Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

Ask for help about NoScript, no registration needed to post
The-unknown-user

Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

Post by The-unknown-user » Sun Aug 06, 2017 3:42 pm

I just read an article about NoScript here on ghacks. In it, it said that "Giorgio will maintain the legacy add-on version for another year as Firefox ESR and Tor Browser users cannot use the WebExtensions version until the next major ESR version is released." So has it been determined by Giorgio that the "legacy" version of NoScript will die then, or will he hopefully continue to maintain it?
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:3.2) Gecko/20100101 Goanna/20170801 PaleMoon/27.4.1

barbaz
Senior Member
Posts: 9279
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

Post by barbaz » Sun Aug 06, 2017 3:50 pm

*Always* check the changelogs BEFORE updating that important software!
-

The-unknown-user

Re: Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

Post by The-unknown-user » Sun Aug 06, 2017 4:52 pm

Okay. So unless somebody forks it, I'll have to continue using an old version.
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:3.2) Gecko/20100101 Goanna/20170801 PaleMoon/27.4.1

User avatar
Thrawn
Senior Member
Posts: 3106
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:46 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

Post by Thrawn » Mon Aug 07, 2017 12:57 am

Note that as far as I'm aware, there's nothing particularly objectionable about WebExtensions that would prevent Pale Moon from supporting them. It's the (far too rushed, in my personal opinion) removal of XUL that has a lot of people angry.

So, theoretically Pale Moon could build WebExtensions support and run NoScript 10. But otherwise, yeah, NoScript is targeting Firefox.
======
Thrawn
------------
Religion is not the opium of the masses. Daily life is the opium of the masses.

True religion, which dares to acknowledge death and challenge the way we live, is an attempt to wake up.
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/45.0

barbaz
Senior Member
Posts: 9279
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

Post by barbaz » Mon Aug 07, 2017 3:19 pm

*Always* check the changelogs BEFORE updating that important software!
-

The-unknown-user

Re: Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

Post by The-unknown-user » Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:38 pm

Thrawn wrote:
Note that as far as I'm aware, there's nothing particularly objectionable about WebExtensions that would prevent Pale Moon from supporting them. It's the (far too rushed, in my personal opinion) removal of XUL that has a lot of people angry.

So, theoretically Pale Moon could build WebExtensions support and run NoScript 10.
That's exactly what the developer of Pale Moon is going to do with a new browser called "Basilisk." But Pale Moon will always be his #1 project and my default browser.

http://www.basilisk-browser.org/preview/index.shtml
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:3.2) Gecko/20100101 Goanna/20170801 PaleMoon/27.4.1

User avatar
therube
Ambassador
Posts: 7468
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 4:17 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Re: Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

Post by therube » Fri May 11, 2018 1:02 pm

(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.)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball NoScript FlashGot AdblockPlus
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.3 Lightning/5.4

barbaz
Senior Member
Posts: 9279
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

Post by barbaz » Fri May 11, 2018 3:33 pm

I notice they didn't say what specifically the security/stability issues are, nor why the Pale Moon folks couldn't just direct NoScript issues to this forum. And it seems no one on the Pale Moon forum thought to even ask.

http://blocklist.palemoon.org/info/?id=pm112
*Always* check the changelogs BEFORE updating that important software!
-

fungalart
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri May 11, 2018 7:50 pm

Re: Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

Post by fungalart » Fri May 11, 2018 10:46 pm

I'd like to correct the record, but someone who alerted us/me to this did go into that forum and got some of his messages chopped off by that forum's admin, which I believe is the same with the pm developer.

Now I've been a supporter of pm for quite a while and this blog post (excluding today's reversal) shows this long term support https://sysdfree.wordpress.com/169 but the question remains. Who is reporting problems with noscript and pm, on what system under what conditions? Is it an ms-pm problem, in what conditions? Brief research does not reveal any specific reported issue, other than the dev's warning. So is it the issue the dev is making it to be?

It is a security issue, a serious one, to run a browser without NS, and this is not to kiss anyone's ... here but I believe it is a fact. I don't think I am willing to read the news if it wasn't for ns. And I only read the news I can with ns, the rest of them are not news to me. What are we supposed to to, run a sandboxed browser in a vm as an alternative?

I am writing this from pm with noscripts, allowing informaction.com not because I had to but because I wanted to.
The only explanation we get is "well, it is only a level 1 blacklisting" ...... whata .... does that mean?

We can cross our fingers and expect a better explanation ... or we can speculate on the motives of the warning?
Someone proposed we give waterfox a try too!
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.9) Gecko/20100101 Goanna/3.4 Firefox/52.9 PaleMoon/27.7.2

bo elam
Senior Member
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

Post by bo elam » Sat May 12, 2018 5:26 am

No, you are not out of luck. You guys using Palemoon ought to come back to Firefox. My Firefox 60 looks and functions pretty much identically to the old Firefox. No addon bar but I have tabs on the bottom, bookmarls side bar, the old Menu bar. Before 57, I used to use CTR, there's no need no more. And best of all, Firefox with NoScript runs great under Sandboxie. The one reason Firefox is my browser is NoScript, I had read that thread about NoScript in December by MC, his attitude toward NoScript is even worst now, come back to Firefox.

Bo
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.0

Allesok
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat May 12, 2018 7:43 am

Re: Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

Post by Allesok » Sat May 12, 2018 7:54 am

And what about all those who no longer like Firefox after it became Quantum?
I am one of them... and therefore switched to Pale Moon...
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:52.9) Gecko/20100101 Goanna/3.4 Firefox/52.9 PaleMoon/27.9.1

barbaz
Senior Member
Posts: 9279
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

Post by barbaz » Sat May 12, 2018 2:09 pm

Allesok wrote:And what about all those who no longer like Firefox after it became Quantum?
Maybe SeaMonkey?
*Always* check the changelogs BEFORE updating that important software!
-

User avatar
FlashEmAll
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 1:18 pm

Re: Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

Post by FlashEmAll » Sat May 12, 2018 3:52 pm

bo elam wrote:You guys using Palemoon ought to come back to Firefox. My Firefox 60 looks and functions pretty much identically to the old Firefox.
That is simply not possible, you've said it yourself: your Firefox. For better or worse, the "new" Firefox will never function identically to the old Firefox, or Pale Moon for that matter. It can't.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:3.4) Gecko/20100101 Goanna/20180505 PaleMoon/27.9.1

bo elam
Senior Member
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

Post by bo elam » Sat May 12, 2018 7:27 pm

FlashEmAll wrote: That is simply not possible, you've said it yourself: your Firefox. For better or worse, the "new" Firefox will never function identically to the old Firefox, or Pale Moon for that matter. It can't.
Its never going to be a 100% identical but it is like I said, the new Firefox looks and functions pretty much identically to the old one. Now it has the square look instead of Chromish Australis look. On the surface Firefox is so much like the old one that I personally dont miss Classic theme restorer. By using userChrome.css customization you can do most of what you want with your Firefox. Here is mine, looks like the old Firefox and 100 times nicer than PM (IMO). Also, Firefox its the real thing and the future.

Image

Bo
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.0

Compression Artifact
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat May 12, 2018 7:46 pm
Location: USA

Re: Are Pale Moon users out of luck?

Post by Compression Artifact » Sat May 12, 2018 9:03 pm

I searched Google News to see if anything about this recent blacklisting of NoScript in Pale Moon has hit the technical news media; and I found this (at security.nl):

Pale Moon NoScript 'crisis'

It is in Dutch and I had to run it through a translator.

The main article goes into some history that may be new to some, and then has some notes on the current situation. The Pale Moon developers seem to be complaining that people who don't know what NoScript does are using it anyway and then complaining to them when web sites break. The last line of the main article translates as "My prognosis is that Pale Moon will end up in heavy weather because of this decision."

There is also some interesting and amusing information in the comments. One of them (translated) seems to be saying this blacklisting is a "victory for tracking, monitoring, advertisement violence."
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.0

Post Reply