Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


roytam1

My build of New Moon (temp. name) a.k.a. Pale Moon fork targetting XP

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

when the day comes, it won't be possible to make an XP-compatible version of PM 29.

... It was detailed in the official Pale Moon forums that UXP (off of Mozilla ESR 52.6.0) is the final Mozilla code fork-point for Moonchild Productions' applications, as they concluded that any more up-to-date Mozilla code is, in fact, incompatible with XUL apps and their own vision of how apps should be:

Quote

Make no mistake, this is it. There can never be another vNext type of forking situation. There isn't enough of the Mozilla technology left in the now fully firefox codebase. It isn't even a platform codebase for many apllications anymore.

 To this day, they claim they'll stay clear of the Quantum platform (which includes Rust, Servo and other XP+Vista incompatible code/libs), so my gut feeling is if/when official Pale Moon 29.x.x is released, it'll be built on a UXP evolutionary off-spring (thus, still being susceptible to the XP+Vista restoration "treatment" :D); of course, time will only tell :P

Edited by VistaLover
Added PM forum link & quoted excerpt ;)
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, VistaLover said:

... my gut feeling is if/when official Pale Moon 29.x.x is released, it'll be built on a UXP evolutionary off-spring....

Yes, that is likely.

44 minutes ago, VistaLover said:

... thus, still being susceptible to the XP+Vista restoration "treatment...."

That part, I'm not so sure about. OTOH, it's certainly possible. We'll just have to hope for the best.

It'll depend on what MCP intends to do with PM 29, and what code libraries they use. For example, they could go down a path similar to Waterfox, which preserves UXP, yet cannot be back-ported to XP (uses Rust, IIRC....)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mathwiz said:

Yes, that is likely.

That part, I'm not so sure about. OTOH, it's certainly possible. We'll just have to hope for the best.

It'll depend on what MCP intends to do with PM 29, and what code libraries they use. For example, they could go down a path similar to Waterfox, which preserves UXP, yet cannot be back-ported to XP (uses Rust, IIRC....)

As for Waterfox, it is not based on UXP, and as for the new Alpha release of Waterfox v68, Photon, WebExtensions and Bootstrapped Add-Ons will be embraced.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF is "Photon?"

These physics-inspired trademarks - Quantum, Photon, etc. - are really getting out of hand. Next thing you know, someone will have a "Higgs Boson" browser :buehehe:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

At least for Winxp-SSE true: There are still videodownload-problems on certain sites. 

e.g. this instruction video for Winfuture Updatepacks:
https://winfuture.de/UpdatePack
Only download-solution for now: Maxthon 3. it has built-in downloader which is stuck just above the videowindow.

BTW: If Win7 and newer the updatepacks(Full monthly or monthly updates) will also work on english versions. there is a workaround if one is starting with Full version(latest)  stopping UAC. its in Sticky/Wichtig in the forum. msconfig and then click on UAC and press start. then down with the regulator.

Bedside the already know browsers  i can run also Opera and Chromium only video-problems seem not solved.

UPDATE: these news-will be integrated in my thread on P136

Edited by 3dreal
simplified/these news will be integrated in my "STICKY" ON P136

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @Mathwiz & @VistaLover! I'll go ahead and make those changes, thanks for the heads up. I had assumed my implementation would break pretty fast, think there will ever be an auto-update feature for the xpmod versions of Pale Moon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Waterfox, if anyone uses it could you please be so kind as to post its user agent string? I have several that I like keeping up to date and use for various reasons but Waterfox eludes me since it can't be installed on my lowly 32-bit computer:

Googling for it brings up at least two different versions; one is probably right but which is it:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:56.0; Waterfox) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.2.7

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:65.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/65.0 Waterfox/56.2.7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, DanR20 said:

Speaking of Waterfox, if anyone uses it could you please be so kind as to post its user agent string?

It's identical to the one that Firefox 60 ESR uses since version 56.2.8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, UCyborg said:

It's identical to the one that Firefox 60 ESR uses since version 56.2.8.

This is what I have for 60esr:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.0

That's Waterfox's current string?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DanR20 said:

That's Waterfox's current string?

Yours lack the processor architecture bits, so it's actually:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, UCyborg said:

Yours lack the processor architecture bits, so it's actually:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.0

Ok that looks better. --)

Wonder how long before Mozilla starts complaining about copyright or something.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Jody Thornton said:

As for Waterfox, it is not based on UXP

My confusion results from the fact that it preserved XUL APIs for "classic" add-ons. In fact, Classic Add-Ons Archive had to make a special kludge for Waterfox to run in multiprocess mode. There would be no point in that if XUL add-ons couldn't be used....

19 hours ago, Jody Thornton said:

... Bootstrapped Add-Ons ....

After my last question, I sort of hate to ask, but what the heck are "Bootstrapped" add-ons, and why does anyone need them?

The WebExtensions API, I dig, because of the aforementioned multiprocess mode. But another new add-on type so soon after WE? It's really starting to sound like Mozilla is just making random changes for the sake of making random changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Mathwiz said:

but what the heck are "Bootstrapped" add-ons, and why does anyone need them? 

The WebExtensions API, I dig, because of the aforementioned multiprocess mode. But another new add-on type so soon after WE?

Nothing NEW here; I'm starting to get the impression your web searching skills are falling behind :P:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Add-ons/Bootstrapped_extensions

aka "restartless" addons; according to the page itself,

Quote

this page will be removed by December 2020.

Regards :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so "bootstrapped" add-ons are something that have been around since FF 4.0 (!), but Waterfox is just now adding support. (Horrible name, by the way. "Restartless" is much more descriptive.)

So Jody was right: if Waterfox had been UXP-based, it would already have had that support. I'm guessing that Waterfox was forked from FF 56, the last version with any XUL add-on support, and "bootstrapped" extension support had already been removed from FF 56, and now Waterfox is putting it back in.

9 minutes ago, VistaLover said:

according to the page itself,

Quote

this page will be removed by December 2020.

Good grief. Talk about the memory hole! Not only have we removed all support for XUL add-ons, and removed all XUL add-ons from even the "older versions" section of our add-ons page, we're even going to remove the documentation and try to pretend that these things never existed!

Good thing there's web.archive.org.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...