Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

Post a reply

Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

Re: Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

by barbaz » Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:47 pm

pmuser05 wrote: I am still hoping.. no... pleading, that NoScript will maintain a legacy version.
https://forums.informaction.com/viewtop ... =7&t=24856

Re: Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

by pmuser05 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:45 pm

Have not had any issue running NoScript with Basilisk, and PM is easy to work-around as mentioned in above post. I am still hoping.. no... pleading, that NoScript will maintain a legacy version. uBlock-origin has also decided to maintain a legacy fork and it is working very well.

Re: Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

by lakrsrool » Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:34 pm

therube wrote:(Slightly different take on "out of luck"...)

Seems some time back, PM said they cannot reasonably provide support with the browser any longer when you have NoScript installed ...NoScript. (And if I'm reading correctly) currently, they have added NoScript to their "blacklist" which then displays an Add-ons may be causing problems dialog (and Stability Issue w/ NoScript), prompting you to disable NoScript (with the default response being, Yes).

(And yes, you can respond "no" [not clear if that sticks or not?] &/or disable the blacklist.)
Yes it sticks -- I just did the following and have not had any more problems with Pale Moon blocking NS: Image

Re: Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

by lakrsrool » Sun Jun 03, 2018 5:51 pm

^ Absolutely agree -- preaching to the choir from my perspective. :D

I earned myself what I consider was an unfounded warning from Pale Moon staff :? for this post on the only open Pale Moon forum topic on the subject where I in-part echoed precisely your sentiment: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p141110 after initially posting this previously: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p141037....

Re: Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

by therube » Tue May 22, 2018 3:49 pm

Dated 2015: Why do some extensions not work in Pale Moon?
And that is all fine & dandy - as an overview.

Though in reality, regardless of whether an extension specifically targets PM (or any other browser), you never know what you're going to get, you never know whether there are incompatibilities, whether an extension will "cause stability or security problems".
The best you can do is to take what is there & hope that it works, correctly, or enough, for you.

Take FlashGot.
Works fine in SeaMonkey.
Works fine in FF (I believe).
Take & throw it into Waterfox & all works - except that the context-menu item, 'FlashGot Link' does not display - unless you disable multi-process in Waterfox.
All other context-menu items do display, all seems to work correctly. Even the shortcut key (Ctrl+F1) for 'FlashGot Link' works - but for whatever reason the actual menu item does not display.
Is FlashGot multi-process compatible? Not sure?
Is there a bug in FlashGot? In Waterfox? Don't know.
In any case, with Waterfox running in multi-process mode, FlashGot works - well enough.

Re: Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

by lakrsrool » Mon May 21, 2018 6:54 pm

For those interested....

Here is the only open topic on the subject (as all other topics have been shutdown on the forum): Want to talk about NoScript? Post here. -- it would appear that the Pale Moon staff disagree vehemently that there are not any issues with NS in regards to browser compatibility....

Here is the initial official Pale Moon announcement (prior to when the add-on was later added to the blacklist): Important: NoScript users and our support that was eventually locked due to expressed outrage by users....

Re: Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

by barbaz » Wed May 16, 2018 3:09 pm

For me, installing NoScript in a new Pale Moon profile resulted in NoScript disabled by default, whereas in an existing profile I was prompted to disable NoScript and could choose not to.

Re: Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

by therube » Wed May 16, 2018 3:01 pm

the_unknown_user wrote:it doesn't get disabled when you restart the browser
Oh, but I think it does, actually.

Open a new Profile.
Close it.
Reopen.
Install NoScript 5.x.
Restart PM.

NoScript is disabled.

At least that is the way it worked out for me.
(I'm pretty sure those were the steps.)

Re: Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

by barbaz » Wed May 16, 2018 2:17 am

fungalart wrote:For unrelated issues I took a look at the latest of Xorg board of directors and I got a headache. It seems as if 6-7 corporations bought linux and run away with it.
This thread is only about A) whether/how people using Pale Moon can continue to use NoScript in future, and B) Pale Moon soft-blocking NoScript. Let's stay on topic here. Thanks.

Re: Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

by fungalart » Wed May 16, 2018 12:45 am

I have installed waterfox from git and It seems just like ff57, I can't tell or see the difference but it is there.
Other than this I don't see what the options are, even esr is going down the tubes (the marketing corporate tubes) and it would be a sad day for linux/bsd-unixlike systems to be really cut off from the web in terms of freedom and openness which don't really seem to exist anymore.

For unrelated issues I took a look at the latest of Xorg board of directors and I got a headache. It seems as if 6-7 corporations bought linux and run away with it.

Re: Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

by Compression Artifact » Mon May 14, 2018 5:42 pm

Allesok wrote:There is a extension for various browses called ScriptSafe.
Last November during the Firefox extension breakage I tried ScriptSafe on Chrome and rejected it; but I don't remember the reason. In fact, I rejected Chrome itself because I could not find a suitable NoScript alternative in the Chrome catalog (and I tried all that I could find).

I just installed ScriptSafe in SlimJet (a Chrome variant) a few moments ago to try it again. I went to a couple of sites that pointlessly depend on JavaScript; and they break in exactly the same way as they would with NoScript (until one whitelists the proper things). I don't see what a port of ScriptSafe to Pale Moon would accomplish, at least in terms of making Pale Moon management happy.

Re: Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

by The-unknown-user » Mon May 14, 2018 5:09 pm

Allesok wrote:
The NoScript "crisis" is annoying! There is a extension for various browses called ScriptSafe. Can it be used in Pale Moon?
Or maybe some programming angel could adapt it to Pale Moon?
Since you're posting this in the NoScript forum I assume you use NoScript. What's so annoying? Just untick the warning box and continue on as before. I'm still using it on two other computers and it works just like it did before.

Re: Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

by Will Pittenger » Mon May 14, 2018 2:09 pm

Allesok wrote:There is a extension for various browses called ScriptSafe. Can it be used in Pale Moon?
Doesn't look like it. AMO gives me a "Install Firefox" button.
Allesok wrote:Or maybe some programming angel could adapt it to Pale Moon?
No idea. Ask in the PM extension forum.

Re: Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

by Allesok » Mon May 14, 2018 2:05 pm

It is obvious that Firefox Quantum is not (yet) very popular because of lost extensions, and that is one reason for using Pale Moon - so far.
The NoScript "crisis" is annoying! There is a extension for various browses called ScriptSafe. Can it be used in Pale Moon?
Or maybe some programming angel could adapt it to Pale Moon?

Re: Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

by The-unknown-user » Sun May 13, 2018 5:14 pm

Will Pittenger wrote:
PM tries to convince users to disable it.
And that is because unsavvy users will post NS problems in PM's forums instead of here.
However, it won't disable NoScript without user approval--yet.
Are you implying it will in the future?

Top