New Firefox fork

For discussions about side projects, potential future projects or helper applications for Pale Moon.
User avatar
suzyne
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 611
Joined: 2023-06-28, 22:43
Location: Australia

Re: New Firefox fork

Unread post by suzyne » 2024-10-08, 20:35

Off-topic:
moonbat wrote:
2024-10-08, 12:03
Which is why by definition, they are add-ons and not part of the browser core
It doesn't matter that they are add-ons because my point is that Firefox encouraged the expectation that you can do almost anything inside the browser. That the browser is a place where you can run app like programs and here I am not thinking of technicalities, but more users perceptions. Yes, there is a big difference between webapps and add-ons, but to the user, Mozilla made Firefox capable of acting more like a self contained OS, and so I think they should share the blame for the current attitude that a browser is more than a document viewer.
Laptop 1: Windows 10 64-bit, i7 @ 2.80GHz, 16GB, NVIDIA GeForce MX450.
Laptop 2: Windows 10 32-bit, Atom Z3735F @ 1.33GHz, 2GB, Intel HD Graphics.
Laptop 3: Linux Mint 20.3 64-bit, i5 @ 2.5GHz, 8GB, Intel HD Graphics 620.

User avatar
moonbat
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 5387
Joined: 2015-12-09, 15:45
Contact:

Re: New Firefox fork

Unread post by moonbat » 2024-10-09, 00:46

Off-topic:
suzyne wrote:
2024-10-08, 20:35
Firefox encouraged the expectation that you can do almost anything inside the browser.
Yes, that you, the end user, can do anything inside the browser, not that the browser vendor will stuff it and the spec with ten thousand different pieces of crap so that websites can serve as substitutes for desktop applications and you're stuck with a lame extension technology that absolutely cannot extend the browser interface in any way.
How does that make it an OS? Firefox today is far less customizable than it was in the original era - if by OS you mean a 70s mainframe where you interact with a dumb terminal and have no control over anything on the client side, that's the direction Google has pushed the web and general computing today.Google laid the foundations within the browser so that it can be used as an office suite or a graphical editing tool or a gaming platform tied to subscriptions instead of being separate pieces of software locally installed. This has nothing to do with extensions and you customizing the browser your way.
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."

Image
KDE Neon on a Slimbook Excalibur (Ryzen 7 8845HS, 64 GB RAM)
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX

User avatar
fatboy
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 568
Joined: 2017-12-19, 08:03
Location: Canada

Re: New Firefox fork

Unread post by fatboy » 2024-10-09, 02:13

Keen to test the first release :)
Systemd Free - MX Linux, Antix Linux & Artix Linux

Michaell
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 303
Joined: 2018-05-26, 18:13

Re: New Firefox fork

Unread post by Michaell » 2024-10-09, 04:38

Windows version planned? I saw you mentioned it at first. I installed Fx 10 and it runs on Win10. But I don't know any sites it will load because of the secure linking protocols. If so, what about addons - will we need to hunt for compatible ones in Classic Addons Archive?
Win10home(1709), PM33.4.1-portable as of Nov 8, '24

User avatar
moonbat
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 5387
Joined: 2015-12-09, 15:45
Contact:

Re: New Firefox fork

Unread post by moonbat » 2024-10-09, 07:01

Michaell wrote:
2024-10-09, 04:38
will we need to hunt for compatible ones in Classic Addons Archive?
Pretty much, or the internet archive version of the Mozilla Addons site from the time of Firefox 10's release.
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."

Image
KDE Neon on a Slimbook Excalibur (Ryzen 7 8845HS, 64 GB RAM)
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX

User avatar
andreasr
Moongazer
Moongazer
Posts: 12
Joined: 2024-10-07, 11:01

Re: New Firefox fork

Unread post by andreasr » 2024-10-09, 21:02

The Firefox 10 revival project had some progress today. I learned that there is a library called HarfBuzz.
I am struggling to fix compilation errors, which I think are caused by mismatches between the bundled HarfBuzz in Firefox 10 and the system HarfBuzz, something like this.

Code: Select all

2024-10-09T20:50:22.2643749Z /home/runner/work/wunderfox/wunderfox/gfx/thebes/gfxHarfBuzzShaper.cpp: In member function ‘void gfxHarfBuzzShaper::GetGlyphAdvance(gfxContext*, hb_codepoint_t, hb_position_t*, hb_position_t*) const’:
2024-10-09T20:50:22.2646785Z /home/runner/work/wunderfox/wunderfox/gfx/thebes/gfxHarfBuzzShaper.cpp:252:43: error: ‘hb_blob_lock’ was not declared in this scope; did you mean ‘hb_blob_t’?
2024-10-09T20:50:22.2648525Z   252 |         reinterpret_cast<const HMetrics*>(hb_blob_lock(mHmtxTable));
2024-10-09T20:50:22.2649309Z       |                                           ^~~~~~~~~~~~
2024-10-09T20:50:22.2649926Z       |                                           hb_blob_t
Image

So all respect to the Pale moon project for actually having a working Firefox fork.

I am kind of hopefull still for a community effort of reviving Firefox 10. https://github.com/wunderfox/wunderfox/

By now, I wonder if forking Firefox 131 would be more useful and fun and possibly remotely possible. I could axe away code I don't want and turn the fork into what Firefox 131 could have been.

User avatar
andreasr
Moongazer
Moongazer
Posts: 12
Joined: 2024-10-07, 11:01

Re: New Firefox fork

Unread post by andreasr » 2024-10-10, 09:13

The HarfBuzz library is the current obstacle which prevents compilation of Firefox 10. There is an embedded Harfbuzz in Firefox 10:

https://github.com/wunderfox/wunderfox/tree/main/gfx/harfbuzz

Can I disable HarfBuzz? Is it possible to remove HarfBuzz fully, in order to achieve compilation? It seems like the HarfBuzz api has changed since the glory days of Firefox 10.
Can I "hide" the system HarfBuzz library, so that only the embedded HarfBuzz library is found? Or is the problem in the embedded HarfBuzz library?

User avatar
Shadow
Moonbather
Moonbather
Posts: 58
Joined: 2023-03-16, 13:21

Re: New Firefox fork

Unread post by Shadow » 2024-10-10, 10:15

andreasr wrote:
2024-10-09, 21:02
By now, I wonder if forking Firefox 131 would be more useful and fun and possibly remotely possible. I could axe away code I don't want and turn the fork into what Firefox 131 could have been.
Just my selfish opinion, but why not 115?

The folks using the current extended extended 115 will be looking for a modern fork to go to once it's axed March 2025. Sure, some already exist, but you could be a go to set up by then. The carry on process, simply able to migrate their profiles over to yours, and never miss a beat.

They refuse to accept (wonder why :roll: ) that there are folks who don't want to use 10 and above Windows. They end the updates for 10 in a years time as well, and they'll start their whining again, with those who want to stick with that. Remember when 10 was supposed to be it lol. Pretty sure I didn't believe them at the time. Now Windows 12 is going be a thing and cluttered with AI spying features your average person never asked for.

User avatar
andreasr
Moongazer
Moongazer
Posts: 12
Joined: 2024-10-07, 11:01

Re: New Firefox fork

Unread post by andreasr » 2024-10-10, 11:20

There is New HarfBuzz (2012–), and Old HarfBuzz. Firefox 10 is using Old HarfBuzz, I guess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HarfBuzz

User avatar
andyprough
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 944
Joined: 2020-05-31, 04:33

Re: New Firefox fork

Unread post by andyprough » 2024-10-10, 16:15

andreasr wrote:
2024-10-10, 11:20
There is New HarfBuzz (2012–), and Old HarfBuzz. Firefox 10 is using Old HarfBuzz, I guess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HarfBuzz
libharfbuzz is one of the libraries involved with pango text and font rendering, correct? Have you tried disabling pango in .mozconfig? Here's what the disable option should look like:

Code: Select all

ac_add_options --disable-pango 
I've seen various reports, that some programs run fine without it, and for some programs all the text rendering is a mess if you disable it. But I don't see any reports for Firefox. Might be worth a try though.

Edit: There was a bug 12 years ago where the build system was still checking for libraries when pango was disabled, not sure if this would impact you: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=780646

User avatar
andreasr
Moongazer
Moongazer
Posts: 12
Joined: 2024-10-07, 11:01

Re: New Firefox fork

Unread post by andreasr » 2024-10-10, 18:36

I tried forking Firefox 131 today. It uses too much disk space in order to build on Github. So I am still thinking about how to proceed with this Firefox fork project.

User avatar
frostknight
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 399
Joined: 2022-08-10, 02:25

Re: New Firefox fork

Unread post by frostknight » 2024-10-11, 02:58

The idea of forking such an old firefox, is interesting to me, but besides using less memory, would it also use less cpu power?

If so, you could potentially run it on an old computer like tinycore linux maybe.

you would have to update certain things though, to make it able to function in modern times though.

Thus, would it be a significant improvement in either cpu power and memory once that is done?

I wonder about that.

And bare in mind, I am comparing against palemoon itself. So... idk.

Just a thought I wanted to convey though.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. Feelings are not facts
If you wish to be humbled, try to exalt yourself long term If you wish to be exalted, try to humble yourself long term
Favourite operating systems: Hyperbola Devuan OpenBSD
Say NO to Fascism and Corporatism as much as possible!
Also, Peace Be With us All!

KlarkKentThe3rd
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 572
Joined: 2018-04-20, 20:31

Re: New Firefox fork

Unread post by KlarkKentThe3rd » 2024-10-20, 02:39

Off-topic:
Something about this thread is giving me strange vibes. Feel free to ignore this message.

User avatar
Schimon
Hobby Astronomer
Hobby Astronomer
Posts: 21
Joined: 2024-12-09, 14:01

Re: New Firefox fork

Unread post by Schimon » 2024-12-10, 06:57

Andreas, I congratulate and support your endeavour and wish you good luck.

However, I would also encourage you to support other projects such as Falkon or Otter Browser.

You can, create extensions for Falkon. And the extension system of Falkon is as good as the XUL extension system, and it allows to build software that can be utilized as standalone software and as extension software,

See https://portal.mozz.us/gemini/woodpecke ... uction.gmi

Yet, you can also try to do these:

1) Port the Gecko backend to Falkon, Otter or other HTML browsers as an additional alternative to Chromium/WekKit (Epiphany used to have both, Gecko and WebKit backends); and

2) Port the XUL extension system to Falkon, Otter or other HTML browsers, and by that create a new mutual system (i.e. "ecosystem" so called) that would benefit to Pale Moon and other XUL supported browsers as one.

User avatar
moonbat
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 5387
Joined: 2015-12-09, 15:45
Contact:

Re: New Firefox fork

Unread post by moonbat » 2024-12-10, 07:28

Schimon wrote:
2024-12-10, 06:57
And the extension system of Falkon is as good as the XUL extension system
It's a Chromium wrapper, so that statement needs to be taken with a kilo of salt. No browser can claim to be 'independent' unless it has its own separate rendering engine, instead of merely repackaging or building a shell around Blink/Gecko as almost everything else is these days.
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."

Image
KDE Neon on a Slimbook Excalibur (Ryzen 7 8845HS, 64 GB RAM)
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX

User avatar
Schimon
Hobby Astronomer
Hobby Astronomer
Posts: 21
Joined: 2024-12-09, 14:01

Re: New Firefox fork

Unread post by Schimon » 2024-12-10, 09:06

moonbat wrote:
2024-12-10, 07:28
Schimon wrote:
2024-12-10, 06:57
And the extension system of Falkon is as good as the XUL extension system
It's a Chromium wrapper, so that statement needs to be taken with a kilo of salt. No browser can claim to be 'independent' unless it has its own separate rendering engine, instead of merely repackaging or building a shell around Blink/Gecko as almost everything else is these days.
I agree. Then a Gecko backend could be a feature which would be of great benefit.

Post Reply