Basilisk Is Under New Management

Board for discussions around the Basilisk web browser.

Moderator: Basilisk-Dev

User avatar
Basilisk-Dev
Moonbather
Moonbather
Posts: 74
Joined: 2022-03-23, 16:41

Re: Basilisk Is Under New Management

Unread post by Basilisk-Dev » 2022-10-24, 18:30

dapgo wrote:
2022-10-24, 14:25
What about restoring the partial support for WebExtensions (removed from Basilisk on 2018)?

Many users from the dead/dying Waterfox classic would be potential users of a supported browsers with some kind of WE support.
I understand why people would want WebExtension support but at the moment that isn't really an option. WebExtension support depends on code that was removed from the UXP platform itself. The code we had in place was outdated, and I am sure now it is significantly more outdated than it was back then.

In addition, Basilisk is the only application built on UXP that ever supported WebExtensions as far as I'm aware. Currently I'm the only person working on Basilisk, meaning that if there were any issues with WebExtensions I'd be the one fixing those issues and I currently don't have the time to put into that, I only have maybe 2-4 hours of free time a week to put into Basilisk right now.

I think it may be possible to write some sort of XUL extension that will load WebExtensions but this is not a route I have explored or have any interest in exploring at this time.
Basilisk Project Owner

viewtopic.php?f=61&p=230756

dapgo
Fanatic
Fanatic
Posts: 130
Joined: 2016-10-11, 11:36

Re: Basilisk Is Under New Management

Unread post by dapgo » 2022-11-09, 16:23

Basilisk-Dev wrote:
2022-10-24, 18:30

I understand why people would want WebExtension support but at the moment that isn't really an option. WebExtension support depends on code that was removed from the UXP platform itself. The code we had in place was outdated, and I am sure now it is significantly more outdated than it was back then.

In addition, Basilisk is the only application built on UXP that ever supported WebExtensions as far as I'm aware. Currently I'm the only person working on Basilisk, meaning that if there were any issues with WebExtensions I'd be the one fixing those issues and I currently don't have the time to put into that, I only have maybe 2-4 hours of free time a week to put into Basilisk right now.

I think it may be possible to write some sort of XUL extension that will load WebExtensions but this is not a route I have explored or have any interest in exploring at this time.
Centaury, a dead UXP Basilisk fork was able to support XUL until its last day.
And at least with my extensions it was very stable.

User avatar
Basilisk-Dev
Moonbather
Moonbather
Posts: 74
Joined: 2022-03-23, 16:41

Re: Basilisk Is Under New Management

Unread post by Basilisk-Dev » 2022-11-09, 16:59

dapgo wrote:
2022-11-09, 16:23
Centaury, a dead UXP Basilisk fork was able to support XUL until its last day.
And at least with my extensions it was very stable.
Basilisk and Pale Moon support XUL, I'm not sure what your point is here.
Basilisk Project Owner

viewtopic.php?f=61&p=230756

User avatar
moonbat
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4189
Joined: 2015-12-09, 15:45
Contact:

Re: Basilisk Is Under New Management

Unread post by moonbat » 2022-11-10, 01:59

Basilisk-Dev wrote:
2022-11-09, 16:59
I'm not sure what your point is here.
Perhaps he meant web extension support. What was running in Basilisk was broken and woudn't reliably work with WE as they currently are on AMO.
"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
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 33273
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Tranås, SE
Contact:

Re: Basilisk Is Under New Management

Unread post by Moonchild » 2022-11-10, 08:11

moonbat wrote:
2022-11-10, 01:59
What was running in Basilisk was broken and woudn't reliably work with WE as they currently are on AMO.
What little we had at the time would certainly not work in the current state of what WEs expect or what our platform provides. In addition UXP doesn't do well willy-nilly injecting HTML into XUL, and doesn't offer the complex machinery that is necessary to work around the separation between UI and content that WEs require to work. That paradigm is a massive vulnerability surface, too.
"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
moonbat
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4189
Joined: 2015-12-09, 15:45
Contact:

Re: Basilisk Is Under New Management

Unread post by moonbat » 2022-11-10, 09:03

Moonchild wrote:
2022-11-10, 08:11
UXP doesn't do well willy-nilly injecting HTML into XUL
The more familiar I got with developing extensions, the more impressed I've been with the original XUL way of developing extensions. Chrome/content separation, the X-ray mode for Javascript - all works great when used properly.
"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

Gersonzao
New to the forum
New to the forum
Posts: 1
Joined: 2022-11-11, 14:34
Location: Brazil
Contact:

Re: Basilisk Is Under New Management

Unread post by Gersonzao » 2022-11-11, 14:55

I have some questions:
Is it going to support all add-on types that Pale Moon supports already?
And is it going to support add-ons from the Pale Moon website?

I'm thinking of using Basilisk as an alternative to Pale Moon mainly because of WebRTC support but I want to make sure everything works as I expect

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 33273
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Tranås, SE
Contact:

Re: Basilisk Is Under New Management

Unread post by Moonchild » 2022-11-11, 16:27

It has its own add-ons site, but in general it supports all add-ons that are indicating legacy Firefox compatibility, including many Pale Moon ones and many from CAA.
"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
nord1
Apollo supporter
Apollo supporter
Posts: 49
Joined: 2018-01-24, 00:18

Re: Basilisk Is Under New Management

Unread post by nord1 » 2022-11-26, 15:53

Vanilla?

Congrats for taking over Basilisk and staying with XUL. I started with Netscape Communicator through Mozilla Suite and SeaMonkey (aka Allizom). Big fan.

Am using Bailisk in program files and with a portable profile on an external SSD.

Much thanks,

ndebord
-N-
Framework, Windows 10 Pro, Basilisk, MalwareBytesPremium, Scotty is On Patrol

dapgo
Fanatic
Fanatic
Posts: 130
Joined: 2016-10-11, 11:36

Re: Basilisk Is Under New Management

Unread post by dapgo » 2022-11-29, 16:52

Basilisk-Dev wrote:
2022-11-09, 16:59
dapgo wrote:
2022-11-09, 16:23
Centaury, a dead UXP Basilisk fork was able to support XUL until its last day.
And at least with my extensions it was very stable.
Basilisk and Pale Moon support XUL, I'm not sure what your point is here.
Sorry I meant WebExtensions.
I understand @moonchild concerns in terms of security and the extreme complexity in supporting it.
But as an irresponsible end-user :mrgreen: I have to say I would use it intensively (even after considering the negative facts and risk exposures) . Probably i would just not do banking from this browsers but most of these webs are already not working.

User avatar
Fenyo
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: 2021-10-08, 13:05

Re: Basilisk Is Under New Management

Unread post by Fenyo » 2022-12-20, 09:29

Basilisk-Dev wrote:
2022-07-29, 18:22
I also intend to release both GTK2 and GTK3 builds for Linux. Some other things I've considered are Mac and 32 bit Linux builds. I don't use either of those, so those would need some assistance from the community in ensuring they continue to work. I'd actually like some input into whether or not this is even worth the time.

Please reach out to me if there are any questions. I can be reached via PM here on the forum. My username on RPMO is Basilisk-Dev.

The current repo is now located at https://repo.palemoon.org/Basilisk-Dev/Basilisk

Thanks!
Hello,

The 32 bit Linux build is quite simple, it compiles without any problems with Devtoolset under 32 bit Centos 7.9. This means minimum glibc 2.17 required, so Ubuntu 14.04 (Trusty) or Debian 8 (Jessie) or higher are supported, usually any 32 bit distro since 2014.
Centos 7 is still supported until 2024, and the only relevant distro that even develops for 32bit is Debian, however older Ubuntus (14.04, 16.04) and Debians
(8, 9) are still got security support/updates with esm/elts.
Even SSE only builds are still possible, but only under Ubuntu/Debian, because 32 bit Centos 7 require SSE2.
basilsik32bitlinux.png

User avatar
carly
New to the forum
New to the forum
Posts: 1
Joined: 2022-12-28, 08:39

Re: Basilisk Is Under New Management

Unread post by carly » 2022-12-28, 08:49

Hello!

What about the Basilisk compatibility with Windows 8.1 after the end of support with Mozilla Firefox in January 2023?

User avatar
uwethomas
Apollo supporter
Apollo supporter
Posts: 38
Joined: 2020-11-01, 09:02

Re: Basilisk Is Under New Management

Unread post by uwethomas » 2023-01-05, 16:58

Good to hear/ read ^^

I really do like the way 'Basilisk' is set up.

Best wishes from Berlin


Uwe

User avatar
Basilisk-Dev
Moonbather
Moonbather
Posts: 74
Joined: 2022-03-23, 16:41

Re: Basilisk Is Under New Management

Unread post by Basilisk-Dev » 2023-01-05, 20:20

carly wrote:
2022-12-28, 08:49
What about the Basilisk compatibility with Windows 8.1 after the end of support with Mozilla Firefox in January 2023?
As long as the UXP platform supports Windows 7/Windows 8.1 then Basilisk will as well. As far as I am aware there are no plans to drop Windows 7 or 8.1 support in the UXP platform.
Basilisk Project Owner

viewtopic.php?f=61&p=230756

User avatar
CodeLurker
Hobby Astronomer
Hobby Astronomer
Posts: 27
Joined: 2022-02-16, 18:57

Re: Basilisk Is Under New Management

Unread post by CodeLurker » 2023-01-22, 10:06

As to whether a separate continuation of Basilisk is needed or not, I just couldn't say at this point. I do have a few thoughts about it, though. Until it was previously discontinued, I had settled on it over P M since it ran CAA extensions. Now, P M does, too. Having gone back to the FF GUID, does that mean any or most of the P M extensions will run on Basilisk? As a quick spot-check, Add-ons Memory usage happily installs, once I allow it, but does not recognize the address for it: "about:addons-memory".

Regarding WebRTC, deferring to the P M guys, let's suppose that it is inherently insecure. Using Jitsi End to End encryption adds an extra layer of encryption to make insider attacks more difficult. Thus, it isn't inherently insecure (and I do like Jitsi Meet, so long as they keep allowing independent servers). However, they also have a desktop version; so one needn't rely on WebRTC to use it. This probably holds true for other teleconferencing softs also.

While WebExtensions seems like it'd be fine to have, all else being equal, the point of a fork of P M and Basilisk is that WebExtensions are, after all, underpowered, and there are still good finds to be made in the CAA. I don't know that FF has a stable Session Manager yet! It's then doubtful if WebExtensions should even be a much of a priority with more devs on the Basilisk team.

Some hard questions that come to mind then, are:
  1. How many prospective users will actually need WebRTC in a browser, when many teleconferencing systems, including Jitsi, also have desktop apps?
  2. Are there any killer apps for Web Extensions that might make the effort one day worthwhile (with more devs?).
  3. What other technologies that users might care about would be in Basilisk, that would actually find widespread use?
  4. Are there many P M extensions one would lose out on being in Basilisk? Would they be more important than the extra technologies and perhaps extra compatibility in Basilisk? Can they be made to run in Basilisk?
Another thing that Basilisk does right that P M doesn't, IMHO, is Australis. I compared the different themes and extensions to do it in P M, and concluded that when one wants the tabs on the bottom, the Bookmarks toolbar above that, the address above that, and the menus on the title-bar, and an honest-to-God Search Bar (the way God, such as He may be, and Authur C. Clarke intended) none of the solutions for P M work right. Some may work at first but then break; and some may work with one window open, but not two. None work right stably in all cases, and you just get a little more screen real-estate with the menus on the title bar. I think it's just a better way of doing it. IMHO, I'd think they'd be better off scrapping the way they do it in P M, and just adopting the menus in the title bar the way it's done in Basilisk. Is that better than the extra extensions I get in P M? I tend to think the extra extensions are better, just off the cuff.

I don't really have answers to these questions, and congratulate you on picking up the ball and running with a really fine browser. I suspect, ultimately, it would be better to unify the development by you going to the P M team and giving users the choice to bring back missing technologies in it, or they all going over to the Basilisk team. That way, I think scarce independent dev man-hours might be better utilized, by unifying effort, and e.g. by making more websites compatible, or making more extensions. OTOH: Why not have a P M and/or Basilisk Foundation, like there is a Mozilla Foundation? I think you guys could use the funding just as much as the guys who did screw up the legacy extension ecosystem; and nearly turned FF into Chrome. I might hope for multi-processing in one of these one day, for as fast as they both are anyway - but I think website compatibility is more important. Then again, if there is a fundamental long-term difference in the philosophy of Basilisk and P M, it could be better to have two competing to add features and compatibility, and let them diverge to have their own strengths. Yet, I find it hard not to want the best features of both in one.

i'm still using Win7, for privacy, stability, and comfort; so I'm glad to hear you aren't considering dropping Win7 support lightly. I think any earlier version is less stable than Win7; and one day, M$ will quit trying to cram spyware and weird new GUIs down our throats and come out with an OS users actually want, and I'll upgrade (or a Linux that has decent program installer wizards and decent package managers that will let you run experimental software on stable OSs without e.g. FlatPacks, without creating Dependency Hell). Soon enough, I'll have to install a Win10 or 11 partition just to run some programs I want. If I were a big gamer, I already would be using one (with thorough attention to disabling telemetry), as DirectX 12 does render many game scenes better.

User avatar
Tharthan
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1333
Joined: 2019-05-20, 20:07
Location: New England

Re: Basilisk Is Under New Management

Unread post by Tharthan » 2023-01-23, 13:54

Off-topic:
CodeLurker wrote:
2023-01-22, 10:06
If I were a big gamer, I already would be using one
Well, not all gamers are PC gamers. So not necessarily.
"This is a war against individuality and intelligence. Only thing we can do is stand strong."adesh, 9 January 2020

"I used to think I was a grumpy old man, but I don't hold a candle compared to Tharthan."Cassette, 9 September 2020

Image

Post Reply