No Love For Pale Moon On Mozillazine

[Night Wing]

After I finish with the Pale Moon forums site, I like to stroll on over to Mozillazine to see what changes are coming to Firefox from some of the regulars over there which are currently running the version 32 Nightly versions.

There was a topic covering the next ESR version (31.0) and Australis and a new member by the name of "asdfgf" mentioned Pale Moon. The usual Firefox fanbois (and one of them is a moderator) came down on him HARD. The link below beings on Page 2 and when you get to this member's name, look at the responses he gets.

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic ... 3&start=15

[Moonchild]

Just more of the same ol' same ol'. Just shows you how a community forum can be a hostile place when fanbois get scared?

It's clear that the moderators (the biggest Mozilla fanbois there) still don't bother to check the validity of any of the statements they make. And they don't even wonder why they have to say something "3000 times" because people keep saying something else consistently - might they actually be incorrect**, maybe?

I think we over here know the answer to that

**: Never! They are the gods of Mozilla(Zine)!

[megaman]

After I finish with the Pale Moon forums site, I like to stroll on over to Mozillazine to see what changes are coming to Firefox from some of the regulars over there which are currently running the version 32 Nightly versions.

There was a topic covering the next ESR version (31.0) and Australis and a new member by the name of "asdfgf" mentioned Pale Moon. The usual Firefox fanbois (and one of them is a moderator) came down on him HARD. The link below beings on Page 2 and when you get to this member's name, look at the responses he gets.

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic ... 3&start=15

Okay, let me get this straight.
He/she jumps in out of nowhere and suggests Palemoon.
LoudNoise simply was telling the user that he is sick and tired of fanboys pimping their browser of choice.
I don't walk into Mozilla's or IE's forums and start saying, "Chrome is great, it's better than (browser targeted)."

I am for asdfgf but he/she could at least make a new topic, and link that particular topic he/she jumped-in, plus explanations stating the benefits of Palemoon.
Also, they are leaving out other browsers that are out there and do not want to build with Australis.(I don't see the fairness of that, in which why LoudNoise made his comment) (An acceptable reply in that thread would be, "There are other browsers, out there, that are following the non-Australis layout and are still updating to the current standards")
It's also like I am a previous Yahoo! search user, now Bing, and I am in a Bing forum talking about some feature for Bing but someone comes in telling me, "Hey, go Google this/that."

[Moonchild]

Okay, let me get this straight.
He/she jumps in out of nowhere and suggests Palemoon.
LoudNoise simply was telling the user that he is sick and tired of fanboys pimping their browser of choice.
I don't walk into Mozilla's or IE's forums and start saying, "Chrome is great, it's better than (browser targeted)."

Not exactly. as far as I can tell it's on-topic. Pale Moon is a solution for what is discussed, unlike other browsers that could be offered. But the staple answer given is:

Palemoon is nothing more then Firefox with some accessibility, child protection and reporting items removed and compiled for 64 bit processors. They simply don't have the number of people necessary to maintain this for very long and certainly don't have the number of folks needed to maintain a true fork.

That is what bugs me, personally, of the mods over there. Anyone trying to say anything but what they keep repeating (and which is totally incorrect, I might add, as the pending "ESR-parity" build suggested by mattatobin will show) is shot down without even attempting to verify their own statements.
What's wrong with what I quoted there? Everything. (yes, that is literally true. not a single part of the statement is correct) "Nothing more than frefox"? wrong, check the features list. "just removed accessibility, parental controls"? Wrong - still there, just disabled when building. "[just] compiled for 64-bit processors"? Not just - seems they think Pale Moon is Waterfox or something. "Don't have the manpower to maintain this for very long"? Running close to 5 years now. "Not enough manpower to maintain a true fork"? Do a source tree comparison - it's a fork and has been for a long time. Why else would I make a point of posting the source code to comply with the MPL?

[megaman]

I completely agree with the insult, it was un-called for and LoudNoise is uninformed.
He might have glanced-over the main page and figured he knew everything.

[jumba]

The comments there are still very rude (childish) and offensive from a community that represents Mozilla in its own way.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Anyone trying to say anything but what they keep repeating (and which is totally incorrect, I might add, as the pending "ESR-parity" build suggested by mattatobin will show) is shot down without even attempting to verify their own statements.

Off-topic:
I was thinking late last night as I was doing some test builds that maybe I was overblowing the whole disabled features thing they like to fall back on because they have no real factual complaints... Then this happens. Remind me never to underestimate the capacity of people to be idiots.

[ipopescu]

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic ... 3&start=15

And as I've mentioned before in these discussions, a true UI fork with a different interface is going to start encountering serious compatibility problems with extensions and themes designed expecting the Firefox interface. And even if an extension or themes author wanted to support PaleMoon... kind of hard to support a different program that uses the same GUID to pretend it's Firefox.

Well he has a point here, what can be done if addons start breaking?

[Moonchild]

And as I've mentioned before in these discussions, a true UI fork with a different interface is going to start encountering serious compatibility problems with extensions and themes designed expecting the Firefox interface. And even if an extension or themes author wanted to support PaleMoon... kind of hard to support a different program that uses the same GUID to pretend it's Firefox.

Well he has a point here, what can be done if addons start breaking?

I'm working on switching GUID of Pale Moon and still supporting add-ons that only indicate Firefox compatibility. The problem is that just switching GUID in the current code base would break compatibility with ALL extensions immediately; that's even apart from the fact that configuring a different GUID doesn't even give you a working build to begin with.

And "what if addons or themes start breaking"? How about (as an interim measure) doing what some are already doing: creating a Pale Moon specific version and not using AMO to distribute it to Pale Moon users. Forward-looking statement here: Plans are to also set up a Pale Moon extension site similar to AMO for Pale Moon specific and Pale Moon compatible extensions.

[ipopescu]

How about doing what some are already doing: creating a Pale Moon specific version and not using AMO to distribute it to Pale Moon users. Forward-looking statement here: Plans are to also set up a Pale Moon extension site similar to AMO for Pale Moon specific and Pale Moon compatible extensions.

That sounds great , i hope we will see it happening.

[Kaliri]

As far as MozillaZine forums go, I've only made a few posts in the SeaMonkey section. People there seem kind and helpful, and I appreciate their work and their help.

Stepping out into the Firefox area, though, things seem a little ... different. I understand that the participants there are volunteers only, and they certainly don't deserve to be hassled or abused. However, the climate sometimes seems a bit critical, even hostile, towards people who aren't pleased with Firefox 29, or who struggle to make it work for them. And searching for another topic, I stumbled upon an older thread in which Night Wing (the original poster, above) was the target of comments that I thought were ageist and inappropriate.

I appreciate that the Pale Moon forum seems encouraging and helpful, with users cheerfully assisting each other and even the developer (Moonchild) stepping in to offer information and answers. And I've yet to see Moonchild or other users making fun of posters for their age, race, gender, etc. A positive, welcoming forum is a great thing, and helps encourage people to try Pale Moon and to participate in the forum. (I myself read through a bit of the forum before downloading the browser, to learn more about Pale Moon and get a "feel" for what sort of atmosphere I might encounter if I needed to reach out for help.)

[lyceus]

MozillaZine talking nice about PM?

This is like to force a Nintendo fanboy to acknowledge the existence and failure of Nintendo VirtuaBoy: Impossible, no, non, won't happen, zero, nitch. They believe their piece of Australis junk is the best in world and we are fools for not praise it.

[Supernova]

Let's not exagere ; while their bashing of PM is a thing ; from what I read a lot of them recognize that or this issue with australis. Not to the point to say that going somewhere else than FF29(+CTR) is a good idea, but still not absolutely blind fanboyism.

[Jonguy30]

Yes. Many of them dislike Australis. But why are they shooting down Palemoon all the time then? Don't they want alternative browsers that does not have a crippled UI? They seem to think the only alternative is SeaMonkey, as one poster in the linked thread said.

[Moonchild]

It seems anything that is not published and marketed by the Mozilla Corporation is consistently being shot down or laughed at. SeaMonkey, although developed by an independent team, is still considered an "Official Mozilla product" and therefore "in the grace" of MozillaZine.

[nana2]

It seems anything that is not published and marketed by the Mozilla Corporation is consistently being shot down or laughed at. SeaMonkey, although developed by an independent team, is still considered an "Official Mozilla product" and therefore "in the grace" of MozillaZine.

True that. Additionally, the posters who mention Pale Moon or any other non Mozilla browser get often attacked. IMHO it's a shame that mozillaZine moderators and some other members cannot uphold some common courtesy even when it concerns Firefox. I've been visiting that forum for almost 10 years (since Fx1) and read quite a few threads almost daily.

[buggy]

I hope on the so expected add-ons site you talk above, the developers will not be allowed to remove critical reviews if they are justified like on the Mozilla site... what is the point of asking people their opinion to keep only the 5 stars? For my part i have decided to remove the add-ons of this kind of developers always accusing moderators when most of the time it is just for cash, like for example Adblock Plus in particular, etc....

[megaman]

As one poster in the linked thread said.

That poster is a...*Cough*SUCK UP!*Cough*
All-in-all, I have said it before, and I will say it a few billion times more, I like Australis, looks nice to me.
Followed by: I dislike how they are removing customization. (This is chanted over and over, but until Mozilla allows this again(remove the limits they've placed), I will continue to chant)

Okay, back on topic.
Mozilla's followers are blind-sided and can't see past the dark side(this is was unintentional as I see what I did there), what can we do?
We must preach to them from The Chronicles of the Palemoon!

[Jonguy30]

Heh, another post said that these "talk of forks" is wishful thinking, apparently they haven't read the latest news (that betanews article from a few days back), PM is a "fork" already. I wonder what they will say when ESR 24 is EoL and we no longer rely on it and we still manage to maintain and develop it just fine? Probably something like "It will become harder and harder to maintain it as time goes on and he will have to adopt Australis blahblahblah..."

Oh, and the Pale Moon discussion was split into a different thread.

[Supernova]

I read today another thread on the subject on mozzilazine. All the usual stuff. But as we look a little bit on their forum, so they look here and we got at the 3rd page :

So, now we get to the ironic part that has been brought to my attention, how do the advocates of this, of many, particular build repay the mod's generosity and even-handedness by letting them post at all in Firefox General? I'll tell you, they abuse them -

http://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4607
http://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4769

Remember folks, say "thank you" to mozzilazine mods for their great kindness.


The thread can be found here