A new subforum for the new Firefox-derivative browser in PM forum?

[Latitude]

Would it be a new subforum for the "new unnamed Firefox-derivative browser" in PM forum?

[Moonraker]

Safe to assume the pale moon we know now will be deprecated and replaced by new browser.That would be the best way to go.?

[New Tobin Paradigm]

For crying out loud.. Are you trolling?

[gracious1]

Safe to assume the pale moon we know now will be deprecated and replaced by new browser.That would be the best way to go.?

Why do you say that? Moonchild has already stated several places that Pale Moon is not going away.

[Moonchild]

Safe to assume the pale moon we know now will be deprecated and replaced by new browser.That would be the best way to go.?

I suggest you take the whole 10 minutes it takes to read over the various threads about this PoC browser that will be there as a vessel to facilitate platform development, instead of writing this kind of post. Flip your switch to "input"?

[Moonraker]

For crying out loud.. Are you trolling?

I will not rise up to such baiting sir and my sincere apologies if it appeared i were trolling.{which im not incidentally.}.

Its a perfectly viable and valid question,
Why take on 2 browsers when its a struggle to keep 1 on the go.....?
Tell me kind sir how a rebase will occur in say 2-3 years time,?..sooner or later you will simply have to embrace new technologies .
Im not being funny but XUL/XPCOM are being deprecated from firefox for a reason as its perceived as out of date technology so how long do you see palemoon or indeed the new browser project holding out.

Many people will be wondering the same.
This apparent troll is now going back under his bridge to wait for 3 billy goats gruff.

[Moonchild]

Im not being funny but XUL/XPCOM are being deprecated from firefox for a reason

Yeah, the reason being that according to Mozilla's management, an XML-based UI language is no longer desired, and it is to be replaced by an HTML based UI. Oh wait, what is HTML again, a specific subset of XML, you say?

There's nothing wrong with the XUL language as a UI definition language. In fact, it is very efficient at what it does, and allows applications to present OS-native controls and elements from a simple markup file. That is, in essence, how any UI design language works. What is outdated about that?

[Sajadi]

For crying out loud.. Are you trolling?

I will not rise up to such baiting sir and my sincere apologies if it appeared i were trolling.{which im not incidentally.}.

Its a perfectly viable and valid question,
Why take on 2 browsers when its a struggle to keep 1 on the go.....?
Tell me kind sir how a rebase will occur in say 2-3 years time,?..sooner or later you will simply have to embrace new technologies .
Im not being funny but XUL/XPCOM are being deprecated from firefox for a reason as its perceived as out of date technology so how long do you see palemoon or indeed the new browser project holding out.

Many people will be wondering the same.
This apparent troll is now going back under his bridge to wait for 3 billy goats gruff.

XUL will be put into grave because Mozilla wans to gather simple users, who will refuse to use anything which includes "legacy code" - Removal of XUL will mean almost ZERO customization.

XUL is not outdated, it offers tons of advantage over everything other browsers can offer. Mozilla just does not want that the user of today has control over their UI.

If you want to enjoy a Chrome clone without Blink, go and use Firefox. But a very big part of the Pale Moon user base does not care for Chrome style. We want that the Firefox classic customization style is kept. Most people use Pale Moon because it has features other browsers do no longer offer.

You do not want that? Then why are you using Pale Moon?

Also, there will be no infinite rebases, as that would make out of Pale Moon just another almost Chrome clone like Firefox is becoming. So, expect that "legacy code" be a part of Pale Moon hopefully for a rather long time.

[gracious1]

Im not being funny but XUL/XPCOM are being deprecated from Firefox for a reason as its perceived as out of date technology…

XUL will be put into grave because Mozilla wants to gather simple users, who will refuse to use anything which includes "legacy code" - Removal of XUL will mean almost ZERO customization.
XUL is not outdated, it offers tons of advantage over everything other browsers can offer. Mozilla just does not want that the user of today has control over their UI. …
So, expect that "legacy code" be a part of Pale Moon hopefully for a rather long time.

I am glad you put "legacy code" in quotes. In fact, let's stop using "legacy code" altogether. It buys into the way Firefox is framing the issue, that XUL is outdated, etc. and WebExtensions are the hip, new, avant-garde technology. Nothing avant-garde about WebExtensions. It is, as Sajadi, Moonchild, and many others have pointed out, all about FF wanting to maintain centralized control, not give it to the masses.

It's difficult to come with an alternative label because cyber-culture innately values the new over the old, rightly or wrongly. "Legacy code" suggests going backward, but the new XUL platform is going forward. So maybe while we invent a name for the browser, we ought to come up with something that better captures that, something that can be as understandable as "legacy code" but without the connotations. Wouldn't it be great if we could come up with something that caught on? Just my 2¢ on that.

P.S.:To get back to the title of post, is there going to be a sub-forum here for the new platform/browser, or is it going to be a separate forum (i.e. a separate website)?

[Moonchild]

Considering the browser is going to be mostly a PoC/platform development product, going all out with a separate forum site sounds a little overboard. Depending on how popular it gets, though, it may be something to consider, later on.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Off-topic:
Going forward for clarity we should likely define the technology we should avoid uses of Firefox-based or even Mozilla-based. Mozilla-style comes to mind and seems perfectly acceptable in a pinch but classical mozilla technology would be more apt. Pale Moon uses classical Mozilla technology and is definitely Mozilla-style.

What Mozilla is doing today could be defined as Google-like technology. Given an awful lot is direct from Google the rest seems more Google-like than Mozilla-style.

Of course it would be simply better if we just stop saying what we are using is Mozilla at all.. Since we are going to be the only ones with the technology unless the others come around. The problem with that is what do we call it in that even? Moonchild technology? Pale Moon-style? Guess Goanna-based would be right but besides a few of us that pay attention what is a Goanna-based software?

For now I am sticking with either Mozilla-style or Classical Mozilla Technology my self. Cause Classical Mozilla should be credited and specifically differentiated from Modern Mozilla which is an an embarrassment to its own legacy and history that it has forsaken and forgotten.

[Lunix]

Tobin Technology.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Off-topic:

Tobin Technology.

That would ostensibly be known as Binary Outcast Technology and would include Phoebus, Artemis, and anything else I created. NOTE: CREATED.

Anyway.. Best end it here... Don't want to derail this thread too much.

[Moonchild]

Off-topic:

Binary Outcast Technology

BOT, for short?