Pale Moon ranked number 6 browser overall by topattack

[Pallid Planetoid]

You "sir" are what could be consider an "idiot".

I think you meant to say "You 'sir' are what could be considered an 'idiot'." Perhaps -- all of us have a right to our own opinions. ... I'm not at all surprised by yours (in that regard you can be relied upon to be very consistent). Isn't it nice to try and find the positive in everything regardless of how difficult that might be....

[Pallid Planetoid]

Pallid Planetoid, read this carefully before replying please.

Nobody said exposure is not helpful. But a thing like negative publicity and "exposure" also exists. Take "fake news" or spreading propaganda, affecting elections using "exposure" and a lot of other things. Do you think those are helpful or unhelpful?
This negative exposure, undue criticism and misinformation is what is dangerous and what the core people are against (as they should be).

All very excellent points and all of which I subscribe to as well.

No question insidious inaccurate "propoganda" is very much so a "negative". I can safely say that you're preaching to the choir on this subject.

So while I totally agree with what you've said in it's entirety --- My point is what I've heard in reply to when posting this topic and a former similar topic is that making a list like this is "not really that helpful' (paraphrase) and/or amounts to a "wash" at best.....

Do you believe that?

To believe the counterpoint to what I've been saying would suggest that Pale Moon making a top-10 list is "fake" news (as you put it) and at worse "spreading propaganda" to use your terms.

I do not believe that Pale Moon making a top-10 list is any of that -- clearly this does not fit into the areas of "propaganda" or "fake news" -- wouldn't you agree?

Wouldn't you agree that any product making a top-10 list is "good" news for that product?

And the only way that this would be damaging in any way would be if the product DID NOT DESERVE TO MAKE THE TOP-10 LISTS!!!

Do you believe Pale Moon merits making a top-10 list?

I think you will agree -- so then we are in agreement -- the "exposure" that Pale Moon is getting is a "good" thing and is not "fake news" nor is it "propaganda".

I hope you've taken the time to read my post as I have yours.

Addendum: Oh and what I've said here in this post (for the most part) is all that I've previously been saying all along. It occurs to me that sometimes people have an innate instinct to take an opposing view just for the sake of conflict when in reality they would otherwise generally be in agreement. In many cases the adversarial path seems appealing for some even in the face of actual agreement when a premise is actually examined properly thus it will be the innate need to resist agreement that will still prevail.

[Pallid Planetoid]

^ adesh et al. -- the silence suggests that you're on board as far as comprehending and ultimately agreeing to the points I've been making.

Fact of the matter is -- I am fully confident, as I am sure you are as well, that the exceptional quality of Pale Moon will shine through for most people that try out the browser as a result of the raised awareness that the additional "exposure" this Browser Review article affords Pale Moon that would otherwise not be the case. Unless of course you actually do feel that the vast majority of us who love Pale Moon so much are that far out of the main-stream -- of which I doubt is the case to the extent that the vast majority of potential new users would not agree with us. -- and let me be clear, I am not dismissing the level of unsupported bias that exists regarding browsers in general -- my point is for anyone checking the site out at any level would in some cases likely be amenable to trying out something new. It has been my experience that people in general are very often attracted to anything "new" (more specifically younger people I would add).

To digress from the topic and touch upon what you've alluded to adesh, that very often impacts the typical news cycle in irresponsible ways:

Off-topic:
Talk about Fake News. There will always be those who just don't get it. For instance, it's not at all about "GDP" (as insinuated in this article linked below) but rather it is really all about assisting those who's incomes have dropped precipitously or resulted in no income at all that are in dire need of financial assistance in some form or another. This sinister pandemic has caused literally millions of families to suffer just trying to find ways to simply put food on the table and to sustain their basic housing needs. But there's only so much that can be done financially and otherwise (considering that the printing of too much money can lead to even more dire circumstances impacting even more people at some point to name one hyper-inflation that can cause serious grief at all levels of the economic spectrum). But again to talk in terms of "GDP" as representative of all there is that is important to this administration is disingenuous at best and at worst representative of the flat-out insidious "propaganda" that qualifies as the epitome of "fake" news that we hear way too much of the time (which I'd say is where the intent more accurately lies in this case): Democrat Sherrod Brown slams Trump's economic relief efforts and asks how many American lives are worth .5% of GDP It is so very shameful, as a first and foremost Trump detractor, for Senator Brown to characterize his own position in such a deceitful and heinous fashion!! (but this is business as usual -- or should I say "politics" as usual -- keeping "business" out of it even though this article is posted by the "Business Insider" website ).

Addendum: Talk about idiots -- this idiot Sherrod Brown makes it clear his position is to keep the economy closed indefinitely in order to ultimately blame his nemesis Trump for the ensuing total economic collapse that would be the unavoidable outcome of his position as exemplified in this congressional exchange: https://www.cnbc.com/video/2020/05/19/s ... aring.html. Fact of the matter is -- most things are in general "unfair" in life that he obsesses on in the interchange -- so what's his point beyond this mindless guys clear obsessive goal to unfairly stigmatize this administration. Talk about what is "unfair" -- the characterizations we hear from him are so very often totally "unfair" as well -- so what else is new? (once again -- "politics" as usual)

[moonbat]

Unless of course you actually do feel that the vast majority of us who love Pale Moon so much are that far out of the main-stream -- of which I doubt is the case to the extent that the vast majority of potential new users would not agree with us.

Yes, that is exactly it, we are well out of the mainstream. The mainstream couldn't care less about all this and will keep using Chrome. A smaller fraction of them go on r/privacy, suddenly realize that such a thing is an issue, break out the tinfoil hats and start posting retarded questions about whether Google is snooping on them or how they can go all Jason Bourne and surf the net completely invisible.

We here are either nostalgic for the old Firefox experience or have accidentally discovered the browser mentioned elsewhere as an alternative. And even then, Pale Moon is not for everyone as repeatedly stressed both in the general information page and by Moonchild at particularly petulant people who announce that they're leaving. There are still many more who have downloaded Pale Moon and found it too old fashioned or don't like that it intentionally leaves out WebRTC and DRM, or that there is no mobile version anymore because syncing tabs between mobile and desktop matters to them.

Off-topic:
Add to that the mainstream culture of valuing feelings over everything else and popular sites letting you block/ban/downvote others for offending your snowflake sensibilities - and plenty more get driven away because they don't like Tobin and Moonchild's blunt attitude towards dumb questions or bullshit behavior. (r/palemoon probably exists for this reason)

Lastly, not everyone who uses the browser is active on the forums, so there already are more people using it than you see here.

[Pallid Planetoid]

And while I would agree with you that there may perhaps be a significant number of people as you have so eloquently portrayed. I would suggest to you that in addition to these people you describe there will also be a number of people like myself who by running across a website like what I've linked here in this topic end up discovering Pale Moon to be the browser of choice that absent finding this specific browser comparison site would have remained totally unaware of Pale Moon. My point is -- for those who become familiar with Pale Moon as a result of a website like this who for one reason or another may happen to be predisposed to finding another browser that provides what Pale Moon offers will as a consequence of the website necessarily increase Pale Moon's browser market share. And to the extent this is the case I certainly can't see how this can in any way be construed as a negative for Pale Moon -- simple as that. All of the well-stated extraneous technical factors beyond this simple concept are in many respects just "background noise" when it comes down to what is ultimately beneficial to Pale Moon.

You may notice that I've made a concerted effort to avoid the word "exposure" in my comments above which for whatever reason seems to be a word that provokes contriving opposition to my premise. Putting that aside, it remains to be said that what is really at work here in terms of what brings to bear the possibility of increased market share for Pale Moon is because of nothing other than the "exposure" garnered as result of visitors to a website like this that includes Pale Moon as a viable browser alternative. To those who dismiss increased market share as inconsequential (because I'm sure that's what I'm going to hear next) -- all I have to say to you is ask those developers of browsers that have been relegated to the dust-bin of history what they think of taking the point of view that market share is inconsequential.

[moonbat]

all I have to say to you is ask those developers of browsers that have been relegated to the dust-bin of history what they think of taking the point of view that market share is inconsequential.

Care to name a few? Firefox ironically lost marketshare because of obsessing over it and trying to play catch up to Chrome instead of focusing on its strengths.

[Pallid Planetoid]

Netscape Navigator comes to mind off the top-of-my-head.... let's see... There was "Cello" that never got off the ground. There was "Arena" that lasted for 4-5 years ending in the late 90's as I recall. There was an IBM browser they had that was called the "Web Explorer" (there have been other IBM browsers that have also failed as I recall). There was the short-lived "Cyberdog". There was "Omniweb" that managed to stay afloat in the vicinity of 20 years but ultimately died recently. All of these browsers have necessarily failed in the end for lack of "market share" for the most part. I would assume based on common sense that in each case their goals where to increase market share in order to survive as a viable browser. Whatever interest they could garner from the public for their browsers by way of "exposure" was I'm sure something they would by all means strive for -- but in the end each of them apparently didn't have what it takes to compete. To the extent that a lack of "exposure" was a factor -- who's to say. But I think we can all agree that maximizing "exposure" can't be considered detrimental to the survival of a browser.

Addendum: -- oh ya -- there was "Classilla" or something like that name that started about when Pale Moon was forked from FF that lasted somewhere around 6 years or so. Again -- all these browsers had the expectation of catching on (and the only way that happens is by minimally increasing an adequate amount of market share to accomplish that goal). And what is it that helps sustain this objective? -- clearly "exposure" to potential new users would be the obvious answer. ) Can you offer any other major factors (I don't mean minuscule subtleties) beyond this that an enterprise must strive for to continue to survive in the market place?

I would add -- the demise of FF in many respects (even though it still clearly remains a viable browser to this day) is the result of the obsessive herd mentality that has occurred toward Chrome (which I would agree perhaps panicked FF into making poor decisions to the added benefit of Chrome unfortunately)

[adesh]

Can you offer any other major factors

Provide value. Don't be exactly same like your competitor. Have a USP.

Please don't reiterate the same thing over and over again about "exposure". We get it.

[moonbat]

Netscape Navigator comes to mind off the top-of-my-head

They were driven into the ground by Microsoft ending the ability to make money off a browser by bundling it for 'free' with Windows. That set the tone for all future browsers. The others you mention were either limited from the start by being on obscure platforms (Arena, really?) or introduced at a bad time for the company (Apple was in serious financial trouble in '97 when Cyberdog was introduced).

Oh, and Netscape also took the fantastically stupid decision of dumping their codebase and starting from scratch for version 6. They lost a good 2 years reinventing the wheel during which time IE went from 4 to 5.5 with a faster engine and more features, and ate their lunch. Sounds familiar? Poor software management practices are in the very DNA of Mozilla.

Provide value. Don't be exactly same like your competitor. Have a USP.

This absolutely, else with the mountains of text I have to wonder if Planetoid is the next CharmCityCrab.

[Pallid Planetoid]

@adesh -- Sorry for exposing everyone to so many references to "exposure" (I made a funny) -- it's just that there have been a number of those who have persisted in holding the position that this is not necessarily beneficial (of which as you certainly know by now I totally disagree ).

In regards to "value" I'd agree in the sense that the term "value" represents favorable results (however "value" is in many respects a monetary term that as we know wouldn't apply to free browsers so much). Unique functionality can certainly be a benefit (in terms of being different than your competition as you put it).

So what is a "USP"? (I'm not that technical -- to the chagrin of a specific member of this forum )

[Pallid Planetoid]

So CharmCityCrab was excessively verbose? -- shame on CharmCityCrab. (I will say however -- that I do appreciate folks who actually read my monstrosities -- now I'm going to hear that nobody really does. )

Hmm, what I should do is just enjoy reading some of the insightful posts from you guys for awhile -- seriously . Oh and thanks a whole lot for the exchange of ideas - its been fun, at least for me (much appreciated )

[moonbat]

USP or 'Unique Selling Proposition' is marketing speak, not technical jargon - for 'why should someone use your product/service over the competition'. You can see how contemporary Firefox utterly fails at this in comparison with Chrome - it simply does not offer a good reason. Marketers strive to differentiate their product from the competition - you don't see Coke or Pepsi trying to imitate each others' taste to cut into the opponent's marketshare, yet that's what the geniuses at Mozilla thought would work by bringing extension compatibility with Chrome at the expense of the existing technology.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Your forget New Coke which was more Pepsi like. It was a disaster.

You're in general misrepresenting the past because you are largely ignorant of it. Please stop doing that.

[moonbat]

Your forget New Coke which was more Pepsi like. It was a disaster.

At least they quickly reverted to the original formula. You don't see them or anyone else repeating such mistakes.

[Moonchild]

Off-topic:

At least they quickly reverted to the original formula.

Actually, no, they didn't. They "reverted" to a cheaper-to-produce formula that was still close to the original.

[moonbat]

Off-topic:

They "reverted" to a cheaper-to-produce formula that was still close to the original.

Whoa, so modern Coke is not what it was before 1985?

[Moonchild]

Off-topic:

Whoa, so modern Coke is not what it was before 1985?

Nope. Switched from cane sugar to high-fructose corn syrup.

[bgstack15]

Off-topic:

Whoa, so modern Coke is not what it was before 1985?

Nope. Switched from cane sugar to high-fructose corn syrup.

I'm convinced this was the real plan the entire time.

[bawldiggle]

I choked on my Corn Flakes with ... Netscape
.

Off-topic:
... and another death by neglect-interuptus ... MozilaZine ... RIP
Unless another principal puts their hand up.
Is this the end of my affair with Classic TBird ?

[Tharthan]

The masses have been dummified over the last decade by Chrome,expecting a 'simple' UI incapable of doing anything, and for whom a desktop browser isn't cool enough because it looks 'old'.

Their critical thinking and judgement skills were dummied out many updates ago.