Don't understand the difference between Basilisk & Pale Moon

[ZachTrainor]

Tried Basilisk. Was surprised to learn Pale Moon produced it. If I have Pale Moon, why would I want Basilisk? Have hoped to find an explanation of the difference between the two.

[adesh]

There is a lot of material on that here in the forums.
Check the links below:
viewtopic.php?f=61&t=17382&p=127344#p127344
viewtopic.php?f=61&t=16223&start=20#p123412
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15984#p116272

[Gandalfdjh]

Try reading this!

http://www.basilisk-browser.org/

http://www.basilisk-browser.org/features.shtml

[TwoTankAmin]

I did not understand either.

As I understand it, Pale Moon exists in the present (it is a stable browser we all use presently) and Basilisk exists in the future (it is a beta browser some use as "test subjects"). It would be easier to grasp if I could time travel, I guess.

I figure if one has to ask the question posted in this thread, which I also asked some time back, then we are probably not likely to understand the answer. But as long as Pale Moon exists and gets updates, and since we do things in the present, then we can just use it and, "Don't worry, be happy."

[New Tobin Paradigm]

That is a complete misrepresentation of the situation.. Pale Moon and Basilisk are browsers.. Different browsers.. Different applications.. They merely will share a platform but obviously they target different kinds of users.

Basilisk also pulls double duty as being the already working native application for our new and final platform.. The Unified XUL Platform.

Pale Moon is being ported as we speak.. I just today got it compiling and executing (though not actually functioning yet).

They exist like two houses on the same street next door to each other.. Same power, water, gas sources but quite different to one another.

[TwoTankAmin]

And down the road will they both still exist? Will there still be a browser called Pale Moon?

Will Basilisk become a stable browser and if so what then happens to Pale Moon? Or will Basilisk continue as a beta or the final option, will it cease to exist?

If there are going to be two separate browsers and since there is a limited group of people who do all the work, would that not suggest that neither one will get the full attention of that group?

All I am now is more confused than when I posted above. back in Nov 2017 I had a thread in which I wrote: At this time there is not another browser I am willing to download/use. (Please do not suggest Basilisk as I do not understand the reasons why it exists which means I will have no clue how to use it effectively. This is not a comment on the browser but on me as a user.)

The second reply after I posted that, Sajadi posted

And what is behind Basilisk will be used in the future to power Pale Moon. So, in short it is a test application more or less if you want to have it put into very simplistic words

This is where that thread can be found https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=17594&p=128805&hilit=Basilisk#p128805 I wiould note of those people who posted after what Sajadi did, none corrected what he wrote including Moonchild.

[ron_1]

TwoTankAmin wrote:
And down the road will they both still exist? Will there still be a browser called Pale Moon?

Yes and yes.

[Nigaikaze]

I wiould note of those people who posted after what Sajadi did, none corrected what he wrote including Moonchild.

And that is because what Sajadi posted is correct.

Basilisk exists "to demonstrate and make use of the [UXP] platform," according to Basilisk's Github site. Moonchild and/or Tobin (can't remember the exact posts) said here in the forum that it will continue to exist, essentially as a perpetual beta, because it will continue to be used to demonstrate the capabilities of the platform.

Pale Moon will continue to exist, and is currently in the process of being ported to UXP. That will eventually be released as Pale Moon version 28. Once this version of Pale Moon has been released, Basilisk will continue to exist as a separate browser. And Pale Moon will also continue to exist as a separate browser.

I do like Tobin's "two houses on the same street" analogy. Very apt.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

It's only the start, boys and girls.. Only the beginning.

[TwoTankAmin]

As far as I am concerned, what I wrote was indeed correct. But I still did not get an answer re Basilisk in the future. When P M ver 28 arrives, will Basilisk become a stand alone browser that is not a beta version. Right now it is a test lab as far as i can see. That is not like two houses on the same street. It is one well build house into which anybody can live vs a house under construction using some new methods and materials that are not yet in general use and it is not a move in ready home. So sometime things work and sometimes they may not. Into which of these two houses does the average family want to live?

What I see is Pale Moon which I can use and which I trust will work pretty much everywhere I need it to and which has many features I like and use. Then there is Basilisk which I would not download because I think it does not match my description of P M as a functional browser. Beta versions are not for the average user, they are for the more technically savvy. I have had a PC since 1988 and have never installed or downloaded a beta version of anything.

In all the time I have used Pale Moon it has never failed to function. Sure, with each update there may be a site which stops working properly, but it is one site, not a failure of the browser to work at all. And in many cases the site specific issues have had a work around or the problem goes away with the next P M update.

[Moonchild]

Basilisk is not a "test lab". It is a mature browser based on Firefox, and will remain that.

The reason why it is "pretty much in constant beta" is because, especially at this stage, it is the only application building on UXP which is still very much in development. But at the same time the browser itself, the application, is as polished and complete as Firefox. The "beta" status is to make sure everyone understands that while these developments unfold, that Basilisk may simply not be as stable as a RTM software package because its underpinnings are still shifting.

[Nigaikaze]

Then there is Basilisk which I would not download because I think it does not match my description of P M as a functional browser. Beta versions are not for the average user, they are for the more technically savvy.

Basilisk is certainly a functional browser. If you are technically savvy enough to use Firefox, you can use Basilisk.

[ZachTrainor]

Thank you for all the replies, fascinating reading!

With the new Quantum there's little things I missed, like Menu Wizard and Create deskCut, to name just two.

I notice Pale Moon is opening up real fast.

If Basilisk is the future, I'll download it again and become very familiar with it. It so great to be able to CUSTOMIZE these two browsers!

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Basilisk is NOT the future.. Basilisk is NOT replacing Pale Moon.. Get that damned notion out of your heads right now..

Basilisk is simply an Australis-class browser that has DRM and WebRTC and theoretical WebExtensions.. Pale Moon isn't Australis and doesn't have DRM and WebRTC or WebExtensions..

Pale Moon will continue as always.. Independent of whatever happens with Basilisk.

SEE? Pale Moon running on UXP.. I got it compiling yesterday and I'd estimate 10% functional today.. Yeah a bunch is busted but it will be fixed.. So there it is.. Pale Moon on UXP is a thing and it has NOTHING to do with Basilisk or vice versa.. CHRIST.

[JustOff]

SEE? Pale Moon running on UXP.. I got it compiling yesterday and I'd estimate 10% functional today.. Yeah a bunch is busted but it will be fixed..

By the way, my congratulations, it looks very promising!

[TwoTankAmin]

I still do not get it.

But that us OK. I use Pale Moon, I do not use nor do I have Basilisk on my box. The best way for me to deal with this whole topic is just to ignore the existence of Basilisk as I had been doing.If and when Pale Moon either fails to work well or undergoes major changes in functionality/UI which I find unusable, that would be something with which I would have to deal. Until then, I do not really care about this any more. The only potential downside I see to the whole thing is the fact that the developers are now splitting their efforts between the two. This may mean neither is getting their total focus.


I leave folks with this small peace offering: They play fine in P M
In concert at the Count Basie Theatre in Red Bank, NJ, David Bromberg and his Big Band perform "Sloppy Drunk,"
https://youtu.be/3hhU4XNuL2M
and if you enjoyed that, an encore
David Bromberg - "Send Me To The 'Lectric Chair" - 4/15/1977 - Capitol Theatre (Official)
https://youtu.be/QVSDnAoRfQE

[adesh]

Okay. You know what Pale Moon is, right? It is a browser built from some old (how old? scour forum) Mozilla platform code which does not have latest shinies built-in. Note that old does not mean useless and insecure, you know that. It's because Moonchild makes sure important security fixes released by Mozilla are ported timely. Also, Pale Moon has many extra modifications done on top of Mozilla codebase, most notable of which is its classic UI.

Now, Basilisk. Well, Basilisk is also a browser, just like Pale Moon (and Firefox), built from relatively newer (something around FF 52) Mozilla codebase. Again, this is built after making some substantial modifications to the codebase - e.g. after removing devilish pieces of code and putting in some necessary optimizations. However, Moonchild decided not to change the "look and feel" of this browser, so it is very similar to Firefox in look and feel (and feature set too). That means most of the changes are made under the hood. The reason this software was called beta is a lot of constant code changes going on to improve and mature the underlying platform (remember: under-the-hood). So, Basilisk may be a stable browser after a year or so (or even after few months to be optimistic).

NOTE: Alpha, Beta, Stable etc. are all relative words. If you ask me, Firefox is a beta product, as is Windows 10. To understand a word's meaning, we should know who is using it. I think Moonchild made a mistake on the account of being too transparent.

[Thehandyman1957]

Or, to perhaps break it down in it's simplest terms. It's like having a really nice older style truck that has been completely gone through from head to toe and runs and looks just the way you like it. But after driving it (on the web) you find that a newer chassis (UXP) will handle the road (web) much better. So you keep the body (PM) and all of it's goodness and put a new chassis (UXP) underneath it so that it rides better and can support the new road (web) challenges better. Now the coolest part about this new chassis (UXP) is that you can use many different types of bodies (browsers, email client etc.) on that same chassis. And right now they are working on getting the chassis (UXP) and the body (PM) to work and talk with each other perfectly.

Now Basilisk is simply the newer body (browser) model that came with the chassis (UXP) and will still be that same newer body and chassis on it's own.

So now we'll have two trucks (browsers). One like we all love (PM) with some new benefits of a newer chassis (UXP) and Basilisk with the newer body (browser) style on the same new chassis (UXP).

Over simplified?

[New Tobin Paradigm]

This is Pale Moon 28's code.. All the code that makes up the Pale Moon application..
http://xref.palemoon.org/uxp-trunk/source/application/palemoon/

This is Basilisk Take 2's code.. All the code that makes up the Basilisk application.
http://xref.palemoon.org/uxp-trunk/source/browser/

Do note Basilisk's code will be moved from browser/ to application/basilisk/

The rest of the code is shared platform code.. When you do a build you select one of the applications to build and you get the platform code and the chosen application code.. Thus you get either Pale Moon or Basilisk or something else.. It depends on the configuration of the build and which application you selected..

This is how a single platform codebase can be used to produce very different applications like two different browsers.. Or maybe a mail client or a wysiwyg editor or a stand alone calendar or a music player or an internet suite or really anything.

If you can't understand that then quit computers. I am way past sick to death of explaining it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.. Literally i have explained it on the forum and irc hundreds of times now.

[adesh]

So now we'll have two trucks (browsers). One like we all love (PM) with some new benefits of a newer chassis (UXP) and Basilisk with the newer body (browser) style on the same new chassis (UXP).

Over simplified?

You got it! That analogy is perfect. Future readers, who want explanation in layman terms, should be redirected to your post.