You are NOT fighting a losing battle. You are just decent and idealistic.

So where are we now with config adjustments and all that extension work?
I actually feel a big sick just thinking about it

Goodness knows how you devs feel.

No need to feel bad; it's the right decision not because of technical considerations but because of how people are. I fought the UA battle back in the 90s and already knew what to expect. Just like because a pyramid is wider at the base than near the top, user interfaces usually end up with default configuration settings best suited to the masses of less knowledgeable users and the fewer power users have to do the tweaking to get things to suit them. I don't particularly like it, but I know to expect it. Although web site owners/administrators could have avoided this particular issue, they never did, not way back when or now.chreid wrote:I'm totally gutted and feel that Moonchild and Tobin et al couldn't have done more to educate the behemoths.
You are NOT fighting a losing battle. You are just decent and idealistic.![]()
So where are we now with config adjustments and all that extension work?
I actually feel a big sick just thinking about it![]()
Goodness knows how you devs feel.
Honestly, if I look at it, UA sniffing has become worse since I evaluated it the last time - and I don't understand why this is the case, with all these CSS/HTML5 website designs, you'd think people know how to use CSS @supports and checking capabilities through JS and the likes instead of relying on assumptions about specific browsers from the UA string. They can even use Open Source or Public Domain code that has been written already to do it properly...chreid wrote:You are NOT fighting a losing battle. You are just decent and idealistic.![]()
So where are we now with config adjustments and all that extension work?
Moonchild wrote:Honestly, if I look at it, UA sniffing has become worse since I evaluated it the last time - and I don't understand why this is the case, with all these CSS/HTML5 website designs, you'd think people know how to use CSS @supports and checking capabilities through JS and the likes instead of relying on assumptions about specific browsers from the UA string. They can even use Open Source or Public Domain code that has been written already to do it properly...chreid wrote:You are NOT fighting a losing battle. You are just decent and idealistic.![]()
So where are we now with config adjustments and all that extension work?
Being decent and taking a stand, unfortunately, does nothing for users who don't want "unhelpfulsite.com" to break and who don't know how (or can't be bothered) to use the workarounds and/or contact the correct party to blame.
Where are we now with config changes? Very close to where we were: the only change here is a default setting for browser identification towards websites, an addition of a checkbox to easily switch between "Firefox Compatibility" mode and "Normal Pale Moon" mode, and the fortuitous stumbling on the cause of the non-working devtools bug with having compatmode off that has now been fixed as well.
The extension work has not been influenced by this, and the GUID change remains in effect (please don't ask to revert it, it will not be done).
With the estimated number of pages on the web hovering around 40-45 billion, I wish you luck in contacting everyone and persuading them to support Palemoon.back2themoon wrote:Great job everyone, especially Moonchild and Tobin of course. I really hope most users will use the "Pale Moon mode" and keep contacting problematic websites (and router firmware developers? wtf...) until they properly do what they are supposed to.
You know, that's just making an argument for the sake of argument. There's no reason to try and undermine motivation by throwing large numbers our way. We are well aware of the number of websites out there. We are also well aware of the relatively small percentage of those websites we are talking about here, but that are unfortunately having a number in the "most visited" range and "often-used services" (of large companies whose business is Internet and who should know better! I'm looking at you, Google and Apple).Trinoc wrote:With the estimated number of pages on the web hovering around 40-45 billion, I wish you luck in contacting everyone and persuading them to support Palemoon.back2themoon wrote:Great job everyone, especially Moonchild and Tobin of course. I really hope most users will use the "Pale Moon mode" and keep contacting problematic websites (and router firmware developers? wtf...) until they properly do what they are supposed to.
I think you're being a little too pessimistic. Lets look on the bright side. Take me for an example. I have around 453 bookmarks. Each bookmark has multiple pages. So being quite conservative, lets say I have 1000 pages. All of these pages are rendering properly in 25.0.1 except in my case, just 3 sites and those are Google, Google Images, and Google Maps . The User Agent Overrider add-on fixed these sites for me in (25.0.1). When 25.0.2 is released, this version will cure the Google ills and I can uninstall this add-on. Conversely, I surf all over the internet and I don't bookmark everyplace I visit either. And I haven't had any problems surfing the internet with (25.0.1).Trinoc wrote:[With the estimated number of pages on the web hovering around 40-45 billion, I wish you luck in contacting everyone and persuading them to support Palemoon.t
That was my point. There is nothing wrong with a niche browser. Pale Moon is a niche browser, but down the road a few years from now Firefox may become a niche browser market share wise because of Chrome and join Pale Moon as a niche browser.ashdav wrote:Reply to Night Wing
A very depressing post but I think you're absolutely right.
Mozilla seems to be committing death by a thousand cuts.
But what's wrong with a niche browser? Isn't that why we're here?
Firefox still holds around 1/4 of browser usage or just under that not really niche or close to it Opera only has like 1% or around 2% so its a nice niche browser. Palemoon would be even below that as even less than niche.Night Wing wrote:That was my point. There is nothing wrong with a niche browser. Pale Moon is a niche browser, but down the road a few years from now Firefox may become a niche browser market share wise because of Chrome and join Pale Moon as a niche browser.ashdav wrote:Reply to Night Wing
A very depressing post but I think you're absolutely right.
Mozilla seems to be committing death by a thousand cuts.
But what's wrong with a niche browser? Isn't that why we're here?
A few years back, I used another niche browser named, SeaMonkey, as my default browser. Then I switched to Firefox and then I switched to Pale Moon. Browser wise, I use a browser I like and it doesn't concern me if the browser is a niche or big mainstream.
But, Pale Moon may grow it's desktop market share since it didn't go the Australis way like Firefox did. In other words, Pale Moon didn't try to "be like Google Chrome in looks". The management at Mozilla decided to go with Australis for Firefox and since Australis was released on May 29th, Firefox's desktop market share decline has been accelerating. Coincidence? I don't think so. It would be interesting if "speculation wise", Pale Moon and Firefox wouldn't be that far apart in desktop market share 4 years down the road.cooperb21 wrote:Firefox still holds around 1/4 of browser usage or just under that not really niche or close to it Opera only has like 1% or around 2% so its a nice niche browser. Palemoon would be even below that as even less than niche.
That's not what http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=1&qpcustomb=0 indicates !cooperb21 wrote:Firefox still holds around 1/4 of browser usage or just under that not really niche or close to it Opera only has like 1% or around 2% so its a nice niche browser.
The very big players who promote open things only do that for public relations, or to promote that they shouldn't be restricted.Moonchild wrote:
- Added a "Firefox compatibility mode" selection in Options -> Advanced.
- This mode is enabled by default (reluctantly so), because too many websites (including some very big players who, themselves, promote an Open Web...)