Reddit article on basilisk.

Board for discussions around the Basilisk web browser.

Moderator: satrow

User avatar
Moonraker
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 893
Joined: Wed, 30 Sep 2015, 23:02
Location: Lincolnshire.UK.

Reddit article on basilisk.

Unread postby Moonraker » Sun, 27 May 2018, 12:08

Heated discussion here in regard to basilsik which i thought i would bring to the attention of the forum.
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/commen ... code_from/
Slacko puppy linux 64bit.
Pale moon 27.9.0

Latitude
Banned user
Banned user
Posts: 597
Joined: Mon, 21 Mar 2016, 18:28

Re: Reddit article on basilisk.

Unread postby Latitude » Sun, 27 May 2018, 12:43

Moonraker wrote:Heated discussion here in regard to basilsik which i thought i would bring to the attention of the forum.
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/commen ... code_from/


A response from a redditor on /r/palemoon:

https://www.reddit.com/r/palemoon/comme ... k/dzmi0t7/

"Considering that e10s was never officially supported by Basilisk and sandboxing doesn't work without e10s, it's only a logical continuation of the chosen path of development."
Last edited by Latitude on Sun, 27 May 2018, 12:46, edited 2 times in total.

Latitude
Banned user
Banned user
Posts: 597
Joined: Mon, 21 Mar 2016, 18:28

Re: Reddit article on basilisk.

Unread postby Latitude » Sun, 27 May 2018, 13:54

But, I hope MC would confirm what that redditor says about the removal of sandboxing security feature.

User avatar
Sajadi
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 944
Joined: Fri, 19 Apr 2013, 00:46

Re: Reddit article on basilisk.

Unread postby Sajadi » Sun, 27 May 2018, 15:28

Always fun to see the wanna-be-Chrome-clone fandom over at Reddit rant and spit poison.

Firefox has become a simple browser without reason to use it as there is no longer much customization and Pale Moon still has features. Clear case where my decision of usage is going :D

And also a perfect example why Mozilla is such a toxic developer today. The users, the developers/representatives - just a big joke :ugeek:
Last edited by Sajadi on Sun, 27 May 2018, 15:37, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 22409
Joined: Sun, 28 Aug 2011, 17:27
Location: 58.5°N 15.5°E
Contact:

Re: Reddit article on basilisk.

Unread postby Moonchild » Sun, 27 May 2018, 15:36

I will not involve myself with external discussions on reddit in the firefox board there.
If people have questions about Basilisk or its features, they are welcome to register on this forum and ask their questions.
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
loxodont
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat, 26 Jul 2014, 23:03
Location: Mare Serenitatis

Re: Reddit article on basilisk.

Unread postby loxodont » Sun, 27 May 2018, 17:29

It's been a mostly boring read of always the same strategy of complaints that Pale Moon doesn't have exactly those features new Firefox has. Even the ghacks discussions were more interesting.
Other claims like "Pale Moon is the new IE",etc. are poor trolling and not worth a waste *of* time.
Last edited by loxodont on Sun, 27 May 2018, 17:30, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 22409
Joined: Sun, 28 Aug 2011, 17:27
Location: 58.5°N 15.5°E
Contact:

Re: Reddit article on basilisk.

Unread postby Moonchild » Mon, 28 May 2018, 03:28

To answer the most pertinent question in this topic:

The Mozilla "content process sandbox" is an approach that only applies to having multiple processes where communication with a content process must be sanitized. It is as much about the inter-process communication involved as it is about isolation. That does not inherently mean that anything not using that particular approach is somehow "less secure" because it isn't -- it only means that using a multi-process approach apparently requires extra security measures despite it supposedly being "safer by design" (it's a "package deal"). It can in fact be argued that needing such a sandbox with IPC highlights a fundamental flaw of e10s and IPC that asks for something like that to be implemented (because low-integrity process isolation is clearly not enough...?).

For our development, since we will not be using the multi-process approach at all, the entire content process sandbox code is dead code, and as such removed.
Last edited by Moonchild on Mon, 28 May 2018, 03:29, edited 1 time in total.
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


Return to “Basilisk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests