Pale Moon forum

Hi everyone! First, I want to THANK YOU ALL for keeping "mozilla's vision" living, while Mozillla itself are abandoning it..
Yes, I am "Firefox refugee", who used firefox for approx 15 years, but now has stucked with ESR version.. And to be truth, I am not seeing "light on the end of the tunnel" with Firefox anymore..
So I am looking for an alternativne.. I found pale-moon, but to be honest, he is a little bit "outdated" for me, because I like style and some features of firefox between versions 40-55 (exept for removing support for java etc).. And..I am using some web-extensions based addons as well (but most of my addons are "old" XUL), so migrating to palemoon would cost me some addons (but not as much, as migrating to FF57, not speaking about "telemetry" and other stuff)..

So i found Basilisk and I really enjoyed it!! I was able to COPY MY ENTIRE PROFILE FROM FIREFOX to Basilisk without any trouble AND IT SEEMS TO BE WORKING just fine! All extensions, all my own style enhancement, even all cookies and therefore active logins are here! Magnificent!!

So..to my question.. Is it save to completely migrate to Basilisk? Will basilisk have continuity in development, or it is just "test project", that will be abadoned it time...?
I know..it is maybe stupid question, but it is not easy for me to change browser after so many years, but Mozilla really gives me no other choise.. And when I migrate to new browser (and my entire family with me, because I am managing computers for them), I want to be "sure" (as much as it is possible), that it will be stable project with decent future ahead (I will not have a problem with some small donation, in that case)..
..again, sorry for maybe stupid question, but I hope You will understand me...

And..please forgive me my bad English..I am not from "english-speaking" country and I am not a native speaker.. In fact, I am from Czech Republic and I hope for maybe language packs in future, but it's not essential for me - essential is a future of this project, I can handle english in Basilisk..

Thanks in advance for repply
Regards
Pavel "Apophis" Horák

Basilisk is indeed a test application. I'm not sure how long it will be maintained; Tobin or Moonchild would know better. It also is not recommended to directly move a profile between Firefox, Basilisk, Pale Moon, etc., but I'm glad it worked out for you.

If Pale Moon's "outdated" look is one of the major reasons for you not to use it, you should be aware that there is a theme to make it look more like Firefox 29-56. There is also a Czech language pack for Pale Moon, whereas there are no plans to maintain language packs for Basilisk. The WebExtensions support that Basilisk has may also come to Pale Moon when it is ported to UXP.

Anyway, I am glad that you seem to have found what you need in a browser in Basilisk!

Have a nice day.

Maintained? Indefinitely. Supported? Well it is in perpetual beta status so basically, at our sufferance. Improved, advanced, etc? That depends on the Basilisk userbase and contributors.. and demand.

Do know that any improvements made to the platform do improve Basilisk's non-application specific functions.

Apophis wrote:Hi everyone! First, I want to THANK YOU ALL for keeping "mozilla's vision" living, while Mozillla itself are abandoning it..
Yes, I am "Firefox refugee", who used firefox for approx 15 years, but now has stucked with ESR version.. And to be truth, I am not seeing "light on the end of the tunnel" with Firefox anymore.....

you speak out what I am thinking, I'm really glad that there is a basilisk alternative to shitty ESR, and I hope it will last as least as long as I live.

Hello, first I want to thank You all for all the nice replies! I really appreciate it!
(and it is great not to be alone in my feeling about Mozilla, Dodona )

I know, that it is not recomended to directly move profile between firefox and basilisk, but i tried it (I made a backup of initial profile before it off course) and it worked! It worked even better, than when I tried it with watterfox (in which it is suposed to work ), so why not use it, when it is working (as long, as I can test it, it works completely - no bugs, all setting carried out, even active logins etc.).. In palemoon, i didn't try that (i only used logins and key3 for logins in "migration"), so this is much better..

About "outdated" feel of palemoon, it is not only about look.. I tried palemoon before (in fact, I have a fully set and ready copy of it on my PC for approx 4 months now), and australium was found by me and used.. So it is not only about look.. It is about more things.. Fox example, I have a little "smoother" feeling from using Basilisk than Palemoon (maybe it's only a feeling), and main problem with palemoon is extensions.. Although majority of my extensions are XUL, some of them are Web-extensions (I may not like an idea of web-extensions in general, but some newer plugins, made by WE are a little better, than their old versions - for example "Log Me In 0.2.3" instead of older "Secure login", which I was used to use). And in case of some extensions, I am forced to use older versions of them under palemoon as well (for example for me essential plugin - "Down Them All")...
But from what i read..there is a chance, that palemoon in time integrates WebExtensions support from Basilisk, and there will be no reason to use Basilisk any more for me..

So to sumarize it..Palemoon is a viable option for me. It is better, than new Firefox, I like it's vision in general and I can migrate to it. But migration will cost me some compromises.. On the other way, Basilisk shares the same vision as palemoon, but migration to him cost me nothing (maybe only Czech localisation, but it isn't mandatory for me)! From this point of view, Basilisk is better alternative for me and I will be happy to use it for a long time.. But I am avare of "test" status of it, so because of it, I was asking that question..
So, I want to thank "New Tobin" for answer.. If I understand it well, it seems, that there is unlikely for Basilisk to be completely abandoned and I do not have to worry to basilisk become uncompatible with for example new web standards as long, as the platform (which is shared with palemoon - if I am right) will be supported.. Am I right?

Again, thank You all for Your replies! I really appreciate this!

PS: I have one last question.. If I wanted to give small almout of money as a donation for developing Basilisk..I am supposed to use donation from palemoon project..am I right? Or there is some specific donation for Basilisk?

SpockMan02 wrote:The WebExtensions support that Basilisk has may also come to Pale Moon when it is ported to UXP.

My understanding is that Pale Moon will not ever support Web Extensions.

gracious1 wrote:

SpockMan02 wrote:The WebExtensions support that Basilisk has may also come to Pale Moon when it is ported to UXP.

My understanding is that Pale Moon will not ever support Web Extensions.

I was refering to "SpockMan02", when he wrote:
"The WebExtensions support that Basilisk has may also come to Pale Moon when it is ported to UXP."

Pale Moon will most likely never support Webextensions. As they require the Australis UI - aka inside Basilisk. Pale Moon does not have Australis - so Webextensions are not working for sure as they should and it would make no sense to have them in Pale Moon.

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:
Maintained? Indefinitely.

I thought that once Pale Moon is ported to the new platform code that Basilisk was going away. So I am wrong?

As UXP is not only meant for Pale Moon it is important that it stays around. Other XUL applications (not only Basilisk or Pale Moon) can also use UXP - if that second forking turns out successful without end-of-the-road showstoppers ahead

gracious1 wrote:

SpockMan02 wrote:The WebExtensions support that Basilisk has may also come to Pale Moon when it is ported to UXP.

My understanding is that Pale Moon will not ever support Web Extensions.

I was told that it certainly wasn't a priority, but I haven't heard that it will never happen no matter what.

Sajadi wrote:Pale Moon will most likely never support Webextensions. As they require the Australis UI - aka inside Basilisk. Pale Moon does not have Australis - so Webextensions are not working for sure as they should and it would make no sense to have them in Pale Moon.

Wait, what? I'm fairly sure that WebExtensions aren't theme-dependent... After all, Chrome, Opera, and Firefox all support them, and they have different UIs.
Edit: I found what you were paraphrasing.

New Tobin Paradign wrote:In the meantime, Pale Moon will never have them [WebExtensions] 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.

I don't really know about the inner workings of WebExtension support, but it sounds like it would take a significant effort to re-implement them in Pale Moon's application code. (Note: SeaMonkey does not use Australis.) So, while I don't know how long "the meantime" will last, I guess WebExtensions are not something to be expected in Pale Moon 28. I had the wrong idea.

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=15928&hilit=Messy+ ... lity+layer

Moonchild wrote:WebExtensions are the (chrome-sourced) type of extensions to web browsers using a very limited subset of APIs available through a framework. You can compare them with Jetpack/SDK extensions, but then without having the option to even call into lower level functions.

Pale Moon (as an application) will likely never support WebExtensions, even if we would switch to a platform that technically supports its use, because:

• Having XUL/overlay, bootstrapped and SDK/PMKit extensions already provides everything any extension developer could want or need for extension development, and then some. Adding a 4th technology to that line-up that is radically different and more limited in what it can offer by design is a maintenance nightmare and time-sink we simply don't want in our project.
• Pale Moon's front-end doesn't use UI controls or layout that allows html-based widgets (the only way for WebExtensions to interface) to be inserted. As such, it would require a (messy) compatibility layer to enable insertion into our XUL-based UI, and likely will cause many many bugs. Even if a new platform in the future might theoretically allow the use of WebExtensions, Pale Moon's application code will not.
• WebExtensions are too restrictive for anything but the most basic tools and will not, ever, allow true extension of the browser's functionality as a result. This makes the technology used for it undesirable for Pale Moon since it will, by design, fall short from day 1.

Well, there you have it.

helloimustbegoing wrote:

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:
Maintained? Indefinitely.

I thought that once Pale Moon is ported to the new platform code that Basilisk was going away. So I am wrong?

Yes. What sense would it make to put all this effort into anything, then throw it away and walk off?

Basilisk is important. Not the end all and be all but important. See for some reason people don't really understand how the classical mozilla style codebase works even though it has been explained at various levels ranging from very basic to advanced.

They need a visual aid. Having both build off the same codebase then running them side by side shows how it works visually. Two very different web browsing applications built off the same platform..

Also, Basilisk can appeal to some users in ways Pale Moon can't. Then there is the development and demonstration aid aspect.

So yeah, it is important.

As an aside, after things get settled in and both browsers are good to go on the Unified XUL Platform.. I want to start doing more like reviving some other mozilla style applications.

Like a simplied E-mail client. Not so much Fossamail with its modern Thunderbird bloat but something closer to Thunderbird 3.x.. Also, for kicks maybe port Firefox 3.x.. Perhaps merge them into a whole new suite.. Who knows, the possibilities are endless and it doesn't stop with already existing incarnations of programs..

Though, basic xulrunner WILL return.

van p wrote:
Yes. What sense would it make to put all this effort into anything, then throw it away and walk off?

There's no need to be a sarcastic **** about it. Why put a lot of effort into anything that was said by MC to be considered a "beta at all times"? I was under the impression that Basilisk only exists for the development of the underlying platform code. At least that's what I took from all the preliminary talk about it.

You realize multiple non-conflicting things can be true at the same time, right? Also, you need to learn what sarcasm is cause what van p said.. wasn't.

I wasn't going to respond to helloimustbegoing, but since New Tobin Paradigm jumped in, I guess I'll say a couple things.

A little overly sensitive, aren't we? I wasn't being a sarcastic ****, ####, ----, %%%%, or anything else. The question I asked was perfectly appropriate. Also, any talk about Basilisk ceased to be preliminary a long time ago, assuming it was ever preliminary to begin with, which is not an impression I ever had. That's all. Love & Kisses.

van p wrote:
A little overly sensitive, aren't we?

Yeah. We all have days like that, don't we? In any event, I'm glad I was wrong and that Basilisk will be around a lot longer.

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:Basilisk is important. Not the end all and be all but important. See for some reason people don't really understand how the classical mozilla style codebase works even though it has been explained at various levels ranging from very basic to advanced.

They need a visual aid. Having both build off the same codebase then running them side by side shows how it works visually. Two very different web browsing applications built off the same platform..

Also, Basilisk can appeal to some users in ways Pale Moon can't. Then there is the development and demonstration aid aspect.

So yeah, it is important.

As an aside, after things get settled in and both browsers are good to go on the Unified XUL Platform.. I want to start doing more like reviving some other mozilla style applications.

Like a simplied E-mail client. Not so much Fossamail with its modern Thunderbird bloat but something closer to Thunderbird 3.x.. Also, for kicks maybe port Firefox 3.x.. Perhaps merge them into a whole new suite.. Who knows, the possibilities are endless and it doesn't stop with already existing incarnations of programs..

Though, basic xulrunner WILL return.

Again, thank You very much for Your great answer!! From what I can see..Basilisk seems like exactly what I (and my family) need.. We are using it now for approx 14 days, so far without any (and I mean ANY) problem!
So, thank You so much for developing this kind of aplication!

And by the way..I am user of Thunderbird for 15+years too.. So far, Thunderbird seems good enough, but making a fully functional "old school" Thunderbird woul seems like a good idea!