Jody Thornton Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 9 hours ago, VistaLover said: BTW, reddit, ghacks and the like are mostly infested by Mozilla fanbois, who never lose breath badmouthing all Firefox forks (including Pale Moon, Basilisk, Waterfox), so I never place credence to all the FUD they're spreading there... Yes, I am to an extent concerned with browser security, but usability is of primary importance to me... Being on 32-bit Vista, this obviously holds little promise for me... Unless you're implying the Waterfox Team efforts would, somehow, find their way into your forked UXP copy (hence Serpent 52.9.0)... I will say that on ghacks, the only crap I spew on Pale Moon is directed at the team. Marcus Straver and Matt Tobin are the epitome of (well you choose an expletive), so I will continue as I please to crap on those two, in addition to the fanboys that defend their actions at every turn. For that I will NOT apologize. All of the Lord Lestats and Alex's defend the team, even when no one in their right mind would do so.
Tamris Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 @Mathwiz What about roytam's build of Basilisk 55? It should still support WEs just fine. 1
Mathwiz Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 Yes it does, and in fact it supports WE even better than 52, but I have a couple of add-ons (Abine's Blur and Exif Viewer) that are incompatible with 55. Also most of my plug-ins don't seem to work.
TechnoRelic Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 17 hours ago, VistaLover said: if one installs the XUL version of uB0, currently at version 1.16.4.7 THANKS to tip me to this (Jan 20, 2019) new Firefox LEGACY version of uBO EXTENSION. I thought GORHILL was finished doing any Firefox LEGACY extension updates. IF that GORHILL would soon do a Firefox LEGACY update to his uMATRIX extension, that would be VERY appreciated here too. I got the new uBO Firefox LEGACY extension working quickly in the RT Borealis Browser too. After modifying the INSTALL.RDF file as needed (no problem, see RT message, this thread on it).
Mathwiz Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) So for WebRTC protection, I too ended up going with uBO 1.16.4.7, for the following reasons: Been using uBO anyway Gorhill still maintaining the legacy version (1.16.4.7 was released 2 days ago) No need for separate WebRTC add-on No need to modify anything to allow installation (which would need to be redone for each update) No need to disable WebRTC entirely in about:config Edit: I should have known this, but didn't realize it until now. If you downgrade to 1.16.4.7 you need to turn off automatic updates, or Basilisk will just re-update you to 1.17.4. Edited January 27, 2019 by Mathwiz 1
caliber Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 Chrome users getting back into Firefox... who knows ? https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/22/google_chrome_browser_ad_content_block_change/ 1
Tamris Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 (edited) Wanna bet Mozilla will screw something up again and people will get back to Chrome yet again? Edited January 25, 2019 by Tamris
Mathwiz Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 I don't think folks should have to click through to see what's being discussed, so TL;DR: Quote Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad blockers. If the overhaul goes ahead, Adblock Plus and similar plugins that rely on basic filtering will, with some tweaks, still be able to function to some degree, unlike more ambitious extensions, such as uBlock Origin, which will be hit hard. The drafted changes will limit the capabilities available to extension developers, ostensibly for the sake of speed and safety. Chromium forms the central core of Google Chrome, and, soon, Microsoft Edge. ... Google's stated rationale for making the proposed changes, cutting off blocking plugins, is to improve security, privacy and performance, and supposedly to enhance user control. ... But "better privacy" here means privacy as defined by Google rather than privacy defined by a third-party extension developer. That's fine in scenarios where Google is more trustworthy than a third-party developer; but if Google and its ecosystem of publishers and advertisers are the problem, then users may prefer allowing a third-party to filter network requests.... ... Google and other internet advertising networks apparently pay Adblock Plus to whitelist their online adverts. ... Following a huge outcry from plugin developers and netizens, Google has reiterated that the proposed changes are not set in stone, and are subject to revision. While the internet goliath wants to rein in the level of access granted to Chrome browser extensions, it is prepared to work through the messy matter with third-party coders – who will have to rewrite parts of their software if this all goes ahead. So, it's still just a proposal, but I'd bet on more Chromium forks like Advanced Chrome if it goes through. And Mozilla following suit would be MC's wet dream. The popularity of PM & especially Basilisk would increase tenfold overnight. But since neither Chrome nor FF supports XP or Vista any more, none of this matters to us anyway.
PROBLEMCHYLD Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 2 hours ago, caliber said: Chrome users getting back into Firefox... who knows ? https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/22/google_chrome_browser_ad_content_block_change/ I read this on Google news. It's sad!! I don't mind advertisement but show me stuff I'm interested in.
TechnoRelic Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 (edited) GORHILL FIGHTING !!! (Raymond Hill ; uBO ; uMATRIX) Edited January 24, 2019 by TechnoRelic 1
caliber Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 1 hour ago, PROBLEMCHYLD said: I don't mind advertisement but show me stuff I'm interested in. +1 in addition to that, light and not intrusive banners in the middle of text
cc333 Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 This is yet another reason why I refuse to use Google Chrome! I don't trust Google, because they're always trying stuff like this! And if Mozilla follows suit, I'll probably use some fork that isn't affected (there is, of course, Pale Moon and such for Windows, but what about for Mac? ArcticFox, a fork of PM ported to the Mac, is a compelling option (it runs on Snow Leopard (the Mac equivalent of XP) and later, which is nice)). c
Dibya Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 Google will say you many bul***** like adblocker decrease performance but actual reason is that they can't milk money from users if they don't watch ads. 2
Tamris Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 12 hours ago, cc333 said: And if Mozilla follows suit And I don't think (and I really hope they won't) they will shoot themselves in the foot again, like they did in late 2017, shortly after Quantum was released, with the whole Mr. Robot thingy.
Recommended Posts