supported browsers

[yes_noscript]

supported browser.

Maybe Pale Moon can be added to that list, because NoScript works with it.

[barbaz]

Off-topic to viewtopic.php?f=10&t=21758, splitting and moving to NoScript General.

Supporting a browser is *not* just a matter of "it works". Supporting a browser is a major effort for Giorgio as it means yet another round of testing required... for basically every version of the browser that would be supported. That's why Pale Moon isn't listed.

However, some of us Mods, myself included, quite like the Pale Moon browser and will do what we can for users who report NoScript bugs against Pale Moon. If it weren't for us, NoScript would probably not work with Pale Moon - so don't count on Pale Moon support being stable.

[Thrawn]

Not to mention that Giorgio has already declared that NoScript will become a WebExtension and the XUL version will be deprecated. Which will kill Pale Moon support dead.

[therube]

(And maybe SeaMonkey. And maybe Mozilla.)

[yes_noscript]

Thats realy bad! I can't understand why follow mozilla blind into this madness.
As Thrawn say in the hackademix comments i agree that (yet) nobody know the code good enough to make a fork with further development.

[barbaz]

Well as far as specifically Pale Moon, they're saying they'd need to rebase to a newer Gecko anyway, maybe they can do so on a Gecko version that has some WebExtensions support?

[yes_noscript]

We will see.
As i know the basis after rebuild is firefox 38 ESR.

[Thrawn]

maybe they can do so on a Gecko version that has some WebExtensions support?

Not likely . All such versions would have too many things in them that are anathema to Pale Moon (Australis et al).

[barbaz]

[ This post, and the follow-up posts, are part of an off-topic discussion that was split from viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22260 to here. This was done to avoid people getting confusing mixed messages after finding this thread in a search. ]

Unfortunately devtools aren't part of Pale Moon 27 yet, so I can't really check it out properly at this stage.

Just found out that the removal of devtools from Pale Moon is for good - https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=95140#p95140
Unfortunately this is a deal-breaker for me. This means that when Pale Moon 27 is released, I can no longer use Pale Moon nor support it here.

This is a personal decision and nothing to do with NoScript, Giorgio, yes_noscript, or this forum. Every Mod here will have their own view. Me, I need to be able to back up what I write. And with that rug pulled out from under me, I'm not comfortable writing anything.

What I wrote above was assuming that devtools were returning in Pale Moon 27 release, then I could actually give it a decent check and report back. Apparently that is not to be.

Sad day, I would never thought it would come to this.

[barbaz]

Thanks!

You're welcome.

Maybe Giorgio can add this easy fix.

Well, he can if he decides to support Pale Moon. viewtopic.php?f=8&t=21759

For devtools: Take a look at this Pale Moon addon: https://addons.palemoon.org/extensions/devtools/ or here: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=13553

Thanks, I saw that, but it doesn't look like it'd do. The "devtools" extension is a Firebug fork, isn't it? Did they fix the Firebug bug where the console don't work on script-blocked pages?

Sure, either way it'd be better than no devtools at all. But the Pale Moon devs are totally ignoring the real reasons why this is a big deal, and they really should know better.

To explain, let's go through some quotes from there.

https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=95126#p95126

All that is is the same Console from Mozilla Devtools with chrome messages switched on and in a Window.. There is no actual difference. It is ALSO as I described.. LESS USEFUL because it displays LESS information than the Toolkit Error Console..

IF this is all about style and not functionality.. Then you are just going to have to deal with it or build with --enable-devtools yourself.

Or you could submit a patch to add more functionality to the Toolkit Error Console..

Since "there is no actual difference" between Pale Moon Error Console and devtools Browser Console, where are the following features?
- Interactive command-line that runs arbitrary JS commands in the context of the browser chrome window
- JS command auto-complete
- Copying multiple messages at once
- Globally collecting console.* calls
- Inspecting contents of returned values

Yeah, a Firebug fork should cover some of this for content. But what about chrome?


Regarding the post I linked earlier, https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=95140#p95140 -

To illustrate one of the reasons why it's better not to have these tools built and included by default - their weight. I'll throw some hard numbers at you.
(this is a comparison run from a fresh build in a new object directory, issuing mach run after build completion)

Including devtools makes:

• The total file count for the binaries go up from 2581 to 3087 (~20% increase)
• Memory use for a newly started browser without doing any browsing go up from 188MB to 210MB Private (~12% increase), 126MB to 147MB Private working set (~17% increase)
  Similar increases for all other resources. (see process explorer screenshots)
• CPU usage go up by about 65% (based on cycles used for the same startup+2 minute idle) -- you will likely notice this in regular browsing.

Memory/CPU use "problems" could have been solved by disabling devtools by default, with a boolean about:config pref that requires restart to take effect. Pref not flipped? Skip initialisation of devtools. These reasons do not justify removing any useful feature outright.

As for the file count, that statistic means nothing. inode usage just isn't a problem on the systems Pale Moon supports. The size these files take up in packaged form, relative to the size of everything else in the package, would mean something, but we don't have that number.

Even taking the % increase in number of files at face value and making some assumptions, doesn't help. The Pale Moon binaries for Linux are all about 30 MB. Extracted it's about 71 MB. 20% of that is 15 MB, rounding up. Even the people who run lightweight systems don't care about 15 MB when it's for useful functionality.


tl;dr Removing features I need, plus the non-justification for doing so, just doesn't sit well. And I have yet to see a proper alternative.

[Thrawn]

I can no longer use Pale Moon nor support it here.

I dropped it months ago, actually, after I bumped my thread about introducing request throttling, in response to yet another TLS vulnerability that could have been mitigated by such an approach, and Moonchild sent me an official forum warning (though I never did work out how I was supposedly violating the rules; something about linking to another topic).

[barbaz]

@Thrawn: AFAIR, there has always been something about those forums that disturbs me. That is not new. What is new (to me at least) is seeing the shenanigans coming from the devs themselves. They are not the same people they used to be and I hope nothing horrible has happened to them.

[barbaz]

when Pale Moon 27 is released, I can no longer use Pale Moon nor support it here.

That time has come. That time is here.

To all the Pale Moon users who have helped me, on this forum and/or in PMs: many thanks and sorry I can't continue to return the favor.

[cartel]

They are not the same people they used to be

You got that right...
they removed pdf, custom address bar images, the classic download box, No "inspect element", No Dev tools (the old ones built-in were great) and no noscript support.
And its not that noscript doesn't work, it works fine but they blacklisted it in the code.

[Thrawn]

they blacklisted it

When was that? I hadn't heard about anything like that the last time I was on the forums. Admittedly it's been a few months, but...