Basilisk update anytime soon?

[JoeyG]

I'm not in a hurry; just wondering out loud.

As always, thanks to the devs. I use nothing but PM and Basilisk and am exceedingly happy with the two browsers.

[Isengrim]

Releases come when they're ready. I do not know what criteria the dev team uses to determine when Basilisk updates are due, but they're usually every few months.

[Moonchild]

At the moment I'm holding off on a release because DRM needs to be fixed for Google's licensing.

[JoeyG]

At the moment I'm holding off on a release because DRM needs to be fixed for Google's licensing.

OK, thank you.

[Moonchild]

Any further similar posts will likely not be answered. it'll be released "when it's done" as we've always done.

[JoeyG]

Any further similar posts will likely not be answered. it'll be released "when it's done" as we've always done.

I like the "likely". In any case, thanks again for taking the time to reply. I'm sure you've got better things to do.

[pintorama]

Could the "DRM needs to be fixed for Google's licensing" issue be related to the web based Google Voice not working to the extent that I can't seem to send a text message while in Basilisk, but can in Firefox?

The error message generated is: "You might be unable to make or receive calls over the internet. Check your internet settings."

[Isengrim]

No, as far as I know the DRM issue is not related to WebRTC.

[roma6266]

Hey! Tell me, what will the Basilisk have in the future? In the end, all the events from the Basilisk have already been transferred to the Pale Moon. And initially it was created for the development of UXP and its transfer to the Pale Moon. Will something fundamental be done? New features, usability? Or just patch security?
Will there be a switch to another core of Firefox?
Thank.

[moonbat]

At the moment I'm holding off on a release because DRM needs to be fixed for Google's licensing.

Will it continue to be a part of the browser? I'd hate to have to return to Firefox on Linux for my Netflix/Amazon Prime fix.

[roma6266]

Basilisk was initially positioned as a test assembly for XUL (UXP) and its transfer to Pale Moon. All this has already been done. So the existence of a Basilisk is already meaningless? Will the Basilisk project be closed? Or will it continue to develop as a standalone browser? But then he must come out of the eternal Beta. And what will be the vector of its development?
Developers can answer these questions?

[moonbat]

Basilisk was initially positioned as a test assembly for XUL (UXP) and its transfer to Pale Moon. All this has already been done. So the existence of a Basilisk is already meaningless? Will the Basilisk project be closed? Or will it continue to develop as a standalone browser? But then he must come out of the eternal Beta. And what will be the vector of its development?
Developers can answer these questions?

Please read the pinned posts in the Basilisk forum.

[roma6266]

Forum read. Basilisk did not see any specifics on a different positioning than the test site. This can be read on the first page on the official website of the Basilisk. The authors themselves are silent and do not answer specific questions. Maybe he was already abandoned as unnecessary?
Does he have a long-term development? And what is it like?

[Isengrim]

But then he must come out of the eternal Beta.

It doesn't have to at all.

Basilisk is two things:

1) A way to test the capabilities of UXP that Pale Moon does not support.
2) A browser with closer compatibility to FF 52 than Pale Moon (user interface and other details) for those that need it.

Basilisk updates are released when they are ready. That's alll there is to it.

[roma6266]

The first thing seems to be checked. The second thing remains. So the Basilisk will not be abandoned. Will there just be another browser with great compatibility with Firefox 52? Which will develop further?
But I wonder what will be its development? After all, Firefox 52 is dead. And Quantum is developing now.

[Moonchild]

After all, Firefox 52 is dead. And Quantum is developing now.

If you expect a fork to be equal to what it forked from, then you should keep in mind that Basilisk as an application is building on UXP. They are not the same thing. Firefox 52 is dead because the Mozilla code underpinning it is not developed.

Why do you think the application code needs to be developed when the platform is being developed? Why do you think there needs to be a significant "plan of change" for Basilisk when what it offers is what users want from it?

[roma6266]

As far as I understand, all this is done to support the old classic extensions and the ability to work on older computers. But at the same time, the browser must be constantly updated and refined in order to maintain operability in modern WEB. But this is the most difficult.
There is no need to talk about any new features in the browser. It will simply be kept afloat and cover security issues.

[moonbat]

As I understand, the support for web standards would rely on the rendering engine, Goanna in this case - which is common to both browsers. So there isn't any need to separately patch Basilisk, it will follow PM, just not released as frequently. As it is, the number of people who want the UI equivalent of post Australis Firefox is a small subset.

[Moonchild]

I guess I need to post this again. People have forgotten.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

I like this new trend of how people are ignoring everything ever written over the past few years and are just presenting their own (incorrect) theories and then telling us that is why we have done these things as if we have no memory of what we did or was somehow not involved.

What even is this?