Pale Moon forked from Firefox when it was excellent and is maintained completely separately, while sometimes merging whatever new good coming from Firefox.
It will keep the old XUL, etc engine so near all your add-ons being killed by Firefox' migration to WebExtensions (example: http://www.downthemall.net/re-downthemall-and-webextensions-or-why-why-i-am-done-with-mozilla/) will continue working.
It also forked the Gecko engine into Goanna years ago, so Mozilla's self-harm won't harm Pale Moon.
Now I've created a list of which add-ons I use with Pale Moon, with brief descriptions of what they do and why I use them:
Similar to, but replaces, my previous equivalent for Firefox (https://soc.ialis.me/@b9AcE/950592).
Please do forward the info to others if you find it useful and/or you think others might find it useful.
@lanodan_tmp Of course.
I only looked at SeaMonkey briefly, but it seemed to me that while it brought fond memories of Netscape Communicator... :-) the main difference to me is that Pale Moon already forked completely years ago, so when Mozilla leaves Gecko engine, that won't kill Pale Moon.
I think Waterfox is beginning to look at this, but didn't see same from SeaMonkey (yet?).
So far, about a month after migration, Pale Moon works and looks exactly the same as my Firefox used to.
@lanodan_tmp Without having checked, I would guess that moving from Gecko to Servo without also moving from XUL, etc to WebExtensions will probably be... very difficult.
That was a major reason for me to go with Pale Moon over the other Gecko-derived options, since if my guess above is correct, being forced to make that move could just kill the projects that won't be able to do it... and Pale Moon already made that leap years ago so that risk is handled and gone.
@b9AcE Well the thing for me is :
• Mozilla is doing shit (politically and technically), seamonkey was just the one that sucked less
• Google too and Chromium isn’t compatible with my system choices and is horrible to build
• Otter-Browser/Qupzilla are nice but I tend to alway have issues with them…
Also most of the extensions I use are already compatible with WebExtensions.
(I litterally have more browsers installed than when I was doing web stuff)
@lanodan_tmp Mhmm, that's kind of where we are right now, I've felt for a long time, we have multiple choices but only of what sucks less, as what used to be good forgets why they grew to what they are/were.
Fortunately, as long as open source and free choices haven't been killed by "intellectual property" integrated into web-standards... this can still be reversed. :-)
@b9AcE Well… not that much as many browser have to support shit from W3C.
The web is broken, and it’s basically what Tim Berners Lee said too.
Palemoon might be a good solution, as it forked firefox a long time ago, but managing the brokeness is very heavy as it’s not only client-side.
And I don’?t know how to do hack/activism here…
@lanodan_tmp Well, I gave plus-points to Pale Moon explicitly for not supporting "Encrypted Media Extensions", as it has no function except restricting users and closed blobs can not be imposed by open standards.
My reasoning for doing that is that if people ignore bad standards, they become de facto non-standard. ;-)
As an external and entirely voluntary add-on? Fine. Like this? Absolutely not.
Pale Moon, the browser I recommend post-Firefox, released version 27.4.0.
Similar to the infamous acts of historically extreme dictators and the worst religious zealots, Mozilla Corporation now pretends no Firefox-plugins even existed before switching to a watered down version of the less open technology of its largest competitor (paradoxically also AFAIK largest revenue source) in Google Chrome's "WebExtensions" (e.g. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/flashgot/ no longer exists, after having been an officially "Featured Add-On" and one of the most popular of all) and even burned the past of the extensions that managed to jump back on to the self-sunk ship (e.g. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-search-link-fix/versions/ now starts at 1.6, the first after converting to "WebExtensions").
I added a comment to my recently revised recommendations for using the Pale Moon browser as a replacement for the Firefox now nerfed by the central committee's decree, that some may find useful:
@katnjia Thank you. I did mention that option in my GitHub gist comment that I linked to here, just mentioned that I had not verified it (as I can't verify the entire content ;-)).
I did evaluate all browsers that I thought feasible alternatives (including Waterfox) when Mozilla announced their extensions-change and at that time I settled on Pale Moon myself, but mentioned the other options too.
So far I have not found any reason to redo the evaluation, but I will remember your recommendation if I do later.
@b9AcE seems a little melodramatic. That said, not keeping the pages just as archive and marking them as no longer compatible would have been much better..
As i've noted, i worry firefox is phoning home with things it shouldn't be.. https://mastodon.nl/@jasper/100916733385274462
Telemetry was off.. could check again... probably nice if had more proper observation of network activity.. Always find it hard to figure what's what..
@jasper Well, some of those connections MAY have been it updating its lists of e.g. "dangerous sites" and revoked certificates, but... probably also things like how many tabs you have open, what add-ons you use and even more privacy-invasive stuff.
Other, more reasonable browser-projects often tend to have among the top listed features explicitly that they removed (or never created) such invasive functions.
@href As far as I can tell, Pale Moon is sticking to the decision to not do e10s.
Old thread with lead dev posting https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?t=6660#p43172 and a recent-ish further post in the same thread https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6660&start=80#p81429
Sometimes… more complicated is just more complications than advantages. ;-)
If Waterfox succeeds with the FF-forking I saw mentioned as planned, maybe they decide to include e10s (since it's a new fork project).
@gcupc Well, at least the *same way* as FF did it. Who knows, maybe there's some other way to do it which allows for both... if devs decide the end benefit is worth the effort. Personally not convinced it is.
I see a LOT of software nowadays splitting into several separate processes with no apparent benefit, but extra resource usage, context switches and complexity leading to instability. @href