Reddit article on basilisk.

Board for discussions around the Basilisk web browser.

Moderator: Basilisk-Dev

User avatar
Moonraker
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1878
Joined: 2015-09-30, 23:02
Location: uk.

Reddit article on basilisk.

Unread post by Moonraker » 2018-05-27, 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/
user of multiple puppy linuxes..upup,fossapup.scpup,xenialpup..... :thumbup:

Pale moon 29.4.1

Latitude

Re: Reddit article on basilisk.

Unread post by Latitude » 2018-05-27, 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 2018-05-27, 12:46, edited 2 times in total.

Latitude

Re: Reddit article on basilisk.

Unread post by Latitude » 2018-05-27, 13:54

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

User avatar
Sajadi
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1226
Joined: 2013-04-19, 00:46

Re: Reddit article on basilisk.

Unread post by Sajadi » 2018-05-27, 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 2018-05-27, 15:37, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35477
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: Reddit article on basilisk.

Unread post by Moonchild » 2018-05-27, 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.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

User avatar
loxodont
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 725
Joined: 2014-07-26, 23:03
Location: Mare Serenitatis

Re: Reddit article on basilisk.

Unread post by loxodont » 2018-05-27, 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 2018-05-27, 17:30, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35477
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: Reddit article on basilisk.

Unread post by Moonchild » 2018-05-28, 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 2018-05-28, 03:29, edited 1 time in total.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

Locked