take on maintaining extensions as well.

In my view, Pale Moon shouldn't make the same mistake that Mozilla did by going after the unwashed masses or prioritizing them. They already have ChromeZilla variants to cater to them, as of now there is no other browser left that caters to power users who like to tweak and customize their browser and aren't afraid to get into coding for it as required.
"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
Figueroa
Moonbather
Moonbather
Posts: 73
Joined: 2021-04-06, 18:32

Re: A change of direction for Pale Moon in 2022

Unread post by Figueroa » 2021-12-17, 03:59

First, let me thank all of the Pale Moon developers. I hope to continue to use the browser as my main browser for as long as possible.

I am happy to hear that Pale Moon will continue to support a robust extension environment. This was the best part of the announcement to my eyes. Although being able to just install a legacy Firefox extension is simpler, editing it with the Pale Moon guid is not a major inconvenience, so Pale Moon still looked like the best choice in a browser for me. But, simpler to install and use extensions is even better.

User avatar
gepus
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 933
Joined: 2017-12-14, 12:59

Re: A change of direction for Pale Moon in 2022

Unread post by gepus » 2021-12-17, 09:12

fretless wrote:
2021-12-16, 20:00
This change appears to be driven in large part by a bunch of whining imbeciles ...

What you call "whinning imbecils" makes at least 50% of the user base which is very small anyway. Think about it!
fretless wrote:
2021-12-16, 20:00
Over that time I've had to replace or abandon old extensions when they stopped functioning.

Since I use Pale Moon a single extension stopped functioning until I hacked it locally (and no it wasn't because of the GUID).
However there are some extensions out there (I never used) which I wouldn't be able to simply hack locally.
As for a huge part of the user base changing or adding a GUID alone is already a huge challenge.
fretless wrote:
2021-12-16, 20:00
I have no sympathy for people who bitch and whine and complain about software they get to use for free.

This is not about personal perceptions. Do you think it would have been better for the project if instead of "bitch and whine and complain" people would have dumped the browser quietly?

User avatar
gepus
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 933
Joined: 2017-12-14, 12:59

Re: A change of direction for Pale Moon in 2022

Unread post by gepus » 2021-12-17, 09:19

Cassette wrote:
2021-12-16, 21:42
... and basing on ESR would make that process easier.
There is already Firefox ESR or even an ESR flavor without telemetry.
What incentive to use another ESR based Pale Moon? A browser icon change?

User avatar
gepus
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 933
Joined: 2017-12-14, 12:59

Re: A change of direction for Pale Moon in 2022

Unread post by gepus » 2021-12-17, 09:23

moonbat wrote:
2021-12-17, 02:35
In my view, Pale Moon shouldn't make the same mistake that Mozilla did by going after the unwashed masses or prioritizing them.
Mozilla did not go "after the unwashed masses" but for Google's $$$ and as a result steadily lost users. Market share: 2010-32%, 2021-8,35%.

User avatar
Cassette
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 395
Joined: 2015-05-08, 14:30
Location: Wichita, KS

Re: A change of direction for Pale Moon in 2022

Unread post by Cassette » 2021-12-17, 09:46

gepus wrote:
2021-12-17, 09:19
There is already Firefox ESR or even an ESR flavor without telemetry.
What incentive to use another ESR based Pale Moon? A browser icon change?
I explain it in my post. Read the whole thing. It isn't long.

User avatar
gepus
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 933
Joined: 2017-12-14, 12:59

Re: A change of direction for Pale Moon in 2022

Unread post by gepus » 2021-12-17, 10:30

Cassette wrote:
2021-12-17, 09:46
I explain it in my post. Read the whole thing. It isn't long.
I did read the whole thing. :)
Except for NPAPI plugin support (I personally have no use for) some minor cosmetic changes you can achieve through CSS so far.
As for the status bar it works for me the same way I configured Pale Moon to work (hidden, visible only when hovering over a link or when establishing a new connection).

User avatar
m3city
New to the forum
New to the forum
Posts: 2
Joined: 2021-12-17, 11:58

Re: A change of direction for Pale Moon in 2022

Unread post by m3city » 2021-12-17, 12:43

Hi,

I was a long time PM user, never contributed in any way so I guess my 2 cents may be disregarded. But still, after reading the discussion I felt compelled to add one. TLDR: I applaud the efforts to keep PM alive and the change of direction as well.

What I loved about the browser that it worked. It was on par with FF but different. I didn't care about UI changes that much, except tab bar position (it's simply counter intuitive and non ergonomic in FF). But when FF quantum was released, I noticed that it was simply more responsive than PM. And then my bank's web page stopped working complaining about obsolete browser. So.. I switched. Compability with web is a must, regardless if these are sane standards or corporate driven standards (vide Google). One browser should satisfy all the needs and in rare cases where it doesn't - just fire up Edge and be over it for this one time.

I don't understand gripping to old way of extensions. As time has shown, webext got embraced, some extensions died, some adjusted and some replaced. I feel that holding onto legacy extensions is the most user base narrowing factor, you simply cant grow with that. And growing userbase should be one the aims of a projects anyway. I read Mr Straver's comment that webextensions cant be implemented, and yet I need to ask - why? That one change exposes PM to all users that feel uncomfortable with FF. There is just one extension that needs to work, a holy grail of internet - uBlock origin. It will become dead for PM at one point when Mr gorhill decides so, and no one will be competent enough to pick it up for real just for one browser.

When it comes to privacy and protection from malware/exploits - I don't really know what to think of Palemoon. It's not reviewed, compared among FF and Chrome - biased or not, it's just out of question, and I get the reason why. I can't find out how PM cares for that based on project info, rumour control article etc. But I see what mozilla is bragging about: first party isolation, containers, tracking/fingerprinting protection (the latter being exaggerated based on reports who actually does it), separation of cookie jars, recent site isolation... I do believe that these bring benefits, and I have no idea what does PM have? Does it "leak" stuff between spying pages? Or do I have to add extensions? Saying that PM wants to be different is not enough for me and available description does not answer that questions for me.

So, just to sum up:
- good luck. I will always applaud such changes, where developer looks objectively for the future, sees faults and misconceptions, great wins and lucky decisions
- I'm reinstalling PM this evening to get used to it after a 3 year brake
- I need more info how good this browser is compared to FF. I will believe what I read - from three reliable for me sources: this page, mozilla corporation (NB read between lines, omit marketing stuff) and ghacks.net (including comments - due to diversity, maturity - however there is crap as well).

User avatar
distantpluto
Fanatic
Fanatic
Posts: 115
Joined: 2015-12-17, 18:28
Location: UK

Re: A change of direction for Pale Moon in 2022

Unread post by distantpluto » 2021-12-17, 13:20

I missed the poll but I would have voted to continue as planned. I use a number of extensions but can manage without them (i.e. NoSquint) if required but understand this is more important to others.

I've used Pale Moon for many years and care about genuine web standards and consider Pale Moon an oasis in the Google dominated mess the current internet has become. Because of this I can cope with misbehaving sites and will generally just find another or fire up Firefox when I have no choice (i.e. my bank has one "continue" type button on the whole site that only works in Firefox, the rest is fine in PM but it's a functional deal breaker).

However, "breakage" like this drives my Wife mad and I take the flak. Badly coded or Google dependent web sites are no fault of PM, obviously, and playing whack-a-mole must be an absolute nightmare. I realise this is a very hard job and a lot of work, I really do. This "compatibility" unfortunately is the area that needs most attention, IMO. How realistic this is I don't know.

I very much appreciate all the work everyone puts in, especially Moonchild. I shall be making another donation as a thank you, PM is essential for me.
Pale Moon and Epyrus on Arch Linux.

Locked