Why basilisk?

[roma6266]

I was very rudely answered in a previous post!
I asked for an explanation of why legacy browser Basilisk is better than legacy browser Waterfox?
No unnecessary attacks! To choose, I need to know the pros and cons of both browsers. That's why I asked here. I thought that knowledgeable people would come here who could explain. I need a browser that supports old classic extensions. Several legacy browsers do this. I want to hear the opinions of connoisseurs of Basilisk.

[adesh]

Basilisk is not a legacy browser. It is based on a mature platform and is being actively developed. Where did you read that crap?

[Moonraker]

have you tried both browsers.?
What were your conclusions.?

What sort of response are you seeking considering you are asking a pointless question on the basilisk developers forum,do you seriously expect waterfox to get a vote of confidence here?.

[Moonchild]

The answer you got in your previous post was pretty on the nose, though.

As for "which is better", that is something only you can decide for yourself. Waterfox bases on a different fork point of mozilla-central than Basilisk does, but both have their own development (although our platform and therefore the browser has more people working on it than the Waterfox browser, and we don't rely as heavily on Mozilla doing the coding work), and one may work better for your workflow than the other. Both support "legacy" extensions. We don't keep tabs on what every other alternative browser is doing; our knowledge of Waterfox is therefore not detailed enough to make the comparison for you.

You'll just have to make up your own dam mind.

[Sajadi]

You seem like some kind of troll.

If you aren't... test both browsers and use what works best for you - On the other side of the coin... everyone who would have taught about this problem in the first place would have done exactly that.. trying and deciding.

So, no matter if troll or not troll... Test both and pick what works best for you.

But... because i am friendly AND helpful.. i make you aware that Waterfox Classic seems to get only security fixes but no feature update, while Basilisk/Pale Moon gets both... security fixes AND feature updates if possible or applicable, for example ECMAscript features.

It is even stated here:
https://www.ghacks.net/2019/10/25/water ... -branches/

Waterfox Current is the second version of the browser. It is the "modern, feature updated branch" . The core difference between the two is that Waterfox Classic will retain classic functionality but will receive bug and security fixes only.

Waterfox Current on the other hand will keep up "with the modern web". While not mentioned explicitly in the blog post, it is likely that Waterfox Current won't support all the features of Waterfox Classic. Instead, it will introduce new features and options that the classic version does not support.

What that means...
1) Waterfox Classic you can see as some kind of ESR
2) Waterfox Current is yet another Firefox (Chrome imitation)
3) Basilisk/Pale Moon is ESR+

Are your questions now answered by now?

[Moonchild]

Waterfox Current is what Waterfox has always been: a rebranded rebuild that will use Firefox-release (at arbitrary versions) or -ESR as its base. Waterfox Classic is what Alex attempted on his own after refusing to come on board with UXP in terms of making a fork, and clearly couldn't maintain on his own (which is exactly why I suggested a cooperation for the platform...) - In fact, if he had come on board with UXP, Basilisk would likely not exist because he would be providing an Australis-type browser with the same features enabled.

[athenian200]

I see Basilisk as a practical compromise intended to demonstrate the power of the UXP platform, and show that UXP can compete with alternatives like Waterfox or Seamonkey on features. It has all the stuff not desired in Pale Moon... Google DRM, WebRTC, etc.

Pale Moon is something closer to the ideal of what the community would want a browser to be, Basilisk is the practical vision intended to help keep people who need more of the new web technology nonsense than Pale Moon offers from going over to Waterfox or Firefox.

I would say Basilisk is better because it's based on a platform that's being maintained and improved, while Waterfox Classic really doesn't have a future and the project is headed in Mozilla's direction.

[adesh]

intended to demonstrate the power of the UXP platform, and show that UXP can compete with alternatives like Waterfox or Seamonkey on features. It has all the stuff not desired in Pale Moon... Google DRM, WebRTC, etc.

Off-topic:
That explanation made me smile.

[roma6266]

Well, Waterfox Current doesn't interest me at all. This is almost the same Firefox.

Waterfox Classic gets security updates and feature updates as well.
I ask not for Waterfox. I thought that Basilisk fans and connoisseurs knew how their browser was different and how it was better than others like them.
I tried both browsers. I can not yet see any differences in work. I am not a programmer. Maybe there are some specific functions of the Basilisk?

Waterfox is bigger.
For some reason, the Motion Mark test is worse: sometimes freezes for a few seconds.
Perhaps it is designed for a more modern computer.

And by the way, I did not say that the browser is outdated. Legacy Browser - browser that works with old classic extensions. They are all built on the old Firefox cores.

[moonbat]

And by the way, I did not say that the browser is outdated. Legacy Browser - browser that works with old classic extensions. They are all built on the old Firefox cores.

Next time, learn to read the information that's right in front of you instead of wasting everyone else's time with pointless debates that you've already decided in advance, let alone expecting people here to justify using a browser that no one's forcing you to use. The differences between Basilisk and Firefox are highlighted right there.

Can never understand people who ask uninformed questions that could easily be looked up before asking on a forum, when practically every single technical forum on the internet has an FAQ section or requires you to do some research before posting questions that have already been answered elsewhere. More so when it takes time for others to see and reply to your question which you could've looked up yourself if you cared to bother. How bloody hard was it for you to read the Basilisk website first before coming here?

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Why Basilisk? Why not?

That should settle it.

[roma6266]

As I understand it, none of the fans can explain clearly.
I read everything on this link: http://basilisk-browser.org/features.shtml
The main difference between the Basilisk - is its code is untied from Mozilla, Basilisk does not use the Rust and Photon interface, does not use Electrolysis, e10s multi-process browsing (I do not know whether it is good or bad)
Everything else at Waterfox is similar. I'm not interested in the filling. I'm interested in work. In the browsers I did not see the difference.

By the way, on the site of Waterfox, they also could not explain this to me. Perhaps this should be discussed on neutral sites, and not on specific product forums.

But thanks to everyone for the answers. Although clarity did not increase.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

I am not a fan of Basilisk I can assure you. I think you are just too uninformed to even understand the concepts behind what the difference may or may not be positive or negative and personally desirable or not to you.

Please either take your ignorance elsewhere or expand the boundaries of your knowledge of the universe and all the parts therein. Including browsers. We cannot do this for you. Only you can decide to.

[Sajadi]

As I understand it, none of the fans can explain clearly.

Talk about this topic is useless. As it is not our part to make you decide to use this or that.

Use what YOU like more or what YOU think what may work better - You wasted so much time for writing and reading towards a topic which falls in the end under YOUR responsibility.

It does not matter if you use Waterfox or Basilisk - Just use what works best for you. Which is what you should have done in the first place instead of making it depending from the opinion of others.

[adesh]

But thanks to everyone for the answers. Although clarity did not increase.

What clarity do you want? Be specific.

I, and for that matter many members and developers themselves here, can write a three page post describing technical and behavioral differences between both the browsers. But that will not help you. It could confuse you even more actually. We don't know what you want to know, or how much you already know. Or if you just want to hear "Waterfox".

So please be specific. For example, tell us what what aspects of browsers you are interested in and what features you are looking for. But at this point my suggestion (already pointed out by few) is to actually try both browsers and decide. If you don't like Basilisk, then just use some other browser.

[roma6266]

Where can I read in detail about the Basilisk development concept? (I read what is written on the site. There are no explanations for the reasons.)
And specifically, why did the Basilisk refrain from multiprocessing? What are the advantages?
Is a fork of a fresher Mozilla core expected (Pale Moon at one time, too, could not be long on the old core of Mozilla)? Or will the Basilisk stay on this all the time?

[Moonchild]

I don't know if you are simply not reading what has been posted on the forum and on the websites, or if you are unable to absorb the information there, or if you are doing this on purpose (which seems more likely with every post made), but the bottom line is:

1. Inform yourself (a fork is not an "old core", for starters...)
2. Make up your own mind what works better for you, and use it

Locking this thread. Please do not open a new one in continuation.