It wasn't going to be listed anyway. That makes it even worse. Our work can speak for its self. As for speed, yes, it seemed very fast, but when I ran the same route with Fx, it seemed just as fast. Mozilla wouldn't make Firefox open source if they had a problem with people forking it and changing things around. Coming to Firefox after using Opera for a very long time until version 12 , I deliberately chose to use as little add-ons as possible, because that's what I was used to Opera not having add-ons until the very last versions and also because I feel that very few add-ons are of high quality.
What's that got to do with this thread? I remember the introduction of Firefox in 2004, and marveled at the lean codebase it was back then. A bank that does not offer a safe website and promotes unsafe transcactions is not a serious bank. Mainly, because we all feel it is wrong. In my last reply I placed a bet you'd respond in this way. This will in turn create even more work. Of course there are minor bugs here and there bug for a normal user I don't think it'll be a problem. This is something that you should be encouraging, not lambasting.
Continuing down the original path set for us by our netscape and true Mozilla forefathers isn't easy but for years now we have been accomplishing and it can only grow and get better from here. I really hope you decide to add support for things like palemoon or any other browsers, as I really don't want to carry on without it! That's why and how forks exist, and clone Firefox as close as they are able to. You make it sound like you're some industry moving force when that's not the case. Cooperation talks with other application developers, Waterfox and SeaMonkey were named specifically, were not successful. Always wanted to try icecat but I have the feeling Palemoon has more thought and work put into it's fork and probably has more telemetry removed. When you release the source like this, you're actively encouraging people to grab the source, play with it, tweak it and make it do things in different ways.
Why do you use it over the others? Pale Moon 2017 and beyond The Pale Moon team made the decision to avoid this route, and keep on supporting the classic Mozilla platform. That's a bit of an ambigious metric there. . I am against it sounds like we shouldn't add Pale Moon. That means Waterfox users waited nine days for a security patches from a minor release, compared to if they were just using Firefox. There's probably a message or warning they left there I think.
I only dropped Firefox following the release of 29 after large portions of cusomisability that I used were stripped out and binned. Maybe in the long run, just like it took Google the better part of a decade to get where they are now and they had ads on some of the most visited websites in the world! The issue is in new code added to the Firefox 16 code base, which is not being used in Pale Moon. Nope for the reasons above. Note: uninstalled browser after posting this post. From different people I grant you, but herein lies the conundrum. Firefox had 15% in 2015 and only has 13% of the market today its not lost much or gained much in years. If the PaleMoon folks are going to try to do the same thing in the actually code they will have to spend a greater amount of time in the project.
The memory usage is a bit steep but in my opinion that's to be expected. Everytime I found issues with mattatobin, I had the impression of reading boring words by some lawyer. If that is the case the small team has even more work to do in regard to testing as a hard fork is likely to mean less code from upstream can be used. All of which could be done without installing a mountain of addons. Point is, if they couldn't make the big differences in the past, they sure as hell don't have to very advanced coding skills that would be required to 'revert' the Australis changes in the future. Unfortunately, this is basically an admission that Mozilla have their heads completely in the sand and are utterly detached from reality.
The fork code itself could just use github I guess but there needs to be an org behind any significant rearguard effort. Give them a month and their idiot management will probably erase that goal as well. Thanks both for your info there, I have looked into Pale Moon previously, but sadly I never did find a good solution. At least Waterfox is predicated on newer versions of Firefox. In July 2007, Iceowl, a rebranded version of , was added to the unstable branch of Debian. Stability - this is my main reason for trying it out, I am heavy on tabs and feel I am maximising 32bit capabilities on firefox, the performance drop off with more tabs loaded sadly is still evident but not conclusive yet if its worse or better than stock firefox, I have yet to see signs of instability that I have with stock firefox such as black windows, and crashes.
The code base is the same. Optionally, the blocklist can be disabled entirely by setting extensions. There's so little difference that it could be maintained by almost anyone with basic coding skills if they wanted to. You'll notice that some of the posters on this thread actually posted with it. This will mean less security information from upstream will be useful to you.
If you're concerned about the future of Firefox as a product, and you're running Microsoft Windows, you could try the Pale Moon browser. Using these conflicting arguments, you cannot win and this accusation is meant at this thread in general. To try and claim this is a lie is just staggering! If you guys are gonna keep on and on and on shitting on the good people who have made these projects possible. That is not a fact, it's my opinion. Well, I drank the PaleMoon kool-aid too. So how to get it looking just like I have it in Pale Moon? He took it to his 3. No different than MozillaZine forums.
I too was concerned about the 16. I love Pale Moon, but the MoonMatt team are too idealistic for their own good. Careful what you wish for. It made a name for itself by being a 64-bit browser based on the Mozilla Firefox code when Mozilla only offered 32-bit versions. It's a very flexible and powerful addon indeed, however when using it with CustomTabWidth, the tabs overlap and the tab scroll buttons keep randomly appearing and disappearing. Which one will be most compatible with addons found on the Mozilla site? We really need to stop Firefox from being recommended and suggest forks that adhere to the original goals Mozilla seems to have forgotten. I forgot to install an extension called which provides the ability to search with other engines besides the one set at default.