Jump to content

What software developed by Roytam1 do you use?


Sampei.Nihira

What softwares developed by Roytam1 do you use?  

30 members have voted

  1. 1. Your Favorite softwares developed by Roytam1

    • New Moon 28
      19
    • New Moon 27
      7
    • Serpent/Basilisk 52
      10
    • Serpent/Basilisk 55
      5
    • Interlink MailNews
      3
    • Browser-only Suite
      0
    • K-Meleon Goanna
      2
    • Firefox 45ESR
      6


Recommended Posts

I love his builds too, and am very glad and grateful for them, but to tell the truth: it really is very misleading to use the very same browser name for the forks and even identic version numbers as the original ('upstream') browsers. In the download filename, the unzipped folder name, the exe name, the profile folders, and if even everywhere inside the browser too... Same browser name and identic version numbers - no chance to NOT confuse. Nearly every normal user will have no chance to realize those are completely different builds.
In the case of PM the main prob is the identical browser name, frankly not surprising that the (still very active) original devs don't like it at all, regardless any disputable other aspects. And all file- and foldernames still ARE identic.

But it's actually a similar prob with K-Meleon. Here not the name, only the old version number.
Nearly all KM-fans incl. the original dev do welcome roytam's updated builds very much, considering the original development is almost dead (again). His forks are happily adopted as 'almost-official' successors, with their engine years ahead of the original branch. Great! So when can it finally be announced as official stable new KM-build?... is what most of us keep wishing, incl. me, considering so many people seem to even look only at 'official stable' builds. (Well okay, the old GUI is in dire need of updates and fixes too, but no matter how easy it's not going to happen, so everyone just ignores that)
Anyway, for KM the prob is only the identic version number as the much older original builds, KM76 and 74. Even the ori dev had once suggested KM77 for the goanna-fork, before vanishing again. But no chance, it was still kept "76.0" for plenty of new updates, just like the old gecko builds from 2016. Very misleading, worlds apart. Although no one except me has ever expressed any concern about that, quite the opposite, although everyone to this day is still riddling which build new forum users may mean when saying they use "KM76". 2016 or 2019?? Doesn't matter, no one cares, as long as at least the engine gets direly needed updates... I've even been kicked and called 'highly unfair' or such for requesting a different version number. But the builds must be distinguished somehow anyway, so there were always half-hearted attempts to call the forks "K-Meleon-Goanna", short KM-Goanna or KMG or KG, and Goanna is even part of the download name too. But not of the exe name, not the folder names, not inside etc, and that suffix gets overlooked and forgotten so easily, not to mention lazyness and cluelessness. So am very glad that meanwhile at least the main version, KM76, has evolved from 76.0 to 76.2. Finally it can be distinguished again by version number! And doesn't need that bothersome name suffix anymore. Although this much newer engine and the switch from gecko to goanna would have deserved at least 77.0 from the beginning.

Retrozilla too: same prob with confusable builds. There are now 2 versions "2.2" out there, and no one knows what another poster is really talking about when mentioning "retrozilla 2.2". Funnily in this case roytam's unofficial build had the advanced number first, and the ori dev published his own "2.2" build much later. No wonder users are now completely confused - and the original dev was quite surprised too when being told there's already another "2.2" out there... (although it was posted and discussed in his main thread here, just awhile earlier). And the previous version, what has been considered roytam's "retrozilla 2.1" here on msfn (download name "rzbrowser"), is actually just a firefox, not the seamonkey suite of original retrozilla - which exists as a 2.1 version too (I think... but am really floating too, not following non-KM browsers too closely)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 hours ago, siria said:

the unzipped folder name, the exe name, the profile folders, and if even everywhere inside the browser too

thats how build system works, things are done automatically once the command is issued. mozilla's build system can't handle different exe name when --enable-official compile time option is specified or not.

not to mention keeping same exe name and same profile prefix for compatibility.

2 hours ago, siria said:

Same browser name

no thats not.

 

2 hours ago, siria said:

roytam's unofficial build had the advanced number first

rn10950 changed version number in repo for a long time before I create a build. and the reason of delaying official retrozilla build from rn10950 is that, he changed the program's name, but not everything in the source, that makes program not fully functional and makes TLS connection fails.

Edited by roytam1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, roytam1 said:

that's how build system works, things are done automatically once the command is issued. Mozilla's build system can't handle different exe name when --enable-official compile time option is specified or not.

not to mention keeping same exe name and same profile prefix for compatibility.

A quick test indicates that you can rename the .exe file post-build (from, e.g., palemoon.exe to New Moon.exe) and it still works fine. Of course that goes for the folder name in the .7z archive too.

I realize that may not be enough.* There are a couple more files in the archive that include "palemoon" in their names; those probably cannot be renamed unless the code is changed. Same goes for the default profile folder names, not to mention the numerous built-in default preferences that include the words Pale Moon.

*After the latest blow-up, we have to consider the possibility that nothing you do will ever be enough. If anyone who has ever downloaded your code ever contacts the Pale Moon team for help, it seems you'll immediately be accused of "misrepresenting" your builds as theirs, and nastiness and threats will ensue no matter how many disclaimers you post. But at least this is something that can be done easily post-build; or it could even be added to @i430VX's installer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, siria said:

I love his builds too, and am very glad and grateful for them, but to tell the truth: it really is very misleading to use the very same browser name for the forks and even identic version numbers as the original ('upstream') browsers. In the download filename, the unzipped folder name, the exe name, the profile folders, and if even everywhere inside the browser too... Same browser name and identic version numbers - no chance to NOT confuse. Nearly every normal user will have no chance to realize those are completely different builds.

Not really. Any "serious" user who comes here for a build is not going to be "confused" in any way. If they're running on a non-supported platform where the official installers don't work, and have to come here for a working build, then it's self explanatory. And, if they are running on a supported platform where the official installers and builds do work, why would they come here in the first place?

14 hours ago, roytam1 said:

not to mention keeping same exe name and same profile prefix for compatibility.

 

4 minutes ago, roytam1 said:

and then you'll break shell integration.

I'm glad you mentioned these. I'm no programmer, and not familiar with all the details, but I had been considering the potential side effects of name changing. Doing so would probably also cause Addons and any or all other associated applications to stop recognizing the renamed XP builds and force each instance of such things to be manually modified by yourself or other users. A bunch of unnecessary work. Probably the intent of the "complainer(s)" to just make your job harder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, roytam1 said:

and then you'll break shell integration.

You're right, of course - I should have tested that :blushing: - although it "breaks" in a smarter way than I expected.

For the uninitiated: "Shell integration" occurs when you make NM your default browser: it updates several registry entries so you can open links, .htm or .html files just by entering them at a command line, the Run... dialog box, double-clicking a file or Internet shortcut; that sort of thing. It's not something I (or, I suspect, most folks) do a lot, but it does come in handy, particularly when clicking a link in an email, Excel/Word doc, etc.

So when you said that, I thought "oops; MCP hard-coded 'palemoon.exe' as the program name, so it will idiotically write registry keys to launch 'palemoon.exe' even if it's been renamed, causing all of the above functions to break."

As it turns out, though, it's a bit smarter than that: it simply won't make itself your default browser if it isn't named palemoon.exe! You can click on the "Make New Moon my default browser" button - it's not disabled - but it doesn't do anything. Your previous default browser remains the default.

Of course, if they made it smart enough to do that, they could've made it smart enough to write registry keys with the actual renamed file; alas, they didn't make it quite that smart. :(

Oh, well; you can still name the folder anything you want; NM's smart enough to write the correct path name, at least. (I tested that and it does work.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well, NM28 is gaining advantage over others. Didn't expect this, cause my experience was not so good in terms of addons/extensions, finding Basilisk 52 a lot more flexible. 

Drastically, i would say that with Basisisk 52 on XP i'm sure i can access every site i could access with Chrome(70+)/FFQuantum(57+) on W7 and I can use the same extensions (version 52 related):

so B-52 is the definitive browser (and an agreeable coktail, too:buehehe: )   

But, that's my experience (right for me/wrong for others). Could be interesting if others can summarise PRO and CONS of these poll competitor for their daily usage on XP systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pro New Moon

- Less RAM usage

- More fluid

- The development of Pale Moon does not stop,the future of Basilisk is uncertain.

- Developers tend to consider Pale Moon safer than Basilisk*

* = This could be even more true given that the development of webextensions in the original Basilisk project was interrupted and was restored here.

      Therefore it is possible that any present and future security flaws in this area cannot be patched by Roytam1.

 

But this must be asked directly from Roytam1 himself.:yes::hello:

Edited by Sampei.Nihira
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...