Talk:Pale Moon (web browser)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pale Moon (web browser) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Compatibility with Firefox extensions and plug-ins
I changed a single word in the article, but I anticipate having to defend my edit. The article had said, "Because it is a fork of Firefox, Pale Moon is compatible with most Firefox extensions and plug-ins." That may have been the case in the past, but it is no longer true because the two browsers have grown further and further apart with each new respective version, and extension and plug-in compatibility between the two browsers continues to decrease. Therefore I changed the word "most" to "many."
If you don't believe me, feel free to fire up Pale Moon yourself and head on over to Mozilla's page for Firefox extensions and plug-ins (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/extensions/?sort=users). It is plain to see that the majority of Firefox extensions and plug-ins are no longer compatible with the latest versions of Pale Moon. Pale Moon indicates their incompatibility by graying out those extensions and plug-ins. I know "OMG original research!" is just the worst thing ever, but please use some common trucking sense here before you swing your wiki weight and revert my correct and true edit.
If you don't feel like firing up Pale Moon yourself to have a look, here's a screenshot of how Pale Moon views the top Firefox add-ons on Oct. 19, 2016 (quantified according to their user base): http://i.imgur.com/G5UUhFw.png
As you can see, only two of the top six add-ons are compatible with Pale Moon. This view is not an isolated instance of add-on incompatibility between Pale Moon and Firefox. Please do not make me belabor the point with screenshots of all 900 pages or so of Firefox add-ons. You will see the majority of Firefox add-ons are not compatible with Pale Moon.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by InternetIsSeriousBiz4RealUGuyz (talk • contribs) 19:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
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 220.127.116.11 (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)
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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Developer may be biased. Also, these claims appear to be wrong:
- 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.
- "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.
- 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 (talk•track) 08:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Several things :
- 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.
- They are not available at all in the binaries, but exists in code : disabled at compilation time.
- 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)
- You mix up software with particular builds: I can compile the source code myself, and it will be the same software.
- If feature is present in source code, but is not built into official binaries, it still belongs to the features of the software.
- 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 (talk•track) 10:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- 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 ?
- 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.
- 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 (talk•track) 15:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Several things :
- I've made a distinction in the paragraph between what is disabled and what has been removed.
- Also, MPL is a "source code license". Pale Moon explicitly excludes the official branding material from the source. MPL+freeware licensing can co-exist. MPL+commercial licensing can also co-exist. The only requirement for MPL-licensing is that the source code is released in a free-to-obtain and (limited to the license) use/re-use manner. Dormant/unused code in a source tree does not determine what features "software" has, only the final product determines what features software has. Otherwise you can also say that a feature of Firefox is that it "supports BeOS and OS/2" or even that it "supports 7-zip archives" just because it's in the source tree as part of a library...? No. The features of software are only those features that end up in the final and official builds.
- Shall we put an end to this bickering about semantics? ;) Wolfbeast (talk) 10:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Notability not an issue
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 22.214.171.124 (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 (talk•track) 08:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Incompatibility with plug-ins and addons
It should be noted that Palemoon has forked from the main branch and it's no longer 100% compatible with Firefox. Palemoon devs have decided to re-brand everything and change the GUID, and thus is no longer recognized as secure by Jetpack ( some addon refuse to work ) or uses deprecated functions ( incompatible with non-aurora ). In addition, some sites don't recognize their GUID and won't present the contents properly and/or block them for being non-secure. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean some sites will not recognize their UserAgent, for as far at I know GUID/UUID is not detected by websites. To that the developer has already written a fix for, see this forum post: http://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6200 So I believe only your former statement is true. Kami Mikazuki (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Less selling, more telling
There is more than a little advocacy in this article The lede in particular sets a tone somewhere between a PC Week review and a COMDEX pitch without saying what Pale Moon is exactly or why it should exist at all. Ditto for "Features", and to a lesser degree "Optimization". "User Interface" depends upon an historical knowledge of changes in the Firefox user interface but doesn't explicate those changes; a casual reader won't understand the section without it. "License" should talk about, yes, the license and not mumble diffusely about "certain conditions". Yappy2bhere (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- You can't expect a WikiPedia article of a fork of a well-known product to be written completely independently. Comparisons have to be made to make sure, as you yourself said, that there is a clear distinction between the siblings. Referring to the article of the more well-known sibling and pointing out the notable differences isn't "selling" anything, it's listing facts about the fork in relation to the other pieces of software. "Like X, but different as follows" should be a valid way of presenting objectivity. Wolfbeast (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- "... or why it should exist at all." This is not the point at all, since PaleMoon obviously exists, and it's being actively maintained. What do you want more, and why? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)