Pale Moon forum

I really fight hard to keep pale moon. But with all the updates it seems it just can't keep up with chrome. Before I go on I'm not a browser designer but through the years being a computer nerd I can really see the difference starting with the world's best browser Opera in its development days.(sold out to chrome) gone destroyed

Then came Firefox the best browser arguably ever made working off of operas advancements (sold out to chrome) gone destroyed

Chrome is taking over and I hate them for that. Two of the world's best browsers destroyed. Pale moon using the old Firefox source code I thought here's my chance but as time goes on it seems the developers of chrome Google I don't really know who is making I just didn't care… but they're strangling the Internet this must be just awful for all the independent browsers. Pale moon in my computer simply doesn't work properly and with the new version 29 I personally get no improvements but I'm losing my Firefox extensions.

Let's talk about extensions for one second some of the best extensions were made a long time ago for Firefox before they went WebKit. The extensions that are made for pale moon in my opinion are simply not as good and not as many. I wonder where all those fantastic writers for extensions went because we could really use them here for pale moon. Maybe they went to chrome it seems to have lots of extensions though I haven't fully gone through them yet

I never thought I would say this but I've been looking for a new browser this personally is a burden because it's a lot of work I mean a lot of work because I customize my experience to make the web more enjoyable. Looks like I will have to use chrome seems to be in everything. Yeah what a bummer… Maybe Vivaldi.

Vivaldi was my first attempt recently I spent 4 hours looking at the options inside it has a lot. It takes chrome extensions add-ons. I was frustrated after about four hours of researching it I deleted it back to pale moon. But in that four hours it played every website perfectly. The browser did not fail and it just needs to be explored more . When I say a lot of work it takes weeks or months to learn and sort out how to build a good browser just for use. I like advanced easy to use beautiful browsers for a fantastic computer experience pale moon made this happen as I was using 13 or so Firefox extensions that are being knocked out one by one as pale moon advances and pale moon has nothing to replace them.

Basically I'm just ranting because the world is changing and I see things getting worse …I have a lot of respect for the pale moon team for trying to fight back and I support this. It must be super difficult to keep an independent browser operating in a chrome world.

As I see it pale mood is okay at this moment but it's far behind working perfectly across the Internet. And suffers huge with add-ons extensions.

I love you guys thanks for letting me share my opinion. at the moment I'm staying on pale moon version 28.17.0 with its flaws. Version 29 knocked out another extension .

Please pale moon team don't take this the wrong way your hard work developing pale moon is one of the Best experiences and it's well-written. My enemy seems to be chrome taking over the world. Making it difficult or impossible for independent browsers to exist. It's them that I'm disappointed at because the way pale moon is written its options how extensions work for me is exactly what I've always wanted. But alas everything seems to change and chrome is sitting at the helm

Will the web split up one day? Has is already split up, considering the Darknet? Stupid countries (a growing number) blocking web access for their people? Tim Berners-Lee would be upset for sure, because that wasn't his intention for the "World Wide" Web, which was there for everyone all over the globe. Regardless of the browser in use especially!

Still, just seeing the web happen on old browsers, and with that I mean Pale Moon 28.10 for example or even a 32-Bit version (probably and early version 28 too), 99% of the sites work. You probably don't lose much when staying with the version that works for you. Be aware of unpatched security holes though.

I also made experiments with the Retrozilla project, bascially a 12-year old browser with updated TLS certificates to access modern HTTPS websites. Security aside (don't do online banking with it), the amount of information, that this old browser can gather, is massive. The problem are the big websites of course, run by these big, unfriendly companies. To liberate oneself from them is a task, that requires some stubborness. Becoming incompatible in some way. Unfortuneatly, this is necessary, because else you'll end up with the best product, the one where the biggest team, the most money, the best politicans are behind. It sounds stupid, but I think the desire to get the absolute best is a problem. In this complex field of web browsing, you automatically get dependant on the big players. It is difficult indeed...

Not just chrome though is it.?...Don't forget we have other browsers pretending to be chrome,wearing chromes coat,i want to be chrome lookalikes,they are an issue too and only help the monopoly on it's way.All those saying we won't use chrome,we will use brave or vivaldi instead because it helps the "open web" are deluded.

Aside from Firefox (The Exact Same) and Safari (Parent of Chrome's Engine) everything but us IS chrome.

We are all that is left.

New Tobin Paradigm wrote: ↑

2021-02-04, 11:08

We are all that is left.

https://www.netsurf-browser.org/
is really good for REALLY, REALLY lightweight browsing, basically terminal based browser on steroids

micwoj92 wrote: ↑

2021-02-04, 11:14

is really good for REALLY, REALLY lightweight browsing

May as well use Links then. You can't compare that kind of bare-bones access with a modern browser.
"Web standards: HTML 4.01 and CSS 2.1"
So basically it's just Firefox 3, then.

EDIT: Whoops, didn't saw Moonchild's post when I was writing this.

*mid-air high-5s with jobbautista9*

So in reality a "modern" browser must be a multi-media player,word processor,Must be capable of playing netflix or it is condemned from the start.
So a "modern" browser has gone from being a simple functional software capable of displaying simple webpages to an all out fully bloated do it all piece of webkit....Website designers are as much to blame for this because of the media laden websites being produced now.

Let's just go back to Pale Moon 3.6!

No, a modern web browser should be able to reasonably display what is being used on a majority of websites regarding content. Yes, I'm aware that's a moving target. No it doesn't mean that pages should look exactly the same in every browser.
So, must be able to play multimedia? Yes, because that is what the current web is about. Must be a word processor? Not really, but contenteditable HTML elements are being used everywhere so that's kind of a must. Netflix? Not at all important.

---

Well, just out of curiosity I tried to load up Pale Moon's home page in netsurf. It so incredibly massively failed -- and that website is as compatible as possible because it tries to cater to new OS installations where it can.

Try BinOC lol.

Moonchild wrote: ↑

2021-02-04, 11:46

Well, just out of curiosity I tried to load up Pale Moon's home page in netsurf. It so incredibly massively failed -- and that website is as compatible as possible because it tries to cater to new OS installations where it can.

I dont think it LOOKS that bad, much bigger problem is the menus not working.


binaryoutcast.com website works fine and I could even download Interlink from it.

micwoj92 wrote: ↑

2021-02-04, 11:52

I dont think it LOOKS that bad, much bigger problem is the menus not working.

LOL

To humour you I pulled up the oldest portable I have easy access to (3.5.4)
Even that ancient thing from 2009 does a better job. working menu and everything.

SEE WE SHOULD GO BACK TO 3.X!

Ok, I agree with that, but I think my post was rather to counter argument about terminal browsers. As example with links the menus work but you cant say that it looks better XD

SEE EVEN LINKS IS BETTER!

So to be clear,websites dictate how or what a browser should be capable of doing.?..that would be fair would it not.?
Saying that,where would autoplay and media blocking extensions be without a good heavy dose of heavy scripted media to block just in case it grinds your browser down to a halt.

Unfairly browsers are being judged on their capability to handle such huge scripting.

Pale moon 3.6..??...what a good idea if it were possible lol.

Moonraker wrote: ↑

2021-02-04, 12:13

Saying that,where would autoplay and media blocking extensions be without a good heavy dose of heavy scripted media to block

Wow inverse logic much?
That's like saying we need crime because think of all the people involved in building and running prisons.

Moonraker wrote: ↑

2021-02-04, 11:31

So in reality a "modern" browser must be a multi-media player,word processor,Must be capable of playing netflix or it is condemned from the start.
So a "modern" browser has gone from being a simple functional software capable of displaying simple webpages to an all out fully bloated do it all piece of webkit....Website designers are as much to blame for this because of the media laden websites being produced now.

The browser is moving towards (if it hasn't already become) nothing more than a tabbed container for running remote blackbox applications. Shitty applications, I might add.