i like this browser

Forum for discussions around the Basilisk web browser.

Moderator: satrow

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Banned user
Banned user
Posts: 4417
Joined: Tue, 09 Oct 2012, 19:37

Re: i like this browser

Postby New Tobin Paradigm » Fri, 09 Feb 2018, 14:47

Unfortunately, Jetpack is a fact.. It can't go away.. And.. I am admitting defeat.. Someone inform JustOff. :P

However, WebExtensions being the future is highly debatable.. There is literally nothing a WebExtension can do that a proper XUL extension can't. Okay, so WebExtensions have extremely limited abilities to affect the web browser its self.. ONLY Content..

Well hell, any XUL extension can affect content, we even have XUL Extensions that are specifically made to facilitate free form content manipulation like Greasemonkey and Stylish.. No, most people on about WebExtensions are on about the mainstream SERVICE providing WebExtensions and those are the ones the Mainstream Corporate Web will push and won't make XUL based alternatives anymore.

Now, I realize that these extensions and the relative handful of converts out there who COULD make the conversion aren't updating their XUL extensions.. But really, how many extension technologies do you expect us to support. As it stands, WebExtensions in a Mozilla context are very poorly implemented, poorly understood, and are a security nightmare. BTW Who do you expect to make WebEx code in UXP stay compatible with Firefox WebExtensions once they become incompatible? Do you think WebExtension developers will target Basilisk? Well No they can't because the most they can target is "Gecko" which is shorthand for FIrefox.

Also, at the end of the day, we basically have a 12+ year back catalog of Mozilla-style extensions most of which are free and open source just waiting to be forked and fixed up. Compared to the limited functionality of WebExtensions and their uncertain future outside Chrome.. Exactly why do you believe they are the future.. May as well claim that Chrome its self is the future.. What benefit is there to using Basilisk or Firefox with only WebExtensions over using Chrome? I can't think of any? Once Firefox WebExtensions move beyond what Basilisk is capable of running you are gonna be in basically the same situation as NOT having them in the first place.. Or using old versions which as you stated are mostly site-specific content manipulators in a world where sites change every five minutes and as I said Mainstream Web Service ones where like content manipulators change every few blinks of an eye.

No, I don't see any future in WebExtensions for us.. But we will try.. For Basilisk.. In the meantime, Pale Moon will never have them because as implemented they are totally reliant on an Australis-class browser framework. Additionally, no other Mozilla-style application outside of an Australis-class browser and MAYBE SeaMonkey would have a use for a WebExtension. Because, they would have limited web content in the form of sites and no use for many Web Services that a WebExtension would be used for. No they would want Application Extensions that maybe once in a while can edit rendered content.. Thus, Mozilla-style XUL Extensions.

WebExtensions support is experimental at best in the Basilisk. However, I don't see it lasting but we will try.
Last edited by New Tobin Paradigm on Fri, 09 Feb 2018, 14:52, edited 2 times in total.
I hate Pod Six. Tch, I don't even know why we have a Pod Six. Total suck Pod.
[ ニュー・トビン・パラダイム ]

kelendral
Moonbather
Moonbather
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri, 29 May 2015, 19:28
Location: Earth

Re: i like this browser

Postby kelendral » Fri, 09 Feb 2018, 16:23

Agreed on the point of XUL being able to do anything a Web Extension can, even said as much in my edit.

I also agree corporations would like to force only Web Ext only since its manipulations are within the context of the page and detectable as well as very information leaky.

I'm not so certain why one would think Web Extensions only have a life on Chrome or that does not influence the Web itself. Especially given the Chrome market-share is over 70% of the browser market at present [unfortunately].
Other major browsers are supporting or in the process of adding support for Web Extensions (Firefox can use most from the Chrome Store now with an addon that allows direct DL and install from the Chrome Store, similar addon exists but works quite a bit less successfully for Edge). Thus Web Ext is where the vast majority of Web experience addon development is likely to occur in the future.

The backlog of powerful XUL addons is why one would choose Basilisk with Web Ext (even without further development) over Chrome (or the Chrome and the copies known as Edge and FF {even with underlying differences they look and act near same now}).
Even without Web Ext support both Pale Moon and Basilisk are better browsers for anyone who wants to customize the browser itself and the experience.
Just without Web Ext support the number of folks able to achieve that custom web experience with the limited number of XUL extension developers becomes harder to achieve. The observations you make about how Web Ext has very little use on many other platforms where XUL is likely to continue outside of main space Web Browsers is the very argument for why Web Experience addons in the XUL space will dwindle in availability and working functionality.

That last point goes to my previous comment edit about learning how to maintain them myself at least in my hack-or-whack limited fashion. I hold no illusions about my coding skills and know I'll not be writing some great addon or contributing anything major.

As for what support I expect, none. I do hope that the level of Web Ext support stays for as long as possible (really need to learn how to convert one addon as I like having it back).
So far the level of support I have received has been tremendous. Far above and beyond what I would expect. The Team has managed to keep 2 browser so well working that running side by side they are nearly identical in my configuration and I cannot part with either. I've been on IRC a few times and gotten near immediate solutions to issues I could not find elsewhere.

I appreciate every effort and all the time everyone on The Team and whomever contributes invests in these projects.
Thank you everyone involved in Pale Moon and Basilisk.
Last edited by kelendral on Fri, 09 Feb 2018, 16:24, edited 1 time in total.

kelendral
Moonbather
Moonbather
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri, 29 May 2015, 19:28
Location: Earth

Re: i like this browser

Postby kelendral » Tue, 20 Feb 2018, 01:09

kelendral wrote:
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.

Manually extracted profile from the FBU overwriting the files in the profile with Basilisk not running was just used to restore a profile I whacked via a reset to defaults (well, not whacked, but would take a lot to reconfigure everything, far quicker to extract from the FBU).


Return to “Basilisk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: adisib and 7 guests