Other broken addons...

[Astara]

[*]adblock latitude (blue dot indicating PM support no longer shows options anywhere). Seems to have lost settings -- -- seems to have lost settings -- getting requests to unblock ads on news sites i had previously permitted. Some options off of add-ons page won't stay enabled when I toggle them, leave page and come back.

[*]Have noticed flakey behavior with autocopy

[*]Download bar has gone awol. No longer see downloaded files on bar, and no way to open them or folder when they are done.

[*]Noscript not working right -- sometimes has options greyed out on men that weren't before, and not
able to enable specific sites -- but only "allow all this page"...

Restart tabled doesn't work -- have to kill PM w/task manager to save tabs (!?!)

tree-style tab no longer working and tabs are screwed up -- some tabs just go away and are hidden even though they appear when I close all others. Seeing some tabs appearring partially behind others.

Given the other problems, I really don't think 27.x is ready for consumption...

I think I'm going to have to reinstall 26.x and restore my profile....Sorry, it's not like I didn't try making it work, but too much seems broken.

Am totally willing to give any information about extensions I'm using ... number of active extensions are way down from what I had in FF (>70 active).

[HaleSun]

- Instead of adblock latitude, you will be much better served with uBlock Origin. It uses far less memory and is compatible with adblock plus filters so you should be able to import any existing custom rules from ABL: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... ck-origin/

- I have been using the latest Autocopy 2 without any major problems on PM 27.0.3:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... utocopy-2/

- Download bar? Not sure what you mean, but I'm using the addon Download Manager (S3) which is a Download Statusbar replacement which works with PM27: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... statusbar/

- Noscript 2.9.0.14 works perfectly with PM27: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... /versions/
But I would recommend using uMatrix instead: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/umatrix/

- Restart tabled? I use Restart Manager to restart the browser while keeping all my tabs:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... t-manager/

- I don't personally use Tree Style Tabs, but there is supposedly a fixed version for PM27: viewtopic.php?f=46&t=13665&start=20#p102087
I do however use Tab Utilities Phoenix which has a vertical tabs option which is similar and I would recommend it as a possible alternative to Tree Style Tabs: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... s-phoenix/

[dark_moon]

NoScript works fine in Pale Moon x64.
Update to the latest version: https://noscript.net/getit

And no, uMatrix cant replace NoScript. NoScript have a lot features which even protect you if you set NoScript to allow all JavaScripts. uMatrix doesnt have that features. So using both is the best.

[coffeebreak]

[*]adblock latitude (blue dot indicating PM support no longer shows options anywhere). Seems to have lost settings....
. . . . . .
[*]Download bar has gone awol....
. . . . . .
tree-style tab no longer working and tabs are screwed up....

About Adblock Latitude.
ABL 3.0.3.1 (if that's the version that's broken) is not/was never compatible with PM 27.* To use ABL with PM 27.* you should first uninstall v3.0.3.1 and clean the remnants out of your profile -- then install either v4.0.0 from APMO (it's a PM 27.*-compatible update to v3.0.3.1), or v3.5 from the extension archive (it's based on ABL's beta). Please read this post by Moonchild about differences between the two versions.

"Download bar".
I'm not sure what this refers to either....
But if you mean Download Status Bar (which has the virtue, in my view, of not being adware-supported), please see this post and following for a simple fix.

Tree Style Tab.
Please see here and here for a fix.

tabs are screwed up.
Start by reading this post.

And suggestion --
Search the forum using your problematic add-ons' names as keywords. PM 27 was released nearly two months ago and there's a great deal of useful information already posted.

[Astara]

About Adblock Latitude.
ABL 3.0.3.1 (if that's the version that's broken) is not/was never compatible with PM 27.*

I was going by the "blue dot", which I was told mean it was an extension that was specifically targeting PaleMoon.

To use ABL with PM 27.* you should first uninstall v3.0.3.1 and clean the remnants out of your profile

Hmmm... while I "only" have about 26 blocking rules (site or element, mostly element), I have over 60 exception rules It was one of these that I noticed failing on more than one website -- like none of the exceptions were in effect. I really like the "last hit" and total# of hits -- can quickly remove poor performers. One of those exception rules has almost 2.5 **Million** hits. Deleting all of those would be a "downside".

then install either v4.0.0 from APMO (it's a PM 27.*-compatible update to v3.0.3.1)

Would it be impertinent of me to ask why it wasn't upgraded when 27.x checked my extensions?

"Download bar".
I'm not sure what this refers to either....
But if you mean Download Status Bar (which has the virtue, in my view, of not being adware-supported), please see this post and following for a simple fix.

Yes -- download status bar... Couldn't that compatibility fix have been applied during upgrade?
You have to realize, I went to the effort to precheck my addons for problems and removed the ones that would be incompat. I also tried to reduce the set of active addons to a bare minimum to optimize my chances, expecting to re-enable some of them when I knew more. Given the pre-work done on this upgrade and with the fact that most upgrades generate "no", or "minor" problems, I expected this update to go smoothly. The crashing sound I heard upon upgrade was my expectations hitting reality. ;^} .

tabs are screwed up.
Start by reading this post.

Ok, read that -- not the problem I was experiencing. In my case, I really was referring to the little tabs in the tab-bar -- not the pages associated with the tabs.

And suggestion --
Search the forum using your problematic add-ons' names as keywords. PM 27 was released nearly two months ago and there's a great deal of useful information already posted.

All 28 of them? I can't even get the name of the DownloadStatus Bar right, and you want me to type them all in by hand? Suggestion, if someone already ran the compatibility tool and 2 months later, 27.0.3 was released when multiple addons had solutions or workarounds, it would have been very appreciated if PM flagged those addons which were now known to be problematic and point to a forum post describing the workaround.

Even if it didn't point to the workaround for each, just flagging those with workarounds so I would *know* to search for that addon in the forum, would be helpful. But given I already ran an upgrade checker that flagged addons known to have problems, I wasn't expecting 80% of my remaining addons to also 'fail' in some way.

Also, I've still seen no workaround for preventing the password popup on sites I don't specify for it to not run.

Note -- it's not that I've given up on upgrading, its just that there were too many **unexpected** problems to solve and I hadn't allocated all the extra time needed to lookup and fix each problem that arose -- something I don't like to do under a time pressure -- which is what I experienced as I had other things I needed to get back to, and a degraded browser wasn't going to help me get those things done... :^{

Thanks for the pointers, though. Will have to try to install PM as a portable so I can deal with the problems 'over time'.

[Astara]

- Instead of adblock latitude, you will be much better served with uBlock Origin. It uses far less memory and is compatible with adblock plus filters so you should be able to import any existing custom rules from ABL: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... ck-origin/

Sounds like I might not appreciate waiting for it to download filters. The fact that AB+ used more memory was partially due to the rules already being local and present on the machine -- maybe not the latest, but valid within a few hours.

- I have been using the latest Autocopy 2 without any major problems on PM 27.0.3:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... utocopy-2/

Yeah, mine is at 1.0.8.1 -- **This is a bug**, AFAI'm concerned -- when I upgraded to 27.x, if AC1.081 wasn't compat w/ PM27, and AC2 was, then why weren't any of my addons flagged for being updated? I tried checking for updates before I posted anything here, but none of them were updated.

- Noscript 2.9.0.14 works perfectly with PM27: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... /versions/
But I would recommend using uMatrix instead: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/umatrix/

Noscript and, more importantly Request Policy, serve different purposes than umatrix. However, I *am* running
Noscript 2.9.0.14 and it didn't work perfectly. It worked "mostly", but on some pages had to choose "allow all requests from <site-addr of current page>" to get more than one page to work, while individual websites that needed perms didn't show up on NS's menu.

Thanks for the pointers... I don't know why none of my extensions updated nor did I even know they needed some update or workaround. Too much "unknown", which was why I had to roll back.

*sigh*

[PhoxFyre]

Did you check this?

[HaleSun]

Sounds like I might not appreciate waiting for it to download filters. The fact that AB+ used more memory was partially due to the rules already being local and present on the machine -- maybe not the latest, but valid within a few hours.

I have never once waited for uBlock to do anything. Many filters already come preinstalled and automatically update without me even noticing. If you think uBlock has to redownload ad filters every time it starts you are mistaken, it only downloads any updated changes: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/ ... stallation

The filters themselves are just as "local" as ABP filters. The vast difference in memory and efficiency is because uBlock has an entirely different design that uses half the memory of ABP while loading the exact same filters: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/ ... ntly%29-do

Noscript and, more importantly Request Policy, serve different purposes than umatrix. However, I *am* running
Noscript 2.9.0.14 and it didn't work perfectly. It worked "mostly", but on some pages had to choose "allow all requests from <site-addr of current page>" to get more than one page to work, while individual websites that needed perms didn't show up on NS's menu.

I should clarify, uMatrix can definitely replace Noscript's script-blocking function, which is more than 90% of Noscript. I basically only use Noscript for its Anti-XSS filter and have set "Allow scripts globally" so uMatrix can manage blocking without conflicting with Noscript. Since you're having issues with Noscript I suggest having uMatrix take over script-blocking.

Regarding RequestPolicy, as I was telling someone in another thread, uBlock's dynamic filters were designed to completely replace RequestPolicy: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/ ... -filtering
uBlock Origin can replace ABL and RequestPolicy, so you can use one addon instead of two, making things simpler. But if you prefer RequestPolicy because you are used to it, I suggest using the newer "RequestPolicy Continued", since the original RequestPolicy has not been updated in 4 years: https://requestpolicycontinued.github.io/

[gorhill]

Sounds like I might not appreciate waiting for it to download filters. The fact that AB+ used more memory was partially due to the rules already being local and present on the machine -- maybe not the latest, but valid within a few hours.

What you just described is actually the exact opposite: uBO ships with default filter lists, while AB+ needs to download them immeditely upon first install. Furthermore, this is irrelevant, as the memory issue with AB+ is RAM, not disk space.

Noscript and, more importantly Request Policy, serve different purposes than umatrix.

I can't make sense of this. The main purpose of uMatrix (and also uBO's dynamic filtering panel) is to control cross-site requests (globally or on a per-site basis). Isn't this the exact purpose of Request Policy? What is the purpose uMatrix?

[GreenGeek]

I can't speak for her (based on avatar ), but I can explain why I went back to using RP in addition to uMatrix. I do realize it's redundant to have both tools, but useful nonetheless; and it's not nearly as redundant as installing both uBO and uMatrix which a lot of people are doing. For me, uMatrix's grid is clearer to understand than the 2-cloumn grid of uBO, plus uBO seems to be lacking some obvious groupings.

1. Request Policy blocks all 3rd party connections from a loading page by default (when in block mode, the only way I use it) without any concern over what type of request it is. There is no "Other" or XHR classification to worry over.

2. Request Policy blocks connections before uMatrix gets a chance so RP becomes the first line of defense, just like before.

3. Request Policy shows placeholders for blocked images with tooltips to indicate the target source that would need to be allowed for each image. (I think this applies to other content too but I don't have examples in front of me to confirm so I will limit the comment to images.) I think I normally only see placeholders for uMatrix for frames.

4. (esoteric/subjective) I'm used to it and trust it to do what I want. I trust uMatrix too up to the point of understanding, but some of the exclusions aren't clear. I recently tried setting behind-the-scene on but it breaks basic functionality that should not be a concern (i.e., saving a page).

I have not reinstalled NoScript, but I'm on the fence about whether I should consider doing so. I never removed it from SeaMonkey and having both (with NoScript in global allow mode) doesn't cause any obvious problems.

I might use uMatrix to replace BlockSite Plus if I was better at writing Regular Expressions. BS+ accepts "*" as a wildcard and then transforms it into regular expression, which works well for RE-challenged minds. The other concern being whether other uMatrix settings like other=allow or matrix ___=allow would override an intended block rule.

[PhoxFyre]

uMatrix has a block all mode, and you can block an entire domain(not related, just wanted to mention)

[dark_moon]

The thing with RequestPolicy is: you can only allow or forbid the whole content for a site/ domain. No matter which stuff are loaded.
If you allow the site, the good + the bad content loads.

With uMatrix you have fine control (if you wish!) for that exactly typ of elements are allowed to load. This increase the security+privacy a lot !
In combination with uBlock and the normal usage of filterlists, you block bad stuff by default.
Also uMatrix and uBlock have a log which show you every request and with that its more easy then with a silly icon like RequestPolicy show you, because you doesnt know what exactly is behind the icon.

I dont know how users think uMatrix or any other request addon can replace NoScript. It cant! NoScript isnt only a JavaScript allow/ forbid tool. A lot of other features protect you, even if you allow all JavaScript by default!
If users this doesnt know, then they never read the NoScript description

@GreenGeek: 2: Thats wrong. Of course one addon is the first one. But you cant say the first one is the fastest one or more secure.
Anyway every user have their own preferences, so use what you want. I use RequestPolicy in the past too. I even do the switch to the RP:Continued fork, but after that i found uMatrix and never look back. uBlock give me a extra security.

[gorhill]

I don't dispute personal preferences, however I comment on specific statements which needs correction.

1. Request Policy blocks all 3rd party connections from a loading page by default (when in block mode, the only way I use it) ...

Nothing prevents you from configuring/using uMatrix just the same.

By default uMatrix blocks all 3rd-party requests for active content by default. Remove the rules "* * css allow" and "* * image allow" and all 3rd-party network requests of all sort will be blocked by default. I chose to include these two rules by default because of pragmatic reasons, I consider blocking passive 3rd-party content to not be such a big issues and will lead to a lot less web site breakages out of the box.

One thing to keep in mind is the ability to load block lists as block rules in uMatrix (all lists are enabled by default), which means that out of the box passive content from blacklisted sites won't load despite the above rules, as per precedence logic of rules in uMatrix. Even if one was to allow all for a specific site ("example.com * * allow" -- or the "all" cell in the top-left corner of the matrix), the blacklisted hostnames from the loaded hosts files (which auto update regularly) would still be blocked (because the rules are more specific).

... without any concern over what type of request it is. There is no "Other" or XHR classification to worry over

uMatrix does not force anybody to concern themselves with "other" or "xhr": personally I was sticking to just apply rules to whole domain, not to the specific type. When used this way, the type-based cells become informative -- which is still useful because at least one has an idea of what type of resources will be allowed in if whitelisting a specific 3rd-party hostname on a given site.

I recently tried setting behind-the-scene on but it breaks basic functionality that should not be a concern (i.e., saving a page)

Yes, and there is a warning about how blocking behind-the-scene network requests can break things. There are ways to configure rules for behind-the-scene which won't the break the "save a page" feature, and you can't blame the feature from existing if you misuse it. Blocking everything by default in behind-the-scene scope is asking for trouble. I suggest that if one is to remove the "matrix-off: behind-the-scene true" rule, then these rules should be added:

behind-the-scene * * allow
behind-the-scene * css inherit
behind-the-scene * frame inherit
behind-the-scene * image inherit

This means behind-the-scene network requests will be filtered only according to the loaded blacklists, which is a good thing. There is no other blocker offering this sort of functionality, so it does not make sense to complain of its existence and optional use in uMatrix.

I might use uMatrix to replace BlockSite Plus if I was better at writing Regular Expressions.

There are no regular expressions in uMatrix. To block a site is just to create a rule like any other one: "* example.com * block" = no connection to example.com will ever be allowed = whole site itself becomes blocked.

[GreenGeek]

Regarding the last point - regular expressions - it was based on general observation as well as old memory from trying to learn the syntax years ago. And I guess I'm not the only one:
From the great and mighty wikipoo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easylist

Filters

Basic filter rules can include wildcards represented by asterisks (*). Sites and objects can be whitelisted with filters that start with two at signs (@@). Regular expressions delimited by slashes (/) can be used. Adblock Plus also supports a more-sophisticated syntax that gives fine-grain control over filters.[32]

I haven't found my old copy of the ABP/EasyList syntax page, nor found a comparable version still online (current one on ABP site is not as good). But regardless of whether it's some partial form of true RE or not, the issue is the same - becoming proficient with the rule syntax. I spent all day getting rules and filters tweaked to get uBO and uMatrix working together in 2 browsers. It's pretty good but I still can't do some things I'd like to without that old syntax cheat sheet (for example, block "google" anywhere in a URL or at least anywhere in domain). FWIW, I'm trying to put full [sub-]domain-name blocks in the Hosts section of uMatrix and put ABP syntax filters in My Filters section of uBO just to keep things organized efficiently. Considering the time I've put in on this (which was my choice to do), it reinforces what I said above about it being easier to just use the tools I was already familiar with.