Few problems with Basilisk

Board for discussions around the Basilisk web browser.

Moderator: Basilisk-Dev

User avatar
Basilisk Hunter
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: 2022-10-04, 23:41

Few problems with Basilisk

Unread post by Basilisk Hunter » 2022-10-05, 01:30

First of all I'd like to thank you for continuing Basilisk development. Now onto the problems.

1) I've updated to v2022.09.28 and it broke Zoho Mail.
After log-in Zoho Mail goes into infinite loading loop, so I had to downgrade to the v2022.08.06 for now (works fine with it).

2) Popup in anti-spam allow/block lists of Zoho Mail goes below the header of the list:
Image
Haven't tested it with the new v2022.09.28 for obvious reason above^.

3) Performance issues with Google sites and a few major problems:
3.1) Google Drive is mostly unusable. It'll put "A place for all of your files" garbage on top, which can technically be removed with dev tools, but the files/folders will be unclickable, so practically unusable.
It has broken before you took the development, but some time before that Basilisk was working fine with it, although noticeably slower than any of the "big browser" (including Firefox).
3.2) YouTube is mostly OK, but...it has a lot of performance problems and minor issues. Some of the easily replicable:
-Struggling with Livestream chat, especially if the comments go very fast. Try any of the "big browser" family and compare the responsiveness and CPU usage.
-Studio has some problem with webcomponents-all-noPatch script, which simply refuses to load at all.

I understand that it'll take you a while to fix all of that, thanks for trying to keep this browser alive and have fun :thumbup: :lol:

User avatar
Basilisk-Dev
Moonbather
Moonbather
Posts: 59
Joined: 2022-03-23, 16:41

Re: Few problems with Basilisk

Unread post by Basilisk-Dev » 2022-10-11, 22:14

Unfortunately I can't help with the YouTube issues but I can help with the other two.

The Zoho issue is related to a user agent override change in the current release of Basilisk. This will be fixed in the next release.

The Google Drive issue can be fixed by installing the Palefill addon from this link. Please note that this addon works by injecting polyfills into the page and there is a possibility that the page may break again from time to time.
Basilisk Project Owner

viewtopic.php?f=61&p=230756

User avatar
Basilisk Hunter
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: 2022-10-04, 23:41

Re: Few problems with Basilisk

Unread post by Basilisk Hunter » 2022-10-12, 07:09

Basilisk-Dev wrote:
2022-10-11, 22:14
Unfortunately I can't help with the YouTube issues but I can help with the other two.

The Zoho issue is related to a user agent override change in the current release of Basilisk. This will be fixed in the next release.

The Google Drive issue can be fixed by installing the Palefill addon from this link. Please note that this addon works by injecting polyfills into the page and there is a possibility that the page may break again from time to time.
Can confirm that Palefill addon works, thanks :thumbup: consider shipping new versions of Basilisk with it included or adding one more page in the header of Basilisk website (something like troubleshooting/known issues), as I'm more than likely not the only user of Google Drive :lol:

User avatar
moonbat
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4159
Joined: 2015-12-09, 15:45
Contact:

Re: Few problems with Basilisk

Unread post by moonbat » 2022-10-12, 07:54

Basilisk Hunter wrote:
2022-10-12, 07:09
consider shipping new versions of Basilisk with it included
No need to when the extension system exists to help different people fix their own different use cases instead of forcing bloat on everyone regardless of need. This is the whole point of having a customizable browser, so that 50 different people wanting 50 different features can get them separately instead of bloating the browser core as Firefox is doing now after ditching this very system in 2017.
"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
Basilisk Hunter
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: 2022-10-04, 23:41

Re: Few problems with Basilisk

Unread post by Basilisk Hunter » 2022-10-12, 10:07

moonbat wrote:
2022-10-12, 07:54
No need to when the extension system exists to help different people fix their own different use cases instead of forcing bloat on everyone regardless of need. This is the whole point of having a customizable browser, so that 50 different people wanting 50 different features can get them separately instead of bloating the browser core as Firefox is doing now after ditching this very system in 2017.
I totally understand your point, my point though is that this is a part of "basic" functionality, I highly doubt that the majority of new users, that will install Basilisk, and will stumble upon the very same issue, are going to find this thread or figure out that they need that extension, which is not even explained or linked anywhere on the offsite => resulting in the new users going for another browser that has the "basic" functionality (popular site not working =/= customization, with that logic you can strip the browser even further, to the point that it will browse only simple html sites without 100+ extensions, because everyone is going to find and install them), so as I've mentioned in my post - at least it should be mentioned somewhere visibly for new users, just stating the obvious IMO, but of course that's up to the devs.
P.S. And I'm not saying that html-only browsers or privacy browsers (e.g.: Tor) should be able to browse all sites as well, as they aim at and deliver specific functionality, which is clearly stated many times everywhere. As far as I understand Basilisk doesn't try to become anything like that, at least not as of now.

User avatar
moonbat
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4159
Joined: 2015-12-09, 15:45
Contact:

Re: Few problems with Basilisk

Unread post by moonbat » 2022-10-12, 11:21

Firstly, the extension is a bandaid, a workaround for an as yet unimplemented feature. You don't just willy nilly add whatever works in the short term to the browser core without careful design and consideration, to say nothing of the additional headache of maintenance given this isn't exactly handled by an army of developers at a multi million dollar revenue from Google search company.
Basilisk Hunter wrote:
2022-10-12, 10:07
with that logic you can strip the browser even further, to the point that it will browse only simple html sites without 100+ extensions, because everyone is going to find and install them
And yet that is exactly what Firefox was during its first decade of existence - a basic browser that was 100% usable out of the box due to its adhering to HTML standards (which in those days were actual standards and not changed by Google every fortnight with various draft specs that got implemented in Chrome first). A complete noob could use it comfortably without a single extension, as well as a power user who added several of them and also could change the total look of the browser with complete themes.

It was Mozilla's decision to dump their extension system in favor of webextensions, thus forcing additional features into the browser core that would do better as extensions - from content blocking to Pocket integration and what not.

To return to the topic at hand, why should people who don't use either Zoho or Google Drive be subject to additional code in the browser that is of no use to them?
"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
Basilisk Hunter
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: 2022-10-04, 23:41

Re: Few problems with Basilisk

Unread post by Basilisk Hunter » 2022-10-12, 13:38

moonbat wrote:
2022-10-12, 11:21
Firstly, the extension is a bandaid, a workaround for an as yet unimplemented feature.
100%
moonbat wrote:
2022-10-12, 11:21
You don't just willy nilly add whatever works in the short term to the browser core without careful design and consideration
It's not like the extension cannot be removed after the change.
moonbat wrote:
2022-10-12, 11:21
To return to the topic at hand, why should people who don't use either Zoho or Google Drive be subject to additional code in the browser that is of no use to them?
No one should. I use multiple browsers on a daily basis, as none of them has all of the functionality that I need, or I'd rather say that all of them are good at some part of what I need, so as I said - I totally understand that some browsers aim at delivering specific functionality. If Basilisk devs will want to focus specifically at delivering /whatever then so be it, in my original reply to Basilisk-Dev I've asked him to consider doing 1 or 2, if he will not want to then he won't, simple as that.
As of now I use Basilisk as my main browser (all-rounder), for when I don't need some specific functionality, and that's what I'd like it to remain, hence the reason of me reporting the problems, if on the other hand devs will want it to excel at certain functionality then maybe I'll keep using it for that, maybe not (depends on how good it will be in comparison), but if it'll stop working with many sites then it'll definitely stop being my main browser.
moonbat wrote:
2022-10-12, 11:21
And yet that is exactly what Firefox was during its first decade of existence - a basic browser that was 100% usable out of the box due to its adhering to HTML standards (which in those days were actual standards and not changed by Google every fortnight with various draft specs that got implemented in Chrome first).
Never used Firefox or Chrome as my main browser, and it's kinda sad how they've shaped the web (yep, not just Google), but it is what it is, you either accept the reality of sites testing their functionality primarily on big browsers or you don't.

P.S. And by the way there are people that don't use other sites, by that logic devs can downgrade Basilisk to the first version and leave it there, only patching security holes, leave the rest to extensions :clap: or even become another HTML-only browser, extremely lightweight, extremely fast, non-HTML sites don't matter :thumbup:

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 33004
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Tranås, SE
Contact:

Re: Few problems with Basilisk

Unread post by Moonchild » 2022-10-12, 18:27

Basilisk Hunter wrote:
2022-10-12, 13:38
you either accept the reality of sites testing their functionality primarily on big browsers or you don't.
You can actually make that singular now. Just today one of my friends who is a mac user was complaining to me how sites are more and more telling him to "Use Chrome" since Safari on Mac, i.e. the almost-blink webkit engine, is apparently no longer targeted.
"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
Basilisk-Dev
Moonbather
Moonbather
Posts: 59
Joined: 2022-03-23, 16:41

Re: Few problems with Basilisk

Unread post by Basilisk-Dev » 2022-10-14, 12:53

Moonchild wrote:
2022-10-12, 18:27
You can actually make that singular now. Just today one of my friends who is a mac user was complaining to me how sites are more and more telling him to "Use Chrome" since Safari on Mac, i.e. the almost-blink webkit engine, is apparently no longer targeted.
It truly is a sad state of affairs that we are in regarding developers testing browser compatibility with sites. Almost the entire dev team at my company only tests their changes in Chrome. I am the only one who tests in Firefox, UXP, or WebKit at all. We've had more than one instance where our site was broken in Safari and in Firefox because no one else tested the feature they were working on in a non-Chrome browser. Those issues were only fixed because I alerted those team members that their features were broken in other browsers.
Basilisk Project Owner

viewtopic.php?f=61&p=230756

Post Reply