Talk:Pale Moon (web browser)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Articles for creation (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article was created via the article wizard and reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow unregistered users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Note icon
This article was accepted on 3 August 2011 by reviewer Topher385 (talk · contribs).
WikiProject Software / Computing  (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Mozilla (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mozilla, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mozilla and its products on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Binaries redistribution[edit]

In the article say "Unlike Firefox, the Pale Moon binaries have a redistribution license". This redistribution license is the same as Firefox (see Mozilla Trademark policy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.84.136.144 (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I clarified the sentence. See its source. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-primary sources[edit]

Why is a non-primary source needed for such statements as:

  • the browser NOT functioning with non-SSE2 processors
  • which features from Firefox were REMOVED for this port
  • licensing terms

Am I supposed to believe the software developer is lying when he says it won't work on an Athlon XP that doesn't have the SSE2 instruction set, or how he has licensed his own work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.17.172 (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Developer may be biased. Also, these claims appear to be wrong:
  1. The statement about SSE2 means much more then developer is saying, because he is referring to binaries he supplies, while the source code is not known to be malfunctioning on SSE2.
  2. "Removed" is not well defined: are they not available at all, or disabled by default? Obviously, developer tries to promote his browser by making it seem different from generic Firefox as much as possible, but that does not necessarily mean that he is completely frank while doing so.
  3. I am unsure whether these licensing terms are legally possible at all. If they are not, then the statement is untrue. Developer's wishes are not what encyclopedic article should be about.
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Several things :
  1. I think you meant "while the source code is not known to be malfunctioning on non-SSE2" (you forgot the "non"). That said, you don't execute source code when you launch your browser, you launch the binaries, obtained after the developper's compilation. So the statement about the browser makes 100% sense. Your build on source are not officialy endorsed.
  2. They are not available at all in the binaries, but exists in code : disabled at compilation time.
  3. Of course they are. MPL allows proprietary redistribution of binaries as long it doesn't restrict source code access, so this is possible, and then the "default redistribution policy" if nothing is written is "you have no right at all". The license then give more possibility. Then, this or that country can have laws which make this or that point not valid and then it doesn't apply to people subject to these laws.
CEFPC (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  1. You mix up software with particular builds: I can compile the source code myself, and it will be the same software.
  2. If feature is present in source code, but is not built into official binaries, it still belongs to the features of the software.
  3. MPL enforces the availability of source code and users' rights to redistribute their own builds, which is exactly what freeware is not. Thus combination of MPL+freeware is legally impossible.
As you might have already noticed, these claims are already challenged by me; thus they have to be supported with reliable third-party sources per WP:V. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 10:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  1. The distributed software is the official build. If you compile the source code yourself, it will be the same only if you use the same compilation options (mozconfig etc), compilator... To take a very basic example, there is no mozilla supported 64 bits build of firefox on windows, but with the same code it is possible to do a 64 bits version (what PM was or what is cyberfox). Will you therefore say there is a 64 bits versions of mozilla firefox ?
  2. The above example apply as well. You mix up binaries and source code, the software is binaries and source code are only 'what is used to create it'. The disabling of certain things at compilation time has very real consequences on the software you run, and you don't measure features on source code base.
  3. As per point 3.b of MPL V2.0 : "You may distribute such Executable Form under the terms of this License, or sublicense it under different terms, provided that the license for the Executable Form does not attempt to limit or alter the recipients’ rights in the Source Code Form under this License." The PM redistribution license do not limit or alter acces to source code, so it is compatible. If you look, you'll observe that users are allowed to redistribute their own build/modified version, they just aren't allowed to use the official brand for that without previous permission.
Yes you challenge these claims, but did you notice the 3b point of MPL before challenging ? The MPL redistribution license is linked and anyone can therefore check it. imho, this is unbiased and verifiable, so acceptable. CEFPC (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Again, there is official build of this software, which can be downloaded from official website. If I build this software myself, it will be my own build of the very same software. Compare this to ffmpeg, where multiple builds coexist, each with some different set of features. Source code defines the features, and in case of Pale Moon the source still have them.
I must have misformulated my problems with licensing: I don't claim that Pale Moon's binary redistribution license is illigal, I claim that combination of MPL for source code and freeware license for official binaries legally means that software is open source, and the text in infobox (which describes license of software as whole) legally does not make sense. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 15:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Notability not an issue[edit]

The idea that a browser which has 85 language versions lacks notability is absurd. There appears to be quite a lot of bias imposed on these pages by the Firefox establishment (whose lack of objectivity about their own work is why many people have recently moved to Pale Moon instead). For these reasons he notability tag should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.186.149 (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Completely false: any hobby Firefox fork will automatically inherit 85 language versions. Notability is established by citing secondary reliable sources which are not connected to the subject and discuss software in depth. Neither source from the article qualifies, and I didn't find any on the web. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Subjective performance?[edit]

"These optimization techniques increased the subjective performance of Pale Moon as compared to Firefox." It is not clear from the article what "subjective performance" means, and of the four references cited only one uses the term "subjective", and that's in reference to the testing suite rather than the performance itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.103.44.193 (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)