SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In Feb/March 2017, we opened a usage survey for anyone to fill out, which was a public request to users, past and present alike, to indicate which parts of Pale Moon should have focus, and to decide in part on development direction. This was done in the spirit of "Your Browser, Your Way"™ -- you, the user, should have a say in what your browser will be shaped like!
This page provides an analysis of the results, and provides our (dev) response to some of the comments our survey respondents left.
[...]
About 80% of the respondents use Pale Moon as their primary web browser to surf the web. The other 20% uses either a different browser or multiple (other) browsers to varying degrees. Of course it is fantastic to see so many users using Pale Moon as their main (or only) web browser of note.
Among our users responding to the survey, the main reasons for not using Pale Moon as their primary browser have been:
1. Extension compatibility with Firefox extensions. Unfortunately, it's not possible for us to provide exact compatibility with Firefox extensions because we are not Firefox. Because of our different application code, we are also not able to provide compatibility with WebExtensions at this time, because those use HTML for user interface elements instead of XUL. We are, however, working on providing an as broad as possible support for the three main extension formats in use: XUL, bootstrapped and SDK (in the form of PMkit); the technologies that Mozilla is going to completely abandon in November 2017 with Firefox 57.
2. Website compatibility. As long as websites keep specifically checking for and catering to (specific versions of) only 3 or 4 "mainstream" browsers, you will always have some sites that will not cooperate with using an independent alternative. On the browser side, there is very little we can do to prevent this. As a user, however, you have the power to convince websites to give this attention by contacting webmasters of troublesome sites and making them aware of their restrictions.
3. "Firefox is more secure". There is still a percentage of people that take arbitrary version numbers as a criterion at face value to determine what is, in their opinion, "outdated" or "insecure". Once more here the affirmation that Pale Moon is most definitely as secure, if not more so, than the current mainstream browsers. Our versioning is also independent of the versioning used by Mozilla. Security vulnerabilities that become known in the Mozilla platform code ar evaluated regularly and ported across if applicable.
4. "Chrome is faster". This may be, depending on what you use to measure "speed"; in our experience though, there is no significant difference between any of the modern browsers when it comes to real-world speed. In fact, Pale Moon has regularly shown to perform very well in comparison on lower-end computers. Your Mileage May Vary in this respect.
[...]
Pretty much a unanimous vote here (even among the 20% who don't use Pale Moon as their main browser) that extensions are essential to the browser. Totally expected, and maybe Mozilla can draw a lesson from this.
This also underwrites the need for what we've been working on to restore: as much compatibility with Jetpack-style extensions as possible through PMkit.
http://www.palemoon.org/survey2017/
(Score: 1) by mmh on Thursday March 09 2017, @06:00PM (16 children)
I'm a full-time user of Pale Moon myself, and I'm sorry I missed the survey.
I dislike how they just blew off point 4; "Chrome is faster". Maybe in "tests"
Chrome isn't faster, but it sure as hell "feels" much faster and more
responsive. I use Pale Moon moon for 99% of my browsing, because of extensions,
and I'm willing to take a performance hit for extensions. But to deny there is
any problem is disingenuous.
Which brings up point 1; Extensions. Compatibility with XUL extensions is why
I considered Pale Moon a viable alternative to Firefox once the Firefox
developers decided to ruin their browser. No other browser has the breadth of
extensions that Pale Moon now does. I would really like to see Pale Moon setup
their own add-on page and host a mirror of all the old Firefox XUL add-ons. Maybe
trying working with the now-abandoned XUL authors who made things like Tab Mix
Plus, Request Policy, Uppity, etc, and convince them to develop for Pale
Moon by promising not to pull the rug out from under them.
(Score: 4, Informative) by andersjm on Thursday March 09 2017, @06:33PM (10 children)
Some people are moving from Firefox to Pale Moon because compatibility with XUL extensions matters to them. I'm sticking with Firefox for exactly the same reason.
Mozilla cares enough about security to phase out an old extension protocol that was designed with no thought for security. That's a good thing in my book. If it ends up breaking an extension or two, then so be it.
(Score: 3, Touché) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 09 2017, @07:16PM (4 children)
If it ends up breaking 90% of the extensions, then so be it.
FTFY. "One or two" my ass.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by andersjm on Thursday March 09 2017, @07:43PM (3 children)
Same thing. I have exactly 1.6666... extensions installed.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 09 2017, @09:02PM (2 children)
Oh, one or two of *your* extensions. I assumed you were talking about the extension library as a whole since you didn't specify.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by andersjm on Thursday March 09 2017, @10:04PM (1 child)
Mostly I think your 90% figure is bogus. Reference?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 09 2017, @10:26PM
Wait and see, I guess. Apparently there are a lot more different extension systems crammed into Firefox than I realized before today.
One big differentiater is the type of extensions that will still work, too--WebExtension ones tend to be simpler widget stuff that isn't deeply integrated into the browser; other stuff like NoScript and significant interface changes relies on the XUL extension system which is getting killed off. Mozilla claims they're working on the API so NoScript and (select) others will continue to work, but I'll believe this when I see it.
There's a reason that there isn't a real NoScript port, or tab bar modifications (aside from the first-party one they did and then axed awhile back) extensions for Chrome. Being more secure means they won't let you touch the interfaces necessary to make deep addons.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @07:40PM (2 children)
They're phasing it out because they're too lazy to support customization. They admitted as much on their bug tracker by saying it's hard (as in time consuming, not hard) to revamp the UI on their end if they have to keep customization in mind.
(Score: 2) by andersjm on Thursday March 09 2017, @08:06PM
Complexity is the enemy of security. Reducing the attack surface is a win, no matter what motivated the decision to do so.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday March 10 2017, @12:57PM
What about simple not revamping the UI? Anything that makes it harder for them to break the interface for the newest fad is an advantage.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Thursday March 09 2017, @09:15PM
I've used Pale Moon as my main add free browser for a number of years, with an unblocked Firefox on the side for the rare occasions when I need an unrestricted browser (for banking, government sites and such). But recently I reversed this setup mainly because Pale Moon seems to have an annoying every 5 seconds freeze when watching video's on Youtube and others. My system is fast enough, with its Intel Core i7 and nVidia GTX 960 graphics. And of course abandoning the Firefox plugin compatibility played a role in my decision. So Pale Moon is my secondary browser now.
(Score: 2) by Marand on Friday March 10 2017, @12:07AM
My problem is the "extension or two" that stop working are the ones I rely on most. If they weren't I'd have no need of Firefox at all. Ubiquity is as good as dead, tab groups lost its dev because it needs a complete rewrite and even then will lose functionality, and treestyle tab is in a similar situation. Those three addons directly affect every interaction I have with Firefox, and when I lose them I have no reason to keep it installed. And that is assuming nothing else I have gets broken, which is likely not the case.
(Score: 2) by termigator on Thursday March 09 2017, @06:38PM (2 children)
There is RequestPolicy (continued) that took the base RP extension as a base. I use that now since it has active development.
https://github.com/RequestPolicyContinued [github.com]
I do not use PM, so do not know if the extension is compatible with it.
(Score: 4, Informative) by AndyTheAbsurd on Thursday March 09 2017, @07:02PM
Request Policy Continued is 100% compatible with Pale Moon; I use that combination myself.
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 1) by mmh on Thursday March 09 2017, @07:08PM
Thank you for pointing out RequestPolicy Continued I had no idea there was a version still being actively developed.
(Score: 3, Informative) by AndyTheAbsurd on Thursday March 09 2017, @07:06PM
I would really like to see Pale Moon setup their own add-on page
You mean like the existing Add-Ons site [palemoon.org]?
...and host a mirror of all the old Firefox XUL add-ons
Oh. We'd have to sort through them to see which ones are licensed in a way that makes them freely redistributable and which aren't, and remove the ones that aren't. Given the number of add-ons on AMO, that's not really feasible for the team working on Pale Moon.
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @07:37PM
Chrome (I guess) directly uses native API more often instead of channelling it thru layers of wrappers (which are necessary to keep the UI as extensible as it is with old FF/PM).