Problem: Basilisk seen as replacement for "legacy PM" by some

Board for discussions around the Basilisk web browser.

Moderator: satrow

Sun42
Apollo supporter
Apollo supporter
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat, 26 Sep 2015, 16:28
Location: Here

Re: Problem: Basilisk seen as replacement for legacy PM by some

Unread postby Sun42 » Sat, 02 Dec 2017, 18:47

ianas wrote:
GREGBKK wrote:it's my understanding that Quantum is faster on 4+ core cpu's


Indeed, on my budget laptop with only 2gb of ram but actual 4 cpu cores (non-ht) e10s-enabled ff and esp. ff57+ "Quantum" blows legacy non-e10s ff out of the water, and there's still more to come when Mozilla keeps adding more updated components to Quantum.

The downside is that x64+e10s/Quantum uses more memory (though less than Chrome-based browsers), and of course the loss of the legacy extensions which make up 3/4 of my library - most of them with no feature-equivalent replacement.

So for the moment, I'm sticking with x86 old-school Basilisk, but I'm very aware that this isn't exactly bleeding edge parallelized software design.

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:
MoonExplorer wrote:
gracious1 wrote:Basilisk's Application code is Late Firefox Australis with junk stripped out and not much else will be done on the application code except keeping it working and maybe an enhancement here and there


Thanks for your great work on "Pale Moon", but it's a pity b/c the other recent ff fork "Waterfox" is x64 only and uses a lot more memory (too much for my 2gb laptop)... I was looking forward to having recent, maintained an optimized ff code with legacy extension support, but on x86 :-o

User avatar
back2themoon
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1196
Joined: Sun, 19 Aug 2012, 20:32

Re: Problem: Basilisk seen as replacement for legacy PM by some

Unread postby back2themoon » Sat, 02 Dec 2017, 21:49

Sun42 wrote:So for the moment, I'm sticking with x86 old-school Basilisk, but I'm very aware that this isn't exactly bleeding edge parallelized software design

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=17442
Safe Mode / clean profile info: Help/Restart in Safe Mode
Information to include when asking for support - How to apply user agent overrides

Windows 10 Pro - Pale Moon x64 - FossaMail x64 - Emsisoft Anti-Malware

Sun42
Apollo supporter
Apollo supporter
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat, 26 Sep 2015, 16:28
Location: Here

Re: Problem: Basilisk seen as replacement for legacy PM by some

Unread postby Sun42 » Sun, 03 Dec 2017, 00:36

back2themoon wrote:
Sun42 wrote:So for the moment, I'm sticking with x86 old-school Basilisk, but I'm very aware that this isn't exactly bleeding edge parallelized software design

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=17442


Yeah, well, I'm sure it can be argued that moving away from MS-DOS was the cause of all evil :-> - but even with ipc overhead, e10s with 4 content threads is a lot snappier on my configuration. Not that I'm complaining since I can keep using my legacy addons, just relaying my personal experience.

And I admit that's probably worst case b/c as mentioned I'm running a low-clocked mobile cpu, but with 4 native cores. With an up-to-date ryzen or intel-core, even a non-e10s browser probab is so fast for everyday use that it doen't matter in real life use.

ianas
Moonbather
Moonbather
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat, 25 Nov 2017, 02:48

Re: Problem: Basilisk seen as replacement for legacy PM by some

Unread postby ianas » Sun, 03 Dec 2017, 11:24

Sun42 wrote:
ianas wrote:
GREGBKK wrote:it's my understanding that Quantum is faster on 4+ core cpu's


Indeed, on my budget laptop with only 2gb of ram but actual 4 cpu cores (non-ht) e10s-enabled ff and esp. ff57+ "Quantum" blows legacy non-e10s ff out of the water, and there's still more to come when Mozilla keeps adding more updated components to Quantum.

The downside is that x64+e10s/Quantum uses more memory (though less than Chrome-based browsers), and of course the loss of the legacy extensions which make up 3/4 of my library - most of them with no feature-equivalent replacement.

So for the moment, I'm sticking with x86 old-school Basilisk, but I'm very aware that this isn't exactly bleeding edge parallelized software design.

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:
MoonExplorer wrote:
gracious1 wrote:Basilisk's Application code is Late Firefox Australis with junk stripped out and not much else will be done on the application code except keeping it working and maybe an enhancement here and there


Thanks for your great work on "Pale Moon", but it's a pity b/c the other recent ff fork "Waterfox" is x64 only and uses a lot more memory (too much for my 2gb laptop)... I was looking forward to having recent, maintained an optimized ff code with legacy extension support, but on x86 :-o

strangely enough on my quad core intel x5 tablet @1.6GHz with 2G Ram running win 10 x86 quantum under preforms compared to 56, in peacekeepers test 56 got a score of 1068 Firefox 57 ie Quantum got a score of 985 they both beat edge which only got 440 as it's a tablet and my storage space is limited I haven't tested Basilisk under it
I still don't think quantum is faster then 56 as peacekeeper runs several tests but gives a weighted result here are the details
FF56 running under a 4 core intel atom, Firefox 57 running the same profile (it was an inplace upgrade) on the same device last edge on the same device and even tho it's multi-threaded it's the slowest in the group
Image
post image conclusion is that Quantum is faster in data processing but has some issues with rendering which might be fixed in the future

User avatar
gracious1
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 836
Joined: Sun, 15 May 2016, 05:00
Location: muggy, muggy upstate NY

Re: Problem: Basilisk seen as replacement for legacy PM by some

Unread postby gracious1 » Sun, 03 Dec 2017, 11:39

Hi, this thread is supposed to be about the mistaken impression that Basilisk is seen as a replacement for PM. Can we possibly get back to that?
Image“We look forward to the time when the Power of Love will replace the Love of Power. Then will our world know the blessings of peace.” ― Wm. Ewart Gladstone ◊ Int'l Day of Peace 21 Sept. ◊

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 22155
Joined: Sun, 28 Aug 2011, 17:27
Location: 58.5°N 15.5°E
Contact:

Re: Problem: Basilisk seen as replacement for legacy PM by some

Unread postby Moonchild » Sun, 03 Dec 2017, 11:47

So, I guess this thread is now all over the place, ending up with benchmark scores that aren't representative of the real world? :)

Off-topic:
ianas wrote:post image conclusion is that Quantum is faster in data processing but has some issues with rendering which might be fixed in the future

You may want to be a little less hasty in your conclusions and assumptions about what Mozilla will fix in the future. If anything, "rendergrid" is pretty important because that is setting css, parsing the result, and painting. That is the bread and butter of what usually goes on on webpages, and shows their new css parser (stylo) doesn't seem to be at all as fast as they hoped. Whether you get 10% more speed in your string/DOM parsing or not makes no difference in the real world -- when was the last time you had a web page query page DOM 1.3 million times? XD
Improving Mozilla code: You know you're on the right track with code changes when you spend the majority of your time deleting code.

"If you want to build a better world for yourself, you have to be willing to build one for everybody." -- Coyote Osborne

User avatar
Smokey20
Fanatic
Fanatic
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon, 09 Jun 2014, 06:06
Location: Hawaii

Re: Problem: Basilisk seen as replacement for legacy PM by some

Unread postby Smokey20 » Sun, 03 Dec 2017, 13:58

Why isn't this locked? It's veered all over the place and is hard to follow. :thumbdown:

Sun42
Apollo supporter
Apollo supporter
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat, 26 Sep 2015, 16:28
Location: Here

Re: Problem: Basilisk seen as replacement for legacy PM by some

Unread postby Sun42 » Sun, 03 Dec 2017, 23:21

gracious1 wrote:Hi, this thread is supposed to be about the mistaken impression that Basilisk is seen as a replacement for PM. Can we possibly get back to that?


Sure, how about this: I just switched from legacy Pale Moon to Basilisk, so it is a replacement :-) ... in the real world(tm) users decide what replaces what by voting with their feet, er, software installations.

A promotional problem is giving the "UXP experimental implementation that is not a replacement for palemoon at all" a snappy name like "Basilisk" and not calling it UXPEITINARFPMAA. I doubt the mistaken impression that the pre-Australis and very legacy-ish "Pale Moon" is outdated can be stopped unless Basilsik iis clearly marked as a rolling release unstable experiment in the browser itself.

User avatar
gracious1
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 836
Joined: Sun, 15 May 2016, 05:00
Location: muggy, muggy upstate NY

Re: Problem: Basilisk seen as replacement for legacy PM by some

Unread postby gracious1 » Mon, 04 Dec 2017, 00:39

Sun42 wrote:Sure, how about this: I just switched from legacy Pale Moon to Basilisk, so it is a replacement :-)


Well, since "legacy Pale Moon" refers to Pale Moon before the Tycho platform (pre-25 or something?), I am glad for your own sake that you have switched to something more up-to-date.

There is no need to refer to Pale Moon as "legacy Pale Moon". This is a rhetorical device you are employing.

Sun42 wrote: …unless Pale Moon gets the UXP update and Basilsik ls clearly marked as a rolling release unstable experiment.

Um… Moonchild has also made that completely clear.
About Basilisk Updates
Why is Basilisk "development software"?

BTW, Australis is a UI. Possessing Australis does not make a browser superior. Many would argue that while newer it is an inferior UI.

Sun42 wrote:users decide what replaces what by voting with their feet, er, software installations.
Now you are equivocating on the word "replace" — another rhetorical device. We are not talking about what you or I may decide to install (replacing Firefox with Pale Moon, replacing MS Office with LibreOffice, etc.). We are talking about the developer's intentions. It is quite possible for a developer to develop more than one product on the same platform. Moonchild has made it clear that he does not intend Basilisk to replace Pale Moon, and that Pale Moon will be ported from Tycho to UXP in the near future.

Please read this post and the links it contains:
http://www.customsoftwareconsult.com/fo ... 232#p17232
(I gathered several links that show the developers' intentions and plans for Pale Moon, UXP, and Basilisk)
Image“We look forward to the time when the Power of Love will replace the Love of Power. Then will our world know the blessings of peace.” ― Wm. Ewart Gladstone ◊ Int'l Day of Peace 21 Sept. ◊

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4625
Joined: Tue, 09 Oct 2012, 19:37

Re: Problem: Basilisk seen as replacement for legacy PM by some

Unread postby New Tobin Paradigm » Mon, 04 Dec 2017, 02:03

gracious1 wrote:Please read this post and the links it contains:
http://www.customsoftwareconsult.com/fo ... 232#p17232
(I gathered several links that show the developers' intentions and plans for Pale Moon, UXP, and Basilisk)


That post over there made my day! Seriously :thumbup:

User avatar
gracious1
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 836
Joined: Sun, 15 May 2016, 05:00
Location: muggy, muggy upstate NY

Re: Problem: Basilisk seen as replacement for legacy PM by some

Unread postby gracious1 » Mon, 04 Dec 2017, 05:41

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:
gracious1 wrote:http://www.customsoftwareconsult.com/fo ... 232#p17232
(I gathered several links that show the developers' intentions and plans for Pale Moon, UXP, and Basilisk)


That post over there made my day! Seriously :thumbup:


Wow! Thanks! :D
Image“We look forward to the time when the Power of Love will replace the Love of Power. Then will our world know the blessings of peace.” ― Wm. Ewart Gladstone ◊ Int'l Day of Peace 21 Sept. ◊

User avatar
gracious1
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 836
Joined: Sun, 15 May 2016, 05:00
Location: muggy, muggy upstate NY

Re: Problem: Basilisk seen as replacement for legacy PM by some

Unread postby gracious1 » Mon, 04 Dec 2017, 06:04

Donotfillintheblank wrote:for such rumors to be spread? Is it just a misunderstanding - a misconception- or someone who would for personal reasons be trying to actually get a particular piece of software out of traffic so to speak and see it replaced with some other?


I think it is the latter, that some folks are trying to actually get a particular piece of software out of traffic.

I can give you a specific example. There is a person who is going around to various support forums and posting negative things about Pale Moon and suggesting that people switch to another browser. Here, for example, is a post at the Pale Moon forum at one extension's support site:
http://www.customsoftwareconsult.com/fo ... 242#p17233
This person clearly wants to undermine this developer's support for Pale Moon. Why? Who knows.
Image“We look forward to the time when the Power of Love will replace the Love of Power. Then will our world know the blessings of peace.” ― Wm. Ewart Gladstone ◊ Int'l Day of Peace 21 Sept. ◊

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4625
Joined: Tue, 09 Oct 2012, 19:37

Re: Problem: Basilisk seen as replacement for legacy PM by some

Unread postby New Tobin Paradigm » Mon, 04 Dec 2017, 06:47

Just a note regarding your post in that thread:

Everywhere on the Pale Moon Forum wrote:Pale Moon 27 has nothing to do with Firefox 27.. Pale Moon's application code .. yadda yadda ESR24 yadda whatever fowardported older versions blah blah backported from newer blah current platform started as blah ESR38 blah filler filler tech filler tech advanced both such and so forth hybrid not based on any established blah Tycho yadda blah Pale Moon is not Firefox and never will be again!


Everyone got that? If not..

See more of my and Moonchild's posts for translation..

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4625
Joined: Tue, 09 Oct 2012, 19:37

Re: Problem: Basilisk seen as replacement for legacy PM by some

Unread postby New Tobin Paradigm » Mon, 04 Dec 2017, 07:15

As an addendum, we have a stated directive that may or may not be covered by the regular lineup of rules about cross-community issues with cross posting and drawing attention to posts elsewhere etc due to an unnamed community that redundantly shall not be named..

The general directive is basically.. Don't.

This has the potential to slide down that path so yeah just kinda let that end here at this point, k?

Thanks!

Sun42
Apollo supporter
Apollo supporter
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat, 26 Sep 2015, 16:28
Location: Here

Re: Problem: Basilisk seen as replacement for legacy PM by some

Unread postby Sun42 » Mon, 04 Dec 2017, 09:05

gracious1 wrote:There is no need to refer to Pale Moon as "legacy Pale Moon". This is a rhetorical device you are employing.


Um, you do realize "legacy PM" the thread title?

gracious1 wrote:
Sun42 wrote: …unless Pale Moon gets the UXP update and Basilsik ls clearly marked as a rolling release unstable experiment.
Um… Moonchild has also made that completely clear.


Ugh, you intentonally mis-quoted me, you even added a "." after "experiment" while while the whole quote is "... experiment in the browser itself.". That is kainda way beyound "rhetoric" and reaches into ... no, I won't label it. That's why academic standards have quoting rules like ... experiment [...].", see?

Anyway, Moonchild did not make it completely clear: Surf to pale-moon-browser.org, read...

"A XUL-based web-browser demonstrating the Unified XUL Platform (UXP). This browser is a close twin to pre-Servo Firefox in how it operates."

... click "Download", click "Installer", use browser. Maybe glance at Requirements or Features while downloading. In nether of these steps there was an indication about Basilisk being yadayadayada type of software, esp. not in the bowser iteself while with a "First use information" page or similar.

gracious1 wrote:BTW, Australis is a UI. Possessing Australis does not make a browser superior. Many would argue that while newer it is an inferior UI.


I do realize I'm talking to the "Australis is the root of all evil" crowd here, but Basilisk has a way more pressing need to fork and will reach a more generic crowd of users looking for a new home after Mozilla abandoned them.

Btw, it can be argued that using DOS command line or punch cards do not make a superior OS, and newer so-called newer "graphical" UIs are in fact inferior. If you agree, you just passed the nerd test with flying colors :-)

Sun42 wrote:We are talking about the developer's intentions.


Nope, you are talking about the dev's intentions, I'm talking about the thread title which specified no such constraint - even thugh the first post is about the addon devs being mistaken. And if addon devs are too simple-minded to crawl though the forum searching for the threads specified above, how about poor ol' Joe Sixpack user?

Ignoring why/where the people who are under a mistaken impression have gotten this impression in the first place doesn't help solve our common goal not to fragment the legacy addon community by pulling away users from a stable browser to a rolling release which might self-destruct anytime with "I told you so" :-o.

As for addon devs, maybe there is the wish to have a common plattform near to latest Firefox asap - i.e. Waterfox and Basilisk" as a development target, and that's why some understand what they want to read, while missing that legacy Pale Moon is getting the UXP platform, too.

That's why a "Mommy told us so by leaving a sticky note at the fridge door in the cellar"-type argument :-p is not enough, it's about discussing where the actual root of the problem is (even if its malicious intent to torpedo Pale Moon) and having proposals for possible solutions.

User avatar
gracious1
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 836
Joined: Sun, 15 May 2016, 05:00
Location: muggy, muggy upstate NY

Problem: Basilisk misperceived by some devs as replacement for Pale Moon

Unread postby gracious1 » Mon, 04 Dec 2017, 10:54

Here are some links which should help us when we are trying to explain to folks that Basilisk is not intended by the developer as a replacement for Pale Moon. (In other words, Moonchild Productions will continue to develop both products.) These are all about plans for UXP, Basilisk, and Pale Moon, along with other relevant concepts.


HTH. :wave:
Last edited by gracious1 on Mon, 04 Dec 2017, 11:13, edited 5 times in total.
Image“We look forward to the time when the Power of Love will replace the Love of Power. Then will our world know the blessings of peace.” ― Wm. Ewart Gladstone ◊ Int'l Day of Peace 21 Sept. ◊

User avatar
gracious1
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 836
Joined: Sun, 15 May 2016, 05:00
Location: muggy, muggy upstate NY

Re: Problem: Basilisk seen as replacement for legacy PM by some

Unread postby gracious1 » Mon, 04 Dec 2017, 10:57

BTW, could a moderator put quotes around the phrase "legacy PM" in the thread's title? That was my intention. Thanks.
Image“We look forward to the time when the Power of Love will replace the Love of Power. Then will our world know the blessings of peace.” ― Wm. Ewart Gladstone ◊ Int'l Day of Peace 21 Sept. ◊

NoNameNeeded
Hobby Astronomer
Hobby Astronomer
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri, 14 Nov 2014, 18:50

Re: Problem: Basilisk seen as replacement for "legacy PM" by some

Unread postby NoNameNeeded » Sat, 16 Dec 2017, 02:38

gracious1 wrote:Hello. A developer (jspenguin2017) made this comment at github:

Pale moon is legacy, the new browser is called Basilisk. I'll add support for more browsers that support WebExtension, but not now.
If you are the unicorn who love and support the old technology then the fork button is there. I'm not going to learn an extension system that less than 0.1% of user use.


So something I have feared has already happened. Now that Basilisk is out, some developers think that Pale Moon is a legacy browser, and that Basilisk is its replacement. "Pale Moon is legacy, the new browser is called Basilisk." This is of great concern, for as much as I want to see Basilisk succeed, I would hate to see developers abandon Pale Moon when we were just getting several on board.

I post this here because I would like to ask the Basilisk team to please spread word to your colleagues in the software world that Basilisk does not replace PM, and because I would also like to ask Basilisk end-users to be careful not to perpetuate this misconception. I am sure you are all doing that already :mrgreen: , but how many other developers and end-users are thinking the same thing as jspenguin2017 ?


It hasn't replaced Pale Moon yet but that's the idea in the long run since the old Firefox ESR version will soon no longer receive any security updates and Pale Moon is based on the ESR version of Firefox, as far as I know.

So Pale Moon is kind of on its way out and so is Basilisk!
Why?
Well, sooner or later developers will stop to support the old Firefox-addons altogether (the ones that no longer run with Firefox Quantum) because why would they continue updating their now useless addons?
The only people who would still be able to use them would be Basilisk users and Basilisk isn't a very well known browser.

But please don't get me wrong!
I do appreciate Pale Moon, I've used it for a while and now I appreciate the new Basilisk browser even more because it's said to retain the (old) Firefox addon-compatibility and I will therefore switch to Basilisk in the very near future but still: I think it's a dead end in the long run.

User avatar
helloimustbegoing
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1887
Joined: Thu, 28 Jun 2012, 01:20

Re: Problem: Basilisk seen as replacement for "legacy PM" by some

Unread postby helloimustbegoing » Sat, 16 Dec 2017, 03:38

NoNameNeeded wrote:
It hasn't replaced Pale Moon yet but that's the idea in the long run since the old Firefox ESR version will soon no longer receive any security updates and Pale Moon is based on the ESR version of Firefox, as far as I know.

So Pale Moon is kind of on its way out and so is Basilisk!

No offense, but you're totally wrong. Go up three posts and read the links in gracious1's post. And Pale Moon is not based on any one ESR (or non-ESR) version of Firefox; it has code from many versions of FF.

NoNameNeeded
Hobby Astronomer
Hobby Astronomer
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri, 14 Nov 2014, 18:50

Re: Problem: Basilisk seen as replacement for "legacy PM" by some

Unread postby NoNameNeeded » Sat, 16 Dec 2017, 04:05

No offense taken but what is so totally wrong about what I said?

Of course, the development of Basilisk (which is based on the brand new Quantum-version of Firefox) will probably continue (which I appreciate) but in the long run, all these Firefox addons developed for the Non-Quantum versions of Firefox will be discontinued and no longer work.
At least, that's what I expect to happen.

I'm not talking about today or tomorrow but I guess by 2019 or so a lot of these addons will be rather outdated and error prone.


Return to “Basilisk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests