Pale Moon forum

been using this basilisk browser for last couple days. its great , runs smooth , all extensions work. no problems at all , thank you

scottieimate wrote:been using this basilisk browser for last couple days. its great , runs smooth , all extensions work. no problems at all , thank you

Hey, thanks for sharing that good experience.
Just curious, are you using it on Windows or on GNU/Linux?

I'm also enjoying it. I find it runs smooth and fast both on my 64 bit Puppy Linux desktops and my Windows 8.1 desktop. A 32 bit Linux version would be all I need

I am loving Basilisk, too, on both Win7 x64 and Win10 x64.

My only question is whether it is safe to sync bookmarks with my Firefox v 55.0.3 profile? I am really more interested in syncing bookmarks between my laptop and desktop versions of Basilisk.

Thank you guys for making this browser. I wish you to continue your excellent endeavor in the new year and health and good luck .

I too really do like this browser and now use it as my primary backup browser to Pale Moon (on Windows 7).

As a FF57 refugee I installed Basilisk to start the new year off and am very pleased. All my FF extensions work seamlessly. Since I work on two continents using several PCs (32 and 64 bit) having a 32bit version available to sync profiles is very helpful, which made me hesitate to use Waterfox as my main browser. Eventually I will be only using 64bit machines, but until then having a 32bit option is great. Looking forward to the further development.

-- Bonn, Germany

Me too commit to a big thank you for the great browser!

gracious1 wrote:

scottieimate wrote:been using this basilisk browser for last couple days. its great , runs smooth , all extensions work. no problems at all , thank you

Hey, thanks for sharing that good experience.
Just curious, are you using it on Windows or on GNU/Linux?

sorry for the late reply gracious1 , but yes i'm using basilisk browser on windows server 2008 r2. this browser is great so far. I hope this browser stays around for a while

I have to say I like Basilisk as well. It is why I have switched to using it as my primary at the moment.

It ticks a lot of boxes for me.
Extension Compatibility: Supports Jetpack and Web Extension > Pale Moon
Website Compatibility: Works on at least 2 sites I use for work that Pale Moon won't render right at present (even with same settings and faked useragent)
Configurability: Nearly on par with Pale Moon but requires several extensions to restore functions and/or layout elements.
Support: Got the greatest set of folks behind it, the same folks working on Pale Moon. No finer endorsement than that in my opinion.

The only cons I've found:
Out of the box higher memory usage for a similar configuration with same number and pages of tabs loaded and activated.
Slower at several file operations. -- To be clear I use FEBE to back up about 2.5 GB of additional data with my profile backups. This is non-standard usage of a browser as a backup tool. -- Same can be said for my tab usage which is highly non-standard.
Could not get my navigation bar buttons to look like buttons on Pale Moon so had to switch from a translucent Navigation Bar to one with that Grey-Blue Aureo from CTR behind it).

Overall Basilisk just suits my needs best.

kelendral wrote:....To be clear I use FEBE to back up about 2.5 GB of additional data with my profile backups......

Where did you get the download for FEBE that will work with Basilisk and what version of FEBE did you use?

If I recall correctly I tried FEBE Version 8.9.3.1 and it didn't work correctly in Basilisk if I'm not mistaken.

Pale Moon Rising wrote:FEBE Version 8.9.3.1

That is the version I am using in Basilisk at the moment.
I have had to change one setting as compared to my Pale Moon install.
FEBE > Options > Advanced > Miscellaneous > Chrome script timeout (seconds): 900

Other than that the scheduled backups have been working fine for me. I've even used the .xpi files to install, or re-install in other profiles. The .fbu archive file opens fine with WinRar. I have not tried a restore on Basilisk via FEBE or manual extract of the full profile backup.

I just registered after studying FF forks and stumbled over Basilik so far.
Installed, and customized via syncing and got the same look and feel + addons as in FF 56.0.2 before with a few things not working.

i was struggling with all betas and nightlys for FF + waterfox, cyberfox and pale moon, using it the very first time.
Reading about XUL has a future made my decision to switch permanently.

there have been big discussions in german forums about webext and XUL and i don't wanna be without a group of certain addons who are not working good or as expected as webext or been deprecated forever.
Most important is TabMixPlus with hover function and all those little goodies.
i've got it all to work, my most important addons are running fine again.

I had to play (install) with a user agent to get MODERN UI in youtube running again, it says FF55 not supported and my UI script (Stylus) failed!

what does'nt work fine (i need world times for work) is Foxclocks, shows Icon and not the clocks in toolbar.
Also FLAGFOX is not running, had to replace it with a less useful one.

But it looks like that i stay with Basilisk as my prefered Browser.
Works smooth, fast (not that fast as FF60a) but nicely, acceptable.
For me most Important is function and customizability, not speed. (OK, Speeds never bad)
Are there Locals planned or option to contribute? (I am native german)

Why or for what reason is it forked from Pale Moon? (used only a little bit, shame on me)
regards, Frank

No it is not from Palemoon, you read more about uxp.
Basilisk is particular case of that.

Ananda96 wrote:...
Are there Locals planned or option to contribute? (I am native german)

Why or for what reason is it forked from Pale Moon? (used only a little bit, shame on me)
regards, Frank

Fedor2 wrote:No it is not from Palemoon, you read more about uxp.
Basilisk is particular case of that.

According to this, there are currently not plans to create more locales for Basilisk, due to the nature of its development.

Basilisk is a fork of Firefox 53/55-ish, built on UXP, the platform forked from Mozilla in early 2017 (although it is currently in the process of being re-forked from 52 ESR due to problems building other applications on it). The current version of Pale Moon is a fork of Firefox 38, with many backports and other changes. As for the reason for Basilisk and UXP, eventually Pale Moon will be ported to UXP, for the newer features and bug fixes, and Basilisk is a test case for an application built on the UXP.

The Pale Moon platform known as Tycho originated as 38 but the application code continued on from Pale Moon 26 which in its current incarnation started life out as Firefox 24..

This same application code will continue to progress forward to UXP. Pale Moon will stay Pale Moon regardless of what platform it builds on...

It is good to see people getting closer and closer to the reality of it though!

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:...

This same application code will continue to progress forward to UXP. Pale Moon will stay Pale Moon regardless of what platform it builds on...

Yes, and I am quite happy about that!

Overall I am extremely happy with Basilisk.
I do hope that development for it continues beyond its usefulness as testbed and precursor to changes for Pale Moon update.
Main reasons for choosing Basilisk are Web Extensions and Jetpack support in Basilisk (thus re-enabled a few Extensions that had disabled in Pale Moon when 27 released and added some new since Basilisk came out).

I've got the same profile (forked from my Pale Moon profile in December 2017) running on Pale Moon, Basilisk, and Basilisk for XP (from msfn.org thread) and all looking and working near identical on multiple PCs, OSes, VMs.

You do realize that WebExtensions and Jetpack are the worst things to ever happen in the history of history and the least likely to get any actual development and the first likely to go at any time it is proven unsustainable.. Right? Do not rely on them being there..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ixmLYKogtg

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:You do realize that WebExtensions and Jetpack are the worst things to ever happen in the history of history and the least likely to get any actual development and the first likely to go at any time it is proven unsustainable.. Right? Do not rely on them being there..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ixmLYKogtg

Jetpack loss in Pale Moon was not bad since most extensions were still being developed in the same style and just done with the SDK. Those convert over easy enough (as seen by taking something like VDH {and others} and making it work on Pale Moon).

Web Extension is the future of Web Browser add-ons for Content Manipulation. Virtually every modern browser is or will support them in one form or another. This concept is at a the point they are becoming a cross browser element and more an extension of the Web browsing experience than the browser itself.
It is virtually impossible to find updated or even currently viable extensions in XUL for some Web Content Manipulation functionality, especially when it comes to site specific ones.

EDIT: Just to be clear I do know and understand the XUL addon framework is far more powerful and capable of doing everything that can be done in Web Extensions.
However, I also understand that developers are not really inclined or doing updates for XUL versions for most addons. After all it is more logical and more time efficient for them to write a single extension that targets multiple (3 or more) major browsers with only a few tweaks than to write for the small dwindling lot of us not wanting to lose some our XUL based powerful addons.
This is also why I'm doing my best to try and learn and convert what I can, or at least pull back what information will keep my XUL addons updated (today was updating Flagfox DBs).