Looking forward in 2017 - Questions

[yakorav]

It will be a demonstration of the platform, as well as a vessel to develop the platform through (we need a product to be able to develop/test/enhance the underlying technology), and it will be a viable alternative for Firefox users who do not want to lose their XUL-based extensions and customization, which will, hopefully, also help fund its development.

More specifically, in what ways does Pale Moon fail to serve the purpose above? A second browser product appears redundant.

[Walter Dnes]

By "hard fork of a later version" do you mean that Australis will be forced on us? Will there be a Classic Theme Restorer equivalent if that's the case?

XUL has nothing to do with Austraulis. Pretending this is Slashdot, here's a car analogy

1. General Motors makes a few powertrains (combinations of engines, transmissions, suspension, underbodies, etc.) This stuff "under the hood" == XUL
2. General Motors slaps on different sets of exterior sheet metal, and calls those cars "Chevrolet" or "Buick" or "Cadillac". (How many of you remember Pontiac and Oldsmobile?) The exterior sheet metal is the external web browser interface.
3. Firefox and Pale Moon started off basically identical "under the hood", with the main difference being the "exterior sheet metal", i.e. the visible user interface. Over the years, they've been diverging

Also, why do we need to fork the XUL/XPCOM addon support from a later Firefox version when we already have been maintaining it?

Good question. I'm not a programmer, so I don't know what more recent XUL versions provide. If anything, they seem to have begun deprecating stuff recently.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Think of it like this.. Pale Moon serves as a middle ground browser that as a consequence of history also serves a wide swath of its userbase as a Firefox-like browser.. Point: Firefox like not Firefox duplicate. A Firefox-like browser with choice and flexibility that we have come to rely heavily on that has been reduced by Mozilla's efforts in recent years. A Firefox-like browser with a user interface that is almost identical to Firefox as it was along with all the features that were exposed there of.

The browser that is native to the platform on which the Great Experiment™ will be derived from would service a userbase accustom to a Firefox-like browser of Today. With its webextensions and Australis technologies and as a consequence of the Platform still being capable of most of the classical Mozilla-style features.

Pale Moon on the other hand stands as an interpretation of the original true Mozilla ideal and should be allowed to continue its more traditional and balanced path regardless of what platform it ends up living on.

As stated by my self and Moonchild for years now.. The power of the Mozilla-style platform is endless possibilities. The platform provides the components for layout rendering, media decoding, etc but does not intrinsically define the end product of any application building with the toolset provided. This is why, for instance, Firefox Australis and SeaMonkey with its unique and radically different user interfaces can be provided from the same source platform. Also why a Mail Client, Web Browser, Calendar, Music Player, and almost anything else can be created on top of it.

I really would hope some can grasp the scope of what could be possible in the future. A scope that has been denied to everyone by modern Mozilla shortsightedness for questionable short term gains.

If you think you can handle more in-depth history of the Mozilla-style Platform or more of my questionably-popular musings on the subject.. I suggest you join the Pale Moon IRC channel at irc.freenode.net #palemoon where I occasionally present impromptu history lessons and technical explanations from an almost understandable viewpoint interjected with my own particular brand of Tobinism. It is a fun place most of the time... You could also stop by and just say Hi too.. We like that over there as well.

[Octopuss]

I don't visit this forum too often and I don't understand a single thing about all this XUL webextensions, Australis - it's all klingon for all I know. I am a user, not a programmer.
Can anyone give me a brief explanation about what's going on with this new browser, or what the heck is going to happen?
There will be Pale Moon (which has pretty minimal userbase as it is), and then ANOTHER browser? What's the point?
If you are going to create a brand new browser, what was the point behind months (I presume) spent working on PM26 (or whichever version it was that was based on newer Mozilla code)?

I am completely confused.

[Moonchild]

I am completely confused.

Take some time to actually read the information posted in various places. I'm sure it will alleviate your state of confusion.

And since some people won't get it unless there's pictures, here you go:

Untitled Diagram.png

To be able to develop the platform, at least one product building on it is needed. That will be the new browser (closely related to Firefox-XUL).

And if you still don't understand after this, then just sit back, relax, and let us worry about it -- and come back later this year.

[Shadeclan]

... And since some people won't get it unless there's pictures, here you go ...

Actually, that did make things clearer. Thank you.

[GreenGeek]

... I don't understand a single thing about all this ...
I am completely confused.

I understand the things involved and I'm still confused/skeptical. I think they're thinking they need a later version of Firefox to handle things that Pale Moon doesn't do [or do well], like Netflix and Facebook and maybe other video-related viewing, etc. In other words, a so-called modern browser. Personally, I don't want all that in a browser. Video used to be, and still should be, handled by a stand-alone program, with the browser just providing the link.

The web was created to be text driven - html is hypertext markup language. Many pages now have more Javascript than HTML. And even though JS is a high level language (supposedly meaning simple), it is still programming code. Executing code, even JS, on different browsers on different operating systems on different hardware is inevitably going to cause incompatibilities. The only way it would have had a chance of working properly is if pages and any code they contain were written according to a shared, open standard. It partially worked that way for a few years. But big corporations always push to use their own methods. And lately they've been winning the battle because website developers are complying (targeting their browsers, operating systems, etc.).

There are always going to be new things coming along. And if you want to keep up with all that (not sure I do), you need a way or the know how to add new code. I don't see how this new browser gains much in the long term. It gets whatever is added between 38 and 50-whatever, but that is nothing compared to what is potentially coming later. Maybe it gets us by for a couple of years longer than the older code would. But it has no future unless there are enough programmers behind the scenes to improve it as needed. That is where a cooperative effort would have helped, but hopefully maybe some more will join in after Moonchild gets started especially when Firefox is no longer supporting old, XUL extensions.

Users can't do much at our end. We can choose not to patronize sites that, for example, require Google Chrome. But not many will go to that extreme, so the effect is nil as far as changing the overall system. Other than that, we can cling to as much of the old ways for as long as possible. Because Waterfox isn't doing an ESR version based on 52, I gave up on it and installed Firefox 52ESR. I spent a lot of time getting FF configured as close as possible to what I have on PM. So now I can get the ESR updates for about another year. And it should be OK using it for another year after that. With that and any updates to the PM27 code, I'll be able to sit back and see if this new unnamed browser is going to be something I'll be interested in. I do have some Chromium or Webkit based browsers installed for testing, but nothing I'm willing to use full time yet. It's possible this new Firefox fork with XUL could be the future but I'll have to see how it goes.

[PhilK]

I think they're thinking they need a later version of Firefox to handle things that Pale Moon doesn't do [or do well], like Netflix and Facebook and maybe other video-related viewing, etc. In other words, a so-called modern browser. Personally, I don't want all that in a browser. Video used to be, and still should be, handled by a stand-alone program, with the browser just providing the link.

Regarding video not being a 'proper" use for a browser, I disagree.

Using a standalone program like VLC or BSplayer etc makes sense when we are talking about static files sitting on your computer. But once we start streaming that media live over HTTP/HTTPS without downloading the whole file first before playing it, that becomes more or less a web activity. And since web browsers will almost always be more up to date in terms of their overall web support (including support for stuff like new transport protocols, certificate authorities/protocols, DNS evolution, and all sorts of other things that affect web content), I think it's more logical to play that kind of stuff within a web browser. With perhaps a plugin tied to a sophisticated media player.

I understand the rationale for trying to incorporate basic functionality into eg standardized HTML5 (because the history of a bunch of proprietary/incompatible video formats like RealPlayer, Flash, QuickTime and so on created all sorts of problems) I also think there is room for other players/codecs/etc to provide opportunities to improve on the lowest-common-denominator stuff like HTML5 video. But it would be optional, and all sites should be required to offer the HTML5 option as a fallback so we don't go back to the bad old days of requiring the installation of all sorts of proprietary players just to see basic video on site X.

[sp808]

Answering some questions (sort of) concisely:
[*]No. Firefox 56 will already have a bunch of things that are most definitely not desirable. Instead of trying to undo vast amounts of damage to the platform preparing for Rust integration/takeover, it'll be better to fork from an earlier point and work forward without the issue of trying to reintroduce what was axed. Maximum compatibility is actually finding the sweet spot where old tech hasn't been ripped out yet. 56 will definitely not be it

So you will fork firefox 55?

[sp808]

Regarding video not being a 'proper" use for a browser, I disagree.

I also vote for proper video support, this is mandatory nowdays. And I entrust high hopes on Palemoon, because of upcoming Cyberfox death.

[Shadeclan]

... The web was created to be text driven - HTML is hypertext markup language ...

That is true. When the web became public domain, bandwidth was narrow and computer power was low. In conditions like that, text is the best balance between human understandability and resource efficiency and Hypertext is a good way to transmit formatted text with limited resources. Nowadays, we have plenty of bandwidth (at least in most places) and computer power seems to have reached a plateau insofar as Moore's Law is concerned. And, as we have seen, the Internet is capable of so much more than text.

One part of the genius of the Internet is that it is open to doing so much in so many ways. GreenGeek likes to work with desktop players - he can do that. He can even set up PaleMoon to always play a given format in whatever player he chooses. PhilK, on the other hand, likes the convenience of just playing a video or sound file through the browser and doesn't want to mess with desktop players. He can do that with PaleMoon, too.

There is rarely a need for vast standardization with today's technology. Personally, I appreciate the diverse ways and means of the Internet. Diversity means innovation and innovation means people are trying to figure out better ways to do things. The real problem occurs when people become ... selfish? ... with technology and try to force people to use only their format or only their software. If the efforts of such people were successful, the Internet would not be nearly as useful as it is. Fortunately, to fight against this, we have open source formats like OGG and open source software like PaleMoon.

I appreciate Moonchild's efforts to keep PaleMoon relevant. This Proof of Concept browser he's working on is the right thing for him to do. PaleMoon will always need to adapt to browser technologies where the majority of the web community's efforts will be focused - that way, the PaleMoon community can take advantage of those technologies. The trick will be preserving the XUL interface so that current add-ons and themes will still work while avoiding code bloat and keeping complexity to a minimum.

That's why Moonchild is creating a separate fork. He can build a browser with the new technology and then figure out how to merge the two without causing too many issues for users. It's a great idea and I support him in this effort.

I believe that PaleMoon can be a leader in the browser wars if we show solidarity and spread the word. After all, I didn't tattoo "Fanatic" on my forehead for nuttin!

[sp808]

And one more thing about Android this time.

I have very unclear situation about Android browser.
Say at version 56 generic Firefox will turn into another Chrome clone. What browser to select? I am confused..

[Pale as the Moon]

This browser should be ready in late November or December 2017 in order to gain traction. You need to present the disgruntled Firefox users a suitable alternative in time, before they switch to other browsers.

Furthermore I find it crucial to reach out to the most important add-on devs per user numbers. If you have healthy add-on support your installation base will only grow. I think somebody should be assigned for that task. This person is to be tasked with getting in contact with those add-on devs in the name of the Pale Moon team and to negotiate with them about the chances of them actively supporting Pale Moon. This person should have both technical expertise regarding Pale Moon's code as well as diplomatic skills.
It doesn't make sense to fork every add-on and maintain it independently when it comes to this community. The far better use of manpower and vision would be the original authors maintaining their add-ons themselves.

@Moonchild: Glad to hear that WebExtensions are on your agenda. They are going to be the dominant extension type in a few months across the major browsers and should therefore be supported as an additional extension type. It's also good to hear for any add-on dev who has already ported his add-on (e.g. uBlock Origin), as it reduces their workload tremendously. This should also be mentioned when talking to add-on devs.

My 2 cents.

[Pleasureseeker]

Regarding video not being a 'proper" use for a browser, I disagree.

I also vote for proper video support, this is mandatory nowdays. And I entrust high hopes on Palemoon, because of upcoming Cyberfox death.

First thing I do with any browser is disable all things video related. I don't have the time or the bandwidth to waste on that sort of thing. If you can't express your message in words, I'm not interested.

I wouldn't say that video support is mandatory - just nice to have if you want that sort of thing.

If Youtube didn't exist, would anyone be calling for video support? Would there be Netflix and other streaming services? I'm not so sure about that.

[Shadeclan]

I wouldn't say that video support is mandatory - just nice to have if you want that sort of thing.

Like I said in my previous post - it's nice to have options and not necessary to lock things down to one or the other.

[Fedor2]

When I thought about xul as standalone platform, a comparison inevitably comes to mind - java, that old harted mug.
This is hardware independent high level programming platform, where everybody can make his working application quickly and cheap, this is appreciated by enterprises as well. xul is better only if it has much nicer GUI, as java GUI is ugly eye cutting.

And of thats all it is to be that XUL also be more quick and cheap, enterprise become interested, you win.

Of course beside platform itself there is absolutely must to create good usable development environment.

[Moonraker]

[quote="Pale as the Moon"

]This browser should be ready in late November or December 2017 in order to gain traction. You need to present the disgruntled Firefox users a suitable alternative in time, before they switch to other browsers.

Thats assuming firefox users are going to switch although this is a HUGE assumption.

[joe04]

[quote="Pale as the Moon"

]This browser should be ready in late November or December 2017 in order to gain traction. You need to present the disgruntled Firefox users a suitable alternative in time, before they switch to other browsers.

Thats assuming firefox users are going to switch although this is a HUGE assumption.

I agree. Firefox is actually a pretty nice browser. I recently started using it as my secondary browser, since GChrome kinda sucks UI-wise and there are enough sites I use it on for the UI niceties of Gecko (that we also have in Pale Moon) to matter.

Mozilla is dysfunctional and has handled their big initiatives poorly in recent years, but they still do have lots of sharp developers on staff and in their volunteer ranks, so I think they'll pull of this FF 57 transition in a decent manner. And keep in mind that many people are pretty clueless about browsers. Firefox is still a good option for them with some UI niceities without need for addons.

Any disgruntled Firefox power users are already aware of the looming problems and will either switch to PM, Vivaldi, etc. or stick with Firefox and make do with webextensions.

[Pale as the Moon]

Thats assuming firefox users are going to switch although this is a HUGE assumption.

But we agree that this browser shouldn't be released a year after Firefox 57, don't we? For this browser to have the best chance of success it will have to be ready at the end of the year.

And I believe a decent number of people will come over here, yes. Look at the numbers of add-ons such as CTR, Tree Style Tabs, DownThemAll! and Tab Mix Plus alone. At least we are getting the power users (provided the add-on devs support Pale Moon as well), at whom we are aiming to begin with, right? You know, the guys who are spreading the word...

Keep in mind that this transition will be far more painful than the transition Firefox 28 -> Firefox 29. In the latter case only the optics were concerned (with a fix present - CTR), whereas in the former and current case important functionality will be irretrievably removed.

[joe04]

But we agree that this browser shouldn't be released a year after Firefox 57, don't we? For this browser to have the best chance of success it will have to be ready at the end of the year.

No, it should be released when it's ready. That's entirely in the hands of Moonchild and team on this large, time-intensive porting effort. Last year's Tycho (rebase to 38 ESR while preserving pre-Australis GUI) was a long slog for them. I suspect this new effort will be comparable difficulty.

And let's not forget what Moonchild wrote in his announcement:

Most of all, it will be a lot of work - and I do hope that people will continue to help out and chime in with development to make this parallel development of the platform and browser feasible without burning our current developers out.

I commend Moonchild and team for their tenacity to fork the moving target that is Firefox. It's a lot of tough work, and unfortunately too much has changed since 38 ESR which is the whole reason for this new effort. Hopefully the lessons learned from Tycho and earlier efforts will help facilitate this new one.