Why Do You Use Basilisk?

[suzyne]

I see a new version has been released!

Basilisk 2023.10.03 has been released!

I largely have ignored Basilisk, but today I visited https://basilisk-browser.org/ and read what's there.

Am I correct that in terms of function, Basilisk it is more or less the same as Pale Moon, but being based on a different version of Firefox that it looks different?

What I am not sure about, is there more to using it than enjoying the fresh aesthetics?

[moonbat]

It is based on Firefox 52, which introduced the Australis UI. It differs from Pale Moon by having everything including preferences opens in a tab instead of a dialog, there is WebRTC support and there used to be Google Widevine DRM support until it became impossible to get it certified.
The Australis UI is less customizable than the older UI that Pale Moon uses; it adds a hamburger button for one thing, but for whatever reason there are people who prefer this
I used to use Basilisk for watching Netflix back when its DRM worked, now it doesn't and AFAIK can't be made operational. At this point Basilisk vs Pale Moon is just a matter of UI preference and if you can't live without WebRTC - both of them are otherwise built on UXP.

[athenian200]

Mainly out of curiosity about how well UXP's WebRTC implementation works, since Pale Moon doesn't use that part of the platform. You would potentially want this to make use of videoconferencing websites and the like, but it has security risks that Pale Moon users rejected. Basilisk was originally meant to be the more "Mozilla-like" experience back when our fork point wasn't so far off from Firefox that we were pretty much on our own, but having such a thing on our codebase eventually became unworkable as things diverged, and Basilisk evolved into pretty much being the UXP browser people use because they like Australis (which Firefox no longer uses), or because they want WebRTC.

It can also be nice to have a second UXP-based browser on hand, so that way I can open up demanding sites that are likely to slow down/crash the engine in it while leaving my Pale Moon session uncluttered. Sure, you don't really need a second browser to do this, but having a second browser is simpler to setup for me than dealing with portable versions, alternate profiles, etc.

[Basilisk-Dev]

Here are some of the differences between Pale Moon and Basilisk

* Basilisk has the Australis GUI
* Basilisk includes WebRTC out of the box, Pale Moon disables WebRTC at compile time
* Basilisk includes a PDF reader out of the box (this can be added to Pale Moon with an extension)
* Basilisk includes Reader View out of the box (this can be added to Pale Moon with an extension)
* Basilisk works better with SOME legacy Firefox extensions that were made for later Firefox versions (52-56) in mind. Most will work fine on Pale Moon, but there have been a few instances where I found extensions that don't work in Pale Moon but do work in Basilisk.
* Basilisk is configured with different options than Pale Moon (--enable-webrtc, --enable-gamepad)
* Basilisk binaries on Linux are Position Independent Executables, Pale Moon is not
* Basilisk is compiled with -O3 GCC compiler optimization on Linux instead of Pale Moon's -O2.
* Basilisk will offer 32-bit Linux builds in the future.
* The Unix configuration directory doesn't have a space in it. ($HOME/.basilisk-dev). Pale Moon's does ($HOME/.moonchild productions). The space in the Pale Moon config directory irritates me to no end. As a matter of fact I chose the name Basilisk-Dev specifically to avoid this.

I'm sure there are some other differences but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Really it comes down to personal preference and the need for WebRTC, both are good browsers and you won't go wrong picking either one. I have my Basilisk profile somewhat hardened from a privacy perspective so I use Pale Moon as my backup browser.

[Lucio Chiappetti]

Here are some of the differences between Pale Moon and Basilisk
* Basilisk has the Australis GUI
* Basilisk includes WebRTC out of the box, Pale Moon disables WebRTC at compile time

Let us concentrate on those two. I moved from Firefox to Pale Moon when the former went Australis, I couldn't and cannot stand it. At the time I wasn't very much aware of issues like extensions (I used just things like classic status bar), or privacy, ad-blocking, tracking etc. which now I appreciate in Pale Moon (and of course another thing I appreciate is the quality of help in this forum). I use obtorto collo Google Chrome as backup browser for things "Pale Moon cannot do" (this is mainly web conferencing with Google Meet or Zoom, or the odd sites that do not show up in Pale Moon) but I feel ill at ease, because I do not trust it and do not know (and I am lazy to learn) how to customize and "harden" it.
Would it be worthwhile that I replace Google Chrome as backup browser with Basilisk ? Considering there is this sub-forum for help ? Will it work well with Google Meet or Zoom ? And with "chrome-designed sites" ?

[athenian200]

* Basilisk includes a PDF reader out of the box (this can be added to Pale Moon with an extension)
* Basilisk includes Reader View out of the box (this can be added to Pale Moon with an extension)

So if I'm understanding this correctly, Basilisk is intended to support more things out of the box without extensions compared with Pale Moon, right?

I have an idea for something you could add to Basilisk that might attract some new users:

viewtopic.php?p=244850#p244850

Essentially, a GUI interface to the content preference "browser.content.full-zoom" which controls default zoom levels. On Pale Moon, I think we're trying to avoid feature creep and encourage the use of third-party extensions more, but I feel like I can also see how having that feature out of the box would appeal to some people... I think it might be something that would be perfect for Basilisk, which is providing more of that "kitchen sink" experience.

[gabrgv]

(Instead of PM,) mainly because of the CoC.

Also, I guess Basilisk can be better tweaked for privacy (maybe some compatibility with arkenfox’s user.js v52, or things like “privacy.resistFingerprinting”?).

Off-topic:

I have my Basilisk profile somewhat hardened from a privacy perspective

May I ask what you did in particular to harden your profile?

[suzyne]

Thanks for the replies. For me, it sounds like it mostly would be about visual preferences since I don't use linux (yet!) and nothing I do in Pale Moon requires...

* Basilisk includes WebRTC out of the box, Pale Moon disables WebRTC at compile time

but given my wavering approach-avoidance dilemma with add-ons, I find these 3 differences interesting!

* Basilisk includes a PDF reader out of the box (this can be added to Pale Moon with an extension)
* Basilisk includes Reader View out of the box (this can be added to Pale Moon with an extension)
* Basilisk works better with SOME legacy Firefox extensions that were made for later Firefox versions (52-56) in mind. Most will work fine on Pale Moon, but there have been a few instances where I found extensions that don't work in Pale Moon but do work in Basilisk.

[Basilisk-Dev]

So if I'm understanding this correctly, Basilisk is intended to support more things out of the box without extensions compared with Pale Moon, right?

I wouldn't say this is an explicit goal of Basilisk, but I do like the idea of having support for things like PDFs out of the box to make it easier for users.

Eventually I want to expose more about:config prefs in general in the Basilisk preferences. Slowly over time Mozilla wanted to hold users hands more and more, and so they hid more and more preferences from the GUI in later Firefox releases. I disagree with that mentality, users should be able to change whatever they want even if they are shooting themselves in the foot.

[athenian200]

Eventually I want to expose more about:config prefs in general in the Basilisk preferences. Slowly over time Mozilla wanted to hold users hands more and more, and so they hid more and more preferences from the GUI in later Firefox releases. I disagree with that mentality, users should be able to change whatever they want even if they are shooting themselves in the foot.

Same here, that's generally the way I think it should be as well. I mean, why use a highly-configurable application unless you can do potentially stupid things with it? That was half the fun of older versions of Windows (and older computers in general)... turning everything the same color as a kid and then struggling to get it back to a usable state.

[moonbat]

Things were best when companies simply added a disclaimer not to mess around with settings that you don't understand. Or some of them would simply classify their settings as basic or advanced, and hide the latter by default - as VLC does.

[Basilisk-Dev]

(Instead of PM,) mainly because of the CoC.

Glad you like it, you're the first person who has ever mentioned it to me at all.

Off-topic:

May I ask what you did in particular to harden your profile?

My profile isn't as hardened as some other privacy-paranoid people's profiles may be. I want the web to generally just work while at the same time having more privacy than the browser defaults.

Set canvas.poisondata to true in about:config
Disable third party cookies completely
Set search engine to something private (DuckDuckGo is already the default and it's decent enough for privacy for most people)
Clear history/cookies/etc at browser close.

Also I install the following extensions:
Decentraleyes
Greasemonkey for Pale Moon (works with Basilisk too) - I install userscripts for things like redirecting YouTube to invidious and redirecting Reddit to Old Reddit
Pure URL
CanvasBlocker Legacy - this one causes performance issues for me on several sites so I currently have it disabled.
Adblock Latitude - ublock Origin is also acceptable if you prefer it. I think Adblock Latitude's UI is more user friendly/less cluttered.
eMatrix - I set up eMatrix by default to whitelist everything and then I go through and block all assets from a self-maintained list of domains I don't trust like google-analytics.com

[Basilisk-Dev]

Would it be worthwhile that I replace Google Chrome as backup browser with Basilisk ? Considering there is this sub-forum for help ? Will it work well with Google Meet or Zoom ? And with "chrome-designed sites" ?

In terms of WebRTC sites, not yet. There are some severe problems with WebRTC (VP8 encoding completely broke early last year) that I am working on resolving right now. Most WebRTC applications will allow you to join a call and your microphone will work, but you will likely not be able to send video at all. The only thing I've found that allows you to send video in the current Basilisk release is an old version of Jitsi Meet from before they implemented VP8 as the default video codec.

I think Zoom still uses WebAssembly instead of WebRTC so it might still work? It did work in Basilisk around 2-3 years ago but I haven't tested it recently.

For "Chrome-designed" sites that don't use WebRTC, the compatibility should be basically the same as Pale Moon.

[gabrgv]

Off-topic:

Off-topic:
My profile isn't as hardened as some other privacy-paranoid people's profiles may be.

Overall, mine is basically the same:

Off-topic:
Decentraleyes

Do you think Decentraleyes is still reasonable? I read this back in my FF days and got kind of disappointed. But maybe I just don’t understand this things well enough.

Off-topic:
I install userscripts for things like redirecting YouTube to invidious and redirecting Reddit to Old Reddit

For redirecting I use URL Rewriter.

Off-topic:
Adblock Latitude - ublock Origin is also acceptable if you prefer it. […]
eMatrix - I set up eMatrix by default to whitelist everything and then I go through and block all assets from a self-maintained list of domains I don't trust like google-analytics.com

I have uBlock Origin blocking 3rd-parties by default and some additional filters. If a site breaks I use a backup profile with only uBlock (easy mode).

Basilisk is the only browser I have ever used in my OS (Artix btw). Almost got Lynx installed, to go with my Mutt setup, but I’m using Epyrus now (easier to handle multiple accounts).

One last thing: The Basilisk’s “Contact us” page is directing to a GitHub repository that doesn’t exist anymore.

[Moonchild]

Off-topic:

Do you think Decentraleyes is still reasonable? I read this back in my FF days and got kind of disappointed. But maybe I just don’t understand this things well enough.

In its current state you shouldn't bother. If someone were to update it to actually include currently-used versions of common libraries, and make it a rather comprehensive inclusion of what's being used (mind you, that will require constant maintenance!) then it'd certainly be a nice tool to avoid reaching out to external servers, save bandwidth, and reduce tracking exposure.
I do not agree with some of the other points people make about it, because some of those aren't even within scope of what the extension is trying to do, and people talking about it clearly didn't understand it/wanted to use if for the wrong task, then complained about that.

[Basilisk-Dev]

Off-topic:

Do you think Decentraleyes is still reasonable?

I agree with Moonchild that it needs to be actively maintained for modern JS framework versions, but it doesn't hurt to have it installed IMO. I mainly install it out of habit, I've had it installed for probably 8+ years on my browsers at this point.

Basilisk is the only browser I have ever used in my OS (Artix btw). Almost got Lynx installed, to go with my Mutt setup, but I’m using Epyrus now (easier to handle multiple accounts).

That's cool, I've never used Artix. Looks like it's based on Arch judging by its logo?

One last thing: The Basilisk’s “Contact us” page is directing to a GitHub repository that doesn’t exist anymore.

Thanks, that'll be fixed when I update the site later this week when I release the new Basilisk version.

[gabrgv]

I agree with Moonchild

Thank you both for the information.

Looks like it's based on Arch judging by its logo?

Yes, it’s basically Arch, but without systemd.