A question about basilisk, etc... Topic is solved

[zapper]

Do you plan to put a stop to all the dialing back to home that Basilisk does with pings?

I used sudo tcpdump and for some reason it still shows a lot of dialing back.

On a less related note though, will you be supporting privacypossum.

It is supported currently by firefox-esr 52 and higher. As well as webext. Just wondering.

[Moonchild]

De-Mozification is an ongoing process.
That being said, contacting servers for various services/updates/etc. is normal.

Can't help you with the extension. As has been said many times: it is the task of extensions to be compatible with the thing they extend, never the other way around. If it's a web extension then your mileage may vary - it may or may not work.

[Latitude]

Including MOZ* variables (MOZ_Z_DEFLATEEND, MOZ_PLUGIN_PATH, etc.)?

[Moonchild]

Including MOZ* variables (MOZ_Z_DEFLATEEND, MOZ_PLUGIN_PATH, etc.)?

Yes, MOZ_* -- if you want to help start deleting!

[Latitude]

Yes, MOZ_* -- if you want to help start deleting!

I mean renaming them to MCP_*.

(MCP = MoonChild Productions)

[SpockFan02]

I mean renaming them to MCP_*.

(MCP = MoonChild Productions)

They've been using MC (e.g. MC_BASILISK, MC_PALEMOON). But I really don't think everything needs renaming...

[Moonchild]

It's pointless to rename these things. They won't work any better with a different name, you know?

[zapper]

De-Mozification is an ongoing process.
That being said, contacting servers for various services/updates/etc. is normal.

Ah okay, I am sure you know this, but I meant the unneeded pinging. like dialing to amazon when I am not using amazon... etc...

Still, de-Mozification is good.


"Can't help you with the extension. As has been said many times: it is the task of extensions to be compatible with the thing they extend, never the other way around. If it's a web extension then your mileage may vary - it may or may not work."

Ah okay, so as long as it supports web extension at all, it is a problem. Even if it also works on legacy as well. Right? That is a shame, I guess I talk to my distro about this. heh.

[Nigaikaze]

I guess I talk to my distro about this.

If you want privacypossum to work in Basilisk, then the people you need to talk to are the privacypossum devs, not your disto devs.

[SpockFan02]

I guess I talk to my distro about this.

If you want privacypossum to work in Basilisk, then the people you need to talk to are the privacypossum devs, not your disto devs.

And/or implement more WebExtension APIs in Basilisk.

[zapper]

I guess I talk to my distro about this.

If you want privacypossum to work in Basilisk, then the people you need to talk to are the privacypossum devs, not your disto devs.

And/or implement more WebExtension APIs in Basilisk.

I have done both to be honest.

Minus the implement webextension apis in basilisk of course...

[Moonchild]

We're unlikely to put much (if any) time into adding more WebExtension APIs in Basilisk. Our stance is that if you want to use true browser-extending application-specific features, then you should be using XUL/overlay extensions that have full access to browser APIs, and not WebExtensions that are primarily content/web service focused. Since the APIs are already there in our other extension technologies, there's little reason to do double work (and potentially open up security holes due to the way WebExtensions plug into the browser).

[zapper]

We're unlikely to put much (if any) time into adding more WebExtension APIs in Basilisk. Our stance is that if you want to use true browser-extending application-specific features, then you should be using XUL/overlay extensions that have full access to browser APIs, and not WebExtensions that are primarily content/web service focused. Since the APIs are already there in our other extension technologies, there's little reason to do double work (and potentially open up security holes due to the way WebExtensions plug into the browser).

Fair enough, I did contact the dev of privacy possum, we will see what happens.

[zapper]

We're unlikely to put much (if any) time into adding more WebExtension APIs in Basilisk. Our stance is that if you want to use true browser-extending application-specific features, then you should be using XUL/overlay extensions that have full access to browser APIs, and not WebExtensions that are primarily content/web service focused. Since the APIs are already there in our other extension technologies, there's little reason to do double work (and potentially open up security holes due to the way WebExtensions plug into the browser).

Fair enough, I did contact the dev of privacy possum, we will see what happens.

Nevermind, I was wrong this was something my distro did. so yeah, forget it.

[fatboy]

Fair enough, I did contact the dev of privacy possum, we will see what happens.

Any news from Privacy Possum? Would love to see it on Pale Moon

[Fedor2]

I have the patch for remove some most annoying leaking. I can share it on the next week, when i shall reach main work computer.